dingley

No, it's a variant spelling. Nuance, you see?

*** It must such to be a Prisoner of Mother England... There's no need to use obscure, mediaeval language when criticising your superiors. We may have to send you to the tower, and quickly, before the blade ban.

Well, Bigway, I understand where you're coming from but I don't think that this forum changes anyone's views, either. Fun though, isn't it? Of course the U.S. election affects us all. However, it affects the poor bastards who live there most. I have great sympathy with those who didn't vote for Bush, but also for many of those who did. I read an article recently that offered a great analogy. It suggested that this election was like the French revolution in reverse. Many of the poor, and those who'd lost jobs in the last term, were still going to vote Republican. Of course, some of those put their faith first but, in economical terms, it was like the peasants coming out on the streets to insist on more rights and priviledges for the aristocracy. You've had two Presidents from one oil-rich Texan dynasty, and Bush's re-election will mean selling off even more of the family silver in order to line the pockets of the Corporations. Socialsim vs Capitalism...we (Britain) have a mixed economy, with an ample safety net for those without capital. To me, socialism means we all own capital, or the means of production, whatever you want to call it. Capitalism means that the wealth is concentrated at the top, and owned by an elite, whose beliefs and morals you have to live by (These are crude generalisations, but I'm in a bit of a hurry). As has been said many times before, the American dream is just that. It just won't happen for the vast majority of people, so why not vote for a system that allows a bit of competition, but ensures that everyone shares in the NATION'S wealth? This argument about holidays makes me laugh. Who, in their right mind, would prefer to spend all their waking hours working for a Corporation to taking time off? Most people don't work for the public good, they work for the accumulation of private wealth, and it's rarely THEIR private wealth. I, too, remember a time when America was a bright, shiny beacon of hope, but that was then. Recent events have thrown the book open, and the world has seen what it's really about. People have become less open to the spread of U.S. culture, and the export of feral capitalism, and are now viewing it with suspicion. If the election has done anything in terms of influencing the outside world, I suspect that it's prompted a good few people to draw a line in the sand and say 'thanks, but no thanks'.

D'oh!

Maybe they SHOULD sell them to citizens if your pilots are going to continue playing target practice with schools!

Well, here's a limey view - Firstly, I agree that it's a dodgy tactic to keep calling Bush supporters stupid. I'm well aware that name-calling applies to both sides, but the balance of power is now with the 'stupids'. However, I don't think it'll be long before some of those supporters begin to feel like victims. The defecit can't be ignored, and it'll hit the poor first. Tax cuts won't help, and it's hard to see how they could even be considered if Bush carries on spending (so much for small government, but that's another story). Also, many will feel that they've been conned. The whole world could see what a vicious campaign this was, and the Republicans gave up on talking policy months ago. Whatever your beliefs, God won't save them when the money dries up, and they'll have to provide some answers. All of this looks strangely familiar to me. As you know (or not, hey, we're 'somewhere else') we (not me) shamed ourselves by electing Margaret Thatcher three times over. She went on a mission to destroy and denigrate everything good about our country and our culture, and eventually paid the price. Anyway, it's easier to find a Bush supporter in Britain now than it is to find someone who'll admit to ever voting for her. More pertinently, the conservative party is now a running joke, without a hope of power (that's why Blair's not been kicked into touch). People don't forget, and they eventually get even. So, the Democrats may well fumble around for a few years. They may even consider choosing the wrong candidate again, although you could forgive them for thinking that a tree would be enough to beat the incumbent. Personally, though, I think it's more likely that this administration will fall apart, and do long-term damage to the prospects of the Republicans. I don't think that their rump of support will disappear, but that won't be enough to win elections. We shall see.

I'm touched by the concern shown for this poor man, especially as he seems to be one of those limp-wristed scare-de-cats you dislike so much. What other reason could there be for him to feel the need to take a gun to a polling booth? I know; maybe he wanted to shoot a hole in the ballot card, so that there'd be no hanging chad confusion (he could even blow the smoke from the barrel before re-holstering). Maybe pussy-liberal style counselling would cure him of his irrational fear. Think how much happier he'd be if he didn't feel the need to play 'armies' every time he left his house. Cue surreal NRA propoganda, along the lines of... 'man, leave our 2nd ammendment alone...a gun's a tool, just like a handkerchief. Imagine if he'd been carrying one in his top pocket, and a gust of wind blew it into some dood's face. It could suffocate him! Handkerchief suffocations cause more deaths each year than mortality-inducing happy-tools ever do...etc etc'

Okay, I'd like to clear the air. Peacefull Jeffrey...I apologise. You're, right, under the rules of the forum, I should be banned. In my defence, I was replying after having read your demolition of Britain and its laws. As someone with an impressive mastery of the language you're very carefull, but let's not pretend that you don't use personal insults, however veiled. Talking to people like schoolchildren, and coming on like the only authority on this subject is provocative and incendiary. Don't get so upset about people knowing little about guns. I don't need to know what type of peas they fire to be against their widespread ownership. Having said that, my apology still stands. Your writing often keeps this thread going, for various reasons. On a lighter note, the comment about still drinking from lead goblets was very funny. Skyrad - I don't really want anyone banned. I sympathise with the moderators, especially when it comes to national insults. What I wrote made me look like a ranting nationalist, which I'm not. We don't do patriotism like the Americans, which I feel is a good thing, as it can border on nationalism and, as you stated, xenophoia. I have too many connections with America, both professional and familial, to write it off. It may be a shock to some, but we all like our own countries best, and may well respond to attacks. Americans travelling, and taking in other cultures, is obviously a good thing (that applies to all nationalities). I, too, happily socialise with people whose beliefs make me sweat. So, the gun debate. I can't imagine anyone anti or pro-gun having their opinions changed by reading any of this. What's frustrating is the amount of ducking and diving in the face of facts, and the constant shifting of emphasis when the contributor doesn't have an answer to them. The defence that accurate shooting is difficult, and that most shots miss was, I think, particularly specious reasoning. Someone mentioned the British Crime Survey, amongst other statistics. I think that this survey, in particular, illustrates that the perception of crime is just as important as the reality. It's probably safe to make the generalisation that the British are not as scared of being attacked as Americans are. Fear seems rife: fear of felons, of robbers, of foreign cultures, even fear of their own government. All of these are used to justify arming themselves to the teeth. I could be shot, but don't think I will be. I certainly don't want to have to carry a heavy gun around, and hope that I can 'draw' quicker than the guy attacking me. I don't think that an 'armed society is a polite society'. I think that it's a terrfied, paranoid and insecure one. Of course I'd be polite to an armed person, because I'd be praying that I lived long enough to report them to the Police. Knives - you can't ban knives because, yes, they're a tool. However, why would a young (or not so young) man or woman going to a pub require a blade? That's pretty clear cut (no pun intended), and I'd like to see them taken away in those situations. Kids in gangs do not 'need' knives. Suggesting that people need guns to protect themselves against people with knives is like saying people should be issued machine guns in neighbourhoods with lots of pistols. It could go on and on. I won't be contributing to the scientific and legal arguments, because there are people far better qualified than me (mr2mk1g, I bow to your expertise and patience). I just don't ever want to see people owning guns in my country without a reason beyond personal protection, and everything else is just detail. Another detail...PJ - Olympians having to train abroad - I think I agree with you on that one. The lack of outrage about this over here perhaps shows, once again, our cultural differences. I was horrified when my less-than-sporty son took up target shooting as a hobby. I didn't stop him, and he lost interest, but I found it hard to accept as a sport. Before anyone mentions it, of course skydiving is dangerous, but parachutes were not designed to kill. PJ - one more thing. You used the idea that those suggesting restrictions on gun ownership were implying that you're a danger to the public, simply because you carry (sorry, I can't be bothered with cutting and pasting, but I'm sure you said it). I don't, for one minute, think that you'd use a gun without serious consideration. I do know, however, that there are plenty of scumbags over here who would gladly swap their knives for firearms, and I'm glad that it's difficult for them to get hold of them. More guns mean more shootings, and far more deaths, as your crime statistics show. I'll leave it at that, and will continue to read all your comments with interest.

Well, I thought I was replying in kind. This seems to be where they put those likely to get in a bar-fight, and I've seen plenty of colourfull posts. Personal insults are not my usual way of doing things. I was trying to make a comparison with some of the things written on here, and making the point that punishment appears rather selective. As I said, this is fun to watch, even when some of the ideas are frightening, but I can't really be bothered. Feel free to ban me, as I don't have time for long-winded, pedantic replys. Oh, one more thing. Why is insulting an entire nation worse than insulting the insulter?

Well, I haven't bothered posting before. This section of the forum is usually gruesome fun, but it's now beginning to disturb me. I understand that people get banned for misbehaving, so could someone tell me how this Jeffrey person is still here? We're told that less than 20% of Americans own a passport. I seriously hope that he, and his gun-loving friends, are not part of that number. Their reasoning is simply insane, and a forum in any other part of the world would not entertain their increasingly aggressive, bile-ridden nonsense. Additionally, if I were to say that America was a stain on the world, and that it was inhabited by violent, plastic, infantile shitsacks like peacefull Jeffrey, I'd likely be banned. Of course, I wouldn't say that. He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged. There are many reasons why America would be the last place on earth that I'd live. Little Jeffrey and his toys can be added to them. Stay where you are, Jeffrey, and remember; guns don't kill people, hysterical right-wing gun-owners do.