Why are you voting for your candidate?

[unozero]

Thank you for proving that he's right.

 

[Laivasse]

That ****er looks like he hasn't got a single thing right since he dropped out of someone's peehole 15 years ago. 'You don't have a 2 party system like we do...' -oh really, and what planet is this??

I forgot that Americans have some special secret insight into the election that non-Americans don't. Oh wait... no you don't. Ever hear of the mass media? The internet? Any interested person from anywhere in the world can follow the election as well as most Americans, get with the 90's.

And I'm sorry if this hurts the feelings of the average anti-intellectualist swine over there, but it is OBVIOUS who is running the more retarded, shamelessly populist, negative campaign atm. Generally I try to be pretty diplomatic about people's choice of party as long as they can reason it out in some fashion, but when I see bollocks like this my patience runs out totally. In all honesty you DO have to be a ****ing retard to think that Sarah Palin - much less the guy who appointed her as VP choice - should be allowed anywhere near the White House.

The ONLY reason that the McCain campaign can stand a reasonable chance of getting elected is because of the bizarre anti-intellectual trend that has poisoned your political system and taught a huge chunk of your electorate to mistrust anyone who isn't a prosaic ****ing hick. Us crazy marxist socialist Europeans might not elect the best leaders ever but at least our parties wouldn't get away with putting a embarrassingly stupid creationist cretin up for office the last time I checked!

But don't get angry at people who point this out to you! Get ASHAMED and ****ing do something about it. No one cares about your feelings, no one cares that you're pissed off and think we're all nasty condescending meanies - just sort out your ****ing country and stop it shitting on the rest of the world! And if you don't like being told that that needs to happen, then cut your ****ing ears off.

Or instead vote for the shittier option again just to spite us! That'll learn us lol

/rant

BTW this is only directed at those Americans who whine about the rest of the world's 'elitist' attitude. Vids like that just drive me over the ****ing edge.

 

[Kadayi]

The US is a very violent country for a whole myriad of reasons, none of them a great deal to do with the right to bear arms. In fact you'll generally find that the most crime-ridden parts of the US are those with the strictest gun control laws, and vice versa.

Having strict gun laws in a state means nothing, when you live in a Country where in guns are easily accessible elsewhere. There is no control group scenario going on here. Also the bizarre notion that US citizens are somehow inherently more violent than elsewhere in the world, seems a point in favour of gun control rather than for gun rights. Violent people is one thing, Violent people with guns seems faintly idiotic.

Right now, you've got people venting about the democratic presidential candidate being a 'Terrorist' and a 'traitor', do you honestly think people with that sort of perception should be allowed ready access to fire arms? Do you not think people with such limited perceptions might try and shoot him before he gets into office, or whilst he's there perhaps?

What you're not taking into account is that there are many other countries where firearms are as easily accessible (or near as damnit) as in the US but where there is not a gun crime epidemic - Canada and Switzerland for example. Handguns were only banned here in 1997, but it was as ever a kneejerk reaction which had absolutely no effect on gun crime (in fact it got worse for a period) and served only to take away the hobbies and livelihoods of many people.

Guns were never as accessible in the UK as they are in the US, even before 1997. But the fact of the matter is now, the only people using guns are criminals and generally it's gang on gang crime, with the odd innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. Not mentally deranged people with an axe to grind on society, or people too hot tempered to know better. As for the Canada & Switzerland a lot of it's probably down to the fact that the cultures aren't inherently gun fixated. With Switzerland every Household might have a semi-automatic squirrelled away for a national emergency, but it's clearly understood that's what it's for, not because 'It's our right to bear arms'.

It's also misguided to draw comparisons between the UK and the US, because guns are generally quite hard to obtain in the UK. The US is full of guns and no law will ever change that - it would serve only to empower criminals. For that matter, law is almost always the least effective way of accomplishing anything. Cultural factors are the root cause of any social ill, and fighting the symptoms will never solve the problem, only take away self-determination.

The US was full of Slaves at one point, but that all seemed to die a death if I recall and fairly quickly once the legislation came in. Arguing against legislation on a point of implementation issues is nonsensical Rep, you might as well say let's legalise heroin and pedophilia, because illegal as they both are, they sure aren't going away any time soon. Also no ones taking guns away from the Police here, just the general public. Sure people, if determined are always going to acquire guns, but that's true of anywhere in the world and yet plenty of people elsewhere manage to get by without them.

When you have a gun on gun culture invariably you get stand offs and fire fights because people think they are Clint Eastwood or John Wayne and the other guys bullets are magically not going to hit, where as when you have a limited gun culture you have one party capitulating to the other. Now getting robbed at gun point might not sound that cosy, but it's a lot less traumatic than a family funeral. I mean what do you really carry on your person that's so indispensable/irreplaceable that it's worth dying for? A wallet, some cash cards and a bit of Bling perhaps? Saddest thing I ever read was about was a guy getting shot over a ?50 ring. 24 years of love and education blown away trying to wrestle with an armed mugger, over a round band of silver what an absolute waste of his existence.....

It's fundamentally wrong to deny people basic freedoms to lead their lives in the way they choose because something bad might happen somewhere along the line. Life is not risk-free and it is neither possible nor desirable to try and make it so. I neither want nor need the government to protect me, I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself.

So by that rationale we should allow people to drink drive? Because despite the fact that their 'freedom' might endanger myself or my family, their right to 'freedom' is more important? Would you say the Plymouth Goalkeeper who totalled that family recently drunk behind the wheel of his Land rover was exercising his freedoms and it was just an unfortunate incident? When I'm on the motorway every day I don't worry about my driving, I worry about the driving of those around me.

Anyhows I presented you with firm statistical evidence that argues a compelling case for strict national gun laws. Unless you've got firm statistics that prove an opposite case your clutching at straws tbh. No amount of platitudes overcomes a homicide rate differential of 24:1 in straight comparison, Sorry dude.

OT: long time no see btw, and in Exeter now?

 

[SIGbastard]

I think it's funny how the mere mention of guns here spurs such strong debate. I was only including that because it is important to me. On a side not I am about to order a Barrett M99-A1 in case Barack wins and the republicans lose a ton of seats. I've always wanted a .50 so I should probably get one now.

I'm pretty sure McCain actually said that you would not need to fear Obama as president in direct response this sort of crap about calling him a terrorist or Arab. Yes here it is on page of this article from politico:

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/index_Page2.html

 

[Laivasse]

He did say that. Unfortunately he said it at the same time that his campaign was running an ad which inflated and fabricated Obama's 'terrorist' connections; at the same time that Palin was travelling the country using her 'palling around with terrorists' line at every campaign stop.

To claim McCain was being in any way honourable by knocking back these racists is to forget who stirred up the hive in the first place.

 

[Raziaar]

Raz is the perfect Obama tron

Perfect Obama tron?

 

[Krynn72]

Perfect Obama Tron.


And enough about guns. What say we move onto other issues?

 

[Ennui]

SIGbastard, when the apocalypse comes, I'm gonna stick with you.

 

[Eejit]

Why would anyone want to own any of those substances? They are of no use to anyone whatsoever, unlike firearms which have a variety of legitimate uses. Regardless of which, if someone really wanted to get their hands on some Agent Orange or mustard gas, the law certainly wouldn't stop them. All gun control does is take legal firearms away from law abiding people.

Agent Orange is a herbicide and defoliant. Good for when you want to clear some ground for a patio!
Mustard gas. Well when "It Goes Down" like a lot of the gun nuts like to predict you'll be that much more prepared!
Ethyl methanesulfonate - well you might just want to do some home-made genetic screens.

It's fundamentally wrong to deny people basic freedoms to lead their lives in the way they choose because something bad might happen somewhere along the line. Life is not risk-free and it is neither possible nor desirable to try and make it so. I neither want nor need the government to protect me, I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself.

Oh well as long as you are capable of protecting yourself I guess everyone who can't can just bugger off and die.

 

[MJ12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL0kExzjvmk

"Hi, I am really afraid to speak my lame opinion so I will wear aviator sun glasses so you can't see my eyes"

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

It's a serious issue because people want to own guns - simple really. In a free society people are allowed to own and do the things that they want, not just the things they need. Telling Americans they have to give up their guns is just like telling Brits they have to give up their alcohol - and this is without even delving into the fact that gun control does **** all for public safety anyway.

Your condescending arrogance astounds me, and if you actually want to live in a place where people are told how to live and in which hobbies and interests they are allowed to partake, I suggest you emigrate to North Korea.

I agree with you to a certain extent. For example, lets say someone broke into my house and he was using a gun. In the UK you need a license to operate I gun a believe, but this guy could have just brought it of the street. I would be ****ed, I would have no way of defending myself. If I had a gun, I could shoot the asshole right there.

But, I'm thinking we can't go for this whole "weee libertarianism give everyone everything" path either, and this is coming from a pot smoker. We cannot just let everyone have whatever they want, just because to make it illegal is to infringe on they're freedom. What would be to stop someone from getting a nuke, based off your logic?