Fighting words

[robc_uk]

Completely agree guys! Lets ban religion and welfare

If only!!

Religion, that's more controvertial than any other subject here, lets not go there!!

Welfare, this is meant to ber temporary to assist the person until they get back on their feet. Unfortunately it breeds contempt, We have whole families that think its OK to go on the dole!

You forgot Education, If we can ensure the next generation get a good,well rounded, education (i.e. not one where there aren't allowed to be taught about Evolution) then we are almost there. Will it happen.....Nah

I worry for my son, I truly do.

rob

[robc_uk]

What is that I see swirling the drain? Looks like your credibility.....

UK = 92.1% white, 2% black

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

Um, Thats from the CIA fact book, it's not really accurate, I didn't say 'Multi Coloured', I said 'Multi Cultural'.

There are twenty seven countries in the EU and they are all classed as 'White' but all have their own unique,distinct culture.

Whos credibility?

Rob

[robc_uk]

You cannot seriously be comparing Israel to Iran in terms of their responsiblity to the world community. I understand that not everyone stands behind Israel.. I do not always stand behind them either. But if you are honestly proposing that the world community is as save with Iran possessing nuclear weapon capability as they are with Israel, you are quire frankly out of your mind.

Some of the posts here demontrate a form of bigotry at least im my mind people feel empowered to engage in because it is easy to pick on people who are not underprivledged. We are not all a bunch of gun toting cowboys shooting it out at the local saloon nor are we a bunch of neanderthals incapable of discussing the issue in an intelligent and reasoned fashion. And it is not the first time I have detected this bial here and it leads me to sometimes wonder why i come.

EDITED for clarity.

I don't see Iran as the threat you do, but I'm not from a Country thats desperate for oil! Just remeber that only one Country has ever used Nuclear Force in anger!

I am certainly not picking on anyone 'overpriviledged' I am well aware you are not a bunch of gun toting cowboys but many of you are still defending your historical right to bear arms 'because it says so' . It's like alcoholism, you must acknowledge you are powerless before firearms before you can discuss getting rid of them.

I brought the IRA and WW2 up because many American don't understand exactly how the Brits feel about these subjects, We had years of being attacked in our own homes with US provided weapons.

I hope this helps you understand the 'other view' slighrtly better.

Rob

[Tim]

Heck you think that is bad... try Belfast! Almost as bad as our own DC

Much of it in the U.S. is cultural but within cultures. A breakdown of marriage, family and community. No where is that more obvious then in our black populations.

Oh my, you need to stop. You are doing an Imus. The concept that some people in the US walk around with concerning marriage, family and community is a Ozzy & Harriet fantasy best left back when it occurred--the 50s. It was an aberration based upon the polarizing affect of a war that mobilized an entire nation. To say that the problems in any community are caused by the breakdown of marriage, family, and community is simplistic and, though you don't want to claim him, you ought to sit in a corner and play blocks with George.

-T

[eddhead]

I don't see Iran as the threat you do, but I'm not from a Country thats desperate for oil! Just remeber that only one Country has ever used Nuclear Force in anger!

I am certainly not picking on anyone 'overpriviledged' I am well aware you are not a bunch of gun toting cowboys but many of you are still defending your historical right to bear arms 'because it says so' . It's like alcoholism, you must acknowledge you are powerless before firearms before you can discuss getting rid of them.

I brought the IRA and WW2 up because many American don't understand exactly how the Brits feel about these subjects, We had years of being attacked in our own homes with US provided weapons.

I hope this helps you understand the 'other view' slighrtly better.

Rob

Ple

Please re read my edited post... I am not as US Centric as you make me out to be.. I travel abroad frequently and was a frequent vistor to Canary Wharf during the 80's and 90's. I am quite familar with the effect the IRA had on the local population and remember the street bombings and the lives lost. If the IRA had nukes back than, they very well might have used them except for perhaps concerns about the collateral damage those symphetic to thier cause. Simlarly, if Iran gets them they too might very will use them... they are a terrorist state ...but they will not be so concerned about collateral damage...

[Guest TTK]

Ahh, this must mean you have a way to stop mass murders and a way to prove that it would work here in my country. Please, do tell.

Eh no....I was commenting on the choice between living with the consequences of thievery.....the original poster was highlighting the degree fo thievery taking place in the UK....and stated he wouldn't want to live there......I was simply exercising my choice......'live with thievery...or..........die at the hands of a mass murderer....!

Believe me......YOU don't want me to post my solution to preventing mass murders in your country.....it would go down quicker than a lead ballon....or Jenna Jamieson at one of those wunnerful AFN / Vivid awards ceremonies....celebrating the best DP scene........!

Edited April 18, 2007 by TTK

[rdorman]

Oh my, you need to stop. You are doing an Imus. The concept that some people in the US walk around with concerning marriage, family and community is a Ozzy & Harriet fantasy best left back when it occurred--the 50s. It was an aberration based upon the polarizing affect of a war that mobilized an entire nation. To say that the problems in any community are caused by the breakdown of marriage, family, and community is simplistic and, though you don't want to claim him, you ought to sit in a corner and play blocks with George.

-T

Not sure where that came from nor what an Imus is! Yes, it is simplistic, but for the sake brevity. Aside from that, I don't understand your point aside from the obvious, that it was a simplistic statement. George and I stopped playing well together a long time ago! I never played with Kerry. I think an assumption was made here.

I went back and read your posts in this thread hoping to understand your repsonse better. That didn't really help but I did enjoy some of the points you brought up on various topics. We all know that the problems are not simple. I fully understand what a polarizing effect has with a common enemy. One drive down my street after 9/11 and any one could see that!

[robc_uk]

Please re read my edited post... I am not as US Centric as you make me out to be.. I travel abroad frequently and was a frequent vistor to Canary Wharf during the 80's and 90's. I am quite familar with the effect the IRA had on the local population and remember the street bombings and the lives lost. If the IRA had nukes back than, they very well might have used them except for perhaps concerns about the collateral damage those symphetic to thier cause. Simlarly, if Iran gets them they too might very will use them... they are a terrorist state ...but they will not be so concerned about collateral damage...

I appreciate everything you're saying and I feel that we have succeded in calming down from a 'Dull Roar' and actually talking!

I still can't agree on the Nuclear Issue, the US are worried about Irans intentions toward the US,whilst the whole world is worried about the US's intentions toward Iran.

But, let's not bog this down with further talk of WMDs, lets move it back to smaller scale weaponry!

Rob

[rdorman]

If only!!

Religion, that's more controvertial than any other subject here, lets not go there!!

Welfare, this is meant to ber temporary to assist the person until they get back on their feet. Unfortunately it breeds contempt, We have whole families that think its OK to go on the dole!

You forgot Education, If we can ensure the next generation get a good,well rounded, education (i.e. not one where there aren't allowed to be taught about Evolution) then we are almost there. Will it happen.....Nah

I worry for my son, I truly do.

rob

I am with you brother! Of course, we still need ditch diggers as well. Just happy well adjusted ones!

[ryyannon]

I don't see Iran as the threat you do, but I'm not from a Country thats desperate for oil! Just remeber that only one Country has ever used Nuclear Force in anger!

I brought the IRA and WW2 up because many American don't understand exactly how the Brits feel about these subjects, We had years of being attacked in our own homes with US provided weapons.

Rob

I can't help jumping in here: this is so simplistic that any kind of response is impossible - other than to point out the total inanity of the statement itself.

This is really hopeless.

[robc_uk]

I can't help jumping in here: this is so simplistic that any kind of response is impossible - other than to point out the total inanity of the statement itself.

This is really hopeless.

I'm suprised, Is my statement not factually accurate?

1. The US has a major Oil need.

2. The only Country to use a Nuclear Dvice in Anger is the US!

I have been responding to a member who is concerned about Iran having a Nuclear Capacity, I have been expressing my concerns regarding the US attitude towards anyone else having the same.

Please tell me why this is simplistic, or are only Americans intelligent enough to discuss WMDs?

Rob

[omega1]

Contrary to what you may think, the majority of law abiding gun owners don

[narikaa]

Mmmmm

Weapons

Religion

Statistics

.......................................................

I think we would all be surprised to find that the volotile mixture of Christians and edged weapons has singularly been responsible for the greatest carnage historically.

Not many edged weapons in play nowadays.....just need to work some more on the Christians

.

[rdorman]

Mmmmm

Weapons

Religion

Statistics

.......................................................

I think we would all be surprised to find that the volotile mixture of Christians and edged weapons has singularly been responsible for the greatest carnage historically.

Not many edged weapons in play nowadays.....just need to work some more on the Christians

.

Mao was much more efficient... then again, he had guns I think we are drinking a pint over the point... Killing in the name of religion has to be one of the most rediculious and bloody reasons in the history of the world. Or was it just an excuse at times?

[omega1]

Here's a scenario...Mr. Cope.....being 21 is headed down to Florida for a nice little break with some of his buddies......one acquaintance that he has is of dubious character and decides that as the house is empty ......he can put a chunk of change in his pocket.....by lightening the load of Mr. Cope...by removing some or all of his guns.....so does so......sells them on......they end up in the wrong hands...say someone like Mr. Cho....who having been denied by the authorities.....decides the only way he can fulfill his objective is to acquire them ILLEGALLY......and then carries out his murderous plan.....what part has society and Mr. Cope played in that scenario........let me put it this way......if the ser no's.....could be traced back to Mr. Cope....and it could be shown that he was negligent in securing these deadly items.....then rest assured if it was my child.....I'd be exercising my right to litigation......and he or indeed were it you......would be up to your [censored] in legal bills......!

I will say that I have mixed feelings about that scenario. Coming from a family where I was raised to respect firearms, and always keep them locked up, it saddens me greatly when I hear about accidental shootings (kids showing it off to their friends or what have you). To me, it was the gun owner

[ryyannon]

I'm suprised, Is my statement not factually accurate?

1. The US has a major Oil need.

2. The only Country to use a Nuclear Dvice in Anger is the US!

I have been responding to a member who is concerned about Iran having a Nuclear Capacity, I have been expressing my concerns regarding the US attitude towards anyone else having the same.

Please tell me why this is simplistic, or are only Americans intelligent enough to discuss WMDs?

Rob

In certain cases, yes.

[eddhead]

I'm suprised, Is my statement not factually accurate?

1. The US has a major Oil need.

2. The only Country to use a Nuclear Dvice in Anger is the US!

I have been responding to a member who is concerned about Iran having a Nuclear Capacity, I have been expressing my concerns regarding the US attitude towards anyone else having the same.

Please tell me why this is simplistic, or are only Americans intelligent enough to discuss WMDs?

Rob

Well for one thing, the US is not the only country with a dependency on foreign oil. Most of the developed world shares that dependency, especially the Peoples Republic of China

For another the US did not use the nuclear weapon in japan "out of anger" but rather out of a desire to not extend the war. It was a calculated sobering decision made in partnership with our key allies. We can argue about the morality of using the bomb but not the incentive. The overwhelming consensus amoungst the allies at the time was that Japan was not ready to surrender as a result the war would continue to drag on for years at the cost of tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives if drastic measures were not undertaken. I should also point out that the US would never have been able to use atomics without the tacit support of our key allies including the British. If using the bomb was morally wrong, or even if it was morally correct, all the allies have to accept some level of responsiblity fo the act.

We are way off topic here, but I could not just let this statement stand unchallenged.

In additon, I think you are woefully misguided on the threat a nuclear Iran holds on the entire (not just US) west.

[FxrAndy]

Except an exposive device is not as portable as a handgun and that is a big deal. Plus you need an awful lof of chain padlocks and fertilizer to create a bomb that would kill that many people at one time..

Sorry but i think it is quite easy to create a device equal to the weight of an average handgun that would easily have the capacity to kill that many people in one go.

You don't need to know how i know but it is professional, not a hobby.

[rdorman]

Contrary to what you may think, the majority of law abiding gun owners don

[eddhead]

Sorry but i think it is quite easy to create a device equal to the weight of an average handgun that would easily have the capacity to kill that many people in one go.

You don't need to know how i know but it is professional, not a hobby.

well i guess i stand corrected on that issue.. but it still does not justify not trying to control the things we can control.. i.e. the use of firearms to facilate violent random acts.

[rdorman]

well i guess i stand corrected on that issue.. but it still does not justify not trying to control the things we can control.. i.e. the use of firearms to facilate violent random acts.

I not so sure that any one was saying we should not try to control them. At least I know I wasn't! I think the point is that their are many, and often more efficient ways, of killing large numbers then a hand gun. We should try to minimize the use of firearms in violent acts. As you put so well, the gun is an 'enabler'. This being 'one that enables another to achieve'. But there are many enablers in mass murder. The root problem is the 'one' that is enabled. A much tougher nut to crack! So now the questions are how do you recognize the 'one' that would be enabled with a hand gun to commit murder (mass or otherwise)?

[FxrAndy]

well i guess i stand corrected on that issue.. but it still does not justify not trying to control the things we can control.. i.e. the use of firearms to facilate violent random acts.

I totally agree they should be controlled. but not banned! I have lived in many places where fire arms have been tightly controlled and others where they are literally every where, the one thing in common with all places is that people were murdered, some times with and some times with out the use of fire arms. If i was psychotics enough to want to kill x amount of people the access to fire arms or lack of would not prevent me. What prevents me comiting murder the the fact that i may be cought and would not get to spend the time with my family. Therfore i the law is my deterant. Unfortunately that is not the case with some one who intends to kill himself in the end. If i knew what that was i would have made a fortune by now and would be buying watches right now.

[Tim]

Morevoer, if you really can't figure out why it is so objectionable for Iran of ALL countries to possess a nuclear weapon than you are not paying attention. You are talking about a country headed up by a maniac who denies the holocost ever happened. He is a true sociopath.

I am not so quick to throw Iran in the toilet over this. Yes, they probably are working on a nuclear bomb. They feel they have just cause to provide for their own defense and nukes are the only thing that seems to command the US's respect. I bet if the US agreed to sign an internationally recognized nonaggression treaty with Iran that the Iranians would be happy to drop the plans for nuclear power. I think Iran has even said this publically.

We backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. We along with many other western countries supplied Iraq with the weapons needed and, when Saddam started loosing the war, the US provided Saddam with WMD and winked when he started to use the WMD against Iran. Kuwait lent him all the money for the war and in the process both Iran and Iraq managed to destroy all their oil production facilities. We sailed our aircraft carriers into the Gulf and actively secured the waterways and coastlines for Iraq getting into a number of clashes with Iran. Remember all that?

Generally accepted numbers show Iran alone lost ONE MILLION people to this war and Iraq 500,000. But some estimates go as high as 2 million total losses. It is hard to determine because the war lasted just short of eight years resulting in catastrophic destruction in both countries. Additionally both Iran and Iraq used irregular military units and freely attacked civilian populations.

Just slightly before that was the Iranian hostage crisis where the Iranians overthrew a brutal despot that the British, with American blessings, had previously installed as the leader of Iran after his father Reza Shah, wanting to maintain Iran's declared neutrality during WWII, refused to allow the Allies to re-supply Russia over Iranian territory.

And the Iran-Iraq War precipitated Gulf War I when the Kuwaitis would not forgive the loans made to Iraq even though there were made because Kuwait feared invasion by Iran. Kuwait would not forgive the debt, but they were also causing a glut in world oil supplies depressing the prices. So Iraq could not amass the funds to repay the loans. Then on top of all that the Kuwaitis were cross drilling under their border with Iraq into Iraqi oil fields.

And here we come in the Gulf War II bumbling into two of Iran

[Guest TTK]

@All.......I'm going to change my POV on the 2nd Amendment.......the Right to Bear Arms.......having re-read it.........I tend to agree with the proposition that all Americans do have the right to bear arms....( and no....I don't mean 'bare' arms...)......I mean the right to a well formed militia.....!

Only one condition.........is that they are all armed with the weapon of choice of the Founding Fathers........the Ferguson muzzle loader.......with no less than a 5 ft barrel.........evrybody then has the right to be armed......as envisioned by the Fathers........no contest...no foul.....no Glocks allowed...!

[eddhead]

I totally agree they should be controlled. but not banned!

As I have previously posted, regardless of my own personal beliefs, given where we are on this issue, I would happily settle on a more pragmatic approach that would constitute better controls over who gets what kind of weapons and ammo. As to the portabilty of explosive devices, I am far from an expert but I am discerning portable highly destructive devices iare not easily available and require a higher degree of expertise than the usd of hand guns do.