Rick Channing

First I blow the racism accusation outa the water, now I'm being accused of homophobia. Christ, you libtards'll try anything to avoid confronting the errors you've made about a person's character. Sucks to be you, I guess.

@Santerme, hmmm... That's real classy. But hey, I don't have to 'prove' jack shit to anybody. Especially to a moron like you. I bet the only Emerald City you ever visited was in the Land od Oz. @Otta, are you retarded, or what? I'm British, like I told your bum chum Huguenot from the outset. What is this, some kind of libtard neighbourhood watch ganging-up on the new guy?

richardbach Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lol at teh mericans the mosts insecure nation evar I'm British, dumbass.

Hey, I'm no troll. I'm just fighting passive aggressive fire with fire. It's not my fault you're all butthurt over it.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well if you really do, on your conscience be it I > guess. > We've all got families to feed, but those of us > who are good at we do can pick and choose our > jobs. > I wouldn't do it, I genuinely consider Xe immoral, > but each to their own. > > My wife was working for BAe systems when we met, > she was uncomfortable about it, and once she > talked about her reservations, well, she left > there within days and since her career has > soared. > Maybe a change would be for the good in every > sense of the word. Look, pal. I sleep just fine at night. But please, don't let that get in the way of your attempt to patronise me. I work hard for what I earn, and I've got shares in the company. I also fought for this country in Kuwait. So don't bother lecturing me. Oh, and your wife sounds like a f@ckin' hippie.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice to see you keeping a civil tongue. > Don't worry I'm thoroughly convinced that a change > of name after a vicious massacre means that it's > 'different', but anyway that's now three times in > a pretty short span, I call troll. Why should I keep a civil tongue after you've accused me of lying about my employment? Now that's offensive. Not racist, just downright spiteful. I mean, say you've got kids, and I call bullshit to score points. Would you remain polite? I think not, somehow.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Troll call seconded MP.....:) Seems like liberals march in lockstep here, too. How typical.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice to see you keeping a civil tongue. > Don't worry I'm thoroughly convinced that a change > of name after a vicious massacre means that it's > 'different', but anyway that's now three times in > a pretty short span, I call troll. Whatever.

@DJKillaQueen, Yeah, I see that you had to insert the Nazi/Jew reference to strengthen your already weak statement. The edit notification's a bitch, huh.

@Mockney Piers, It's Xe Services, dickwad. I do work for them, but I've only mentioned my employer twice, asshole.

Hold your horses there, princess. Race is a determining factor, except in this case it's not. According to the US Cencus Bureau Hispanics fall under caucasian. A caucasian can't be racist to another caucasian, suggestions to the contrary are just plain dumb. So that's your racism accusation blown outa the water. And most, if not all of the Founding Fathers were born in North America. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but however ethnically non-indigeonous you are, you can't be an immigrant if you were born in the country you live in. Anyway, y'all are gonna have to excuse me while I go take a shit. Hey, I'm willing to bet that Huguenot and DJKillaQueen flush away the best part of themselves whenever they pinch a loaf. Oh, and what the hell's wrong with working for Xe Services, anyway? I got to eat along with everyone else.

The US was founded by white revolutionaries; not Mestizo peasants. The Amerindians got a raw deal, but that was just a sign of the times when the will of the white man ruled supreme in America. You can't rewrite history.

Hey now, unlike most of the Mexicans bused into the US during the '90s to act as political pawns, I pay my tax dollars. Even the American Democrats are waking-up to the jeopardy La Raza is putting the So Cal, Arizona, N. Mexico and Texas demographs in.

Ouch.

Dude, you're getting way too butthurt over this. If the figures you've yet to cite are true, then that's a collateral damage I'm willing to live with in order to continue endorsing a liberal attitude to gun ownership. Anyway, people get shot the world over. Get over it, shit happens.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't have a campaign against the 2nd Amendment, > I neither know nor care what it is. > > I was in fact responding to your original > statement here: "But what a shame it is that the > firearms laws in this country are so unnecessarily > restrictive." > > I have pointed out that contrary to your rather > stupid opinion, the 'shame' is the 12,632 people > in the US who were murdered at the end of a > firearm, or the other 25,000 who also died at the > end of firearms through accident or misadventure. > > Your rather 'Smug American' demand for access to > weapons so you can play with yourself would most > likely end up with thousands of people dead who > didn't need to be. > > Only someone deranged could think that was a good > idea. Then why are you so opposed to the concept?

Huguenot, I understand that you're angry. But you've gotta move on from it, buddy. I mean seriously, who's funding your crusade against the 2nd Amendment?

I'm relieved to see that you've progressed from sniggering at your lame attempts at humour, Huguenot. But your position really is utterly indefensible. Just learn to accept you're wrong and move on from your indignant finger pointing. No-one'll hold it against you. Live to fight another day, an' all that.

I know you're trying to inject humour to distract from a view that you can't possibly defend, but laughing at you own jokes? That's low.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "no-one's in any danger as a result of my legally > held weapons." > > Ah, you're trying to make the point that you're > different to everyone else, that you're special? > > It reminds me of those middle aged drunk men who > say that they can drive home because they're > different to everyone else. > > The stress on the word 'legal' is really flimsy - > as if the suggestion is that if it's legal, it > must be okay then. And now you're desperately snatching at "flimsy" analogies. How predictable.

The weapons I own are more likely to either gather dust or dispatch the odd deer than do any harm to my children. And they're perfectly and rapidly accessible in the event of a break-in. All I have to do to access my guns is take this thing called a key, enter our adjoining walk-in wardrobe, insert the key into the lock, turn it (roughly 180 degrees) and voila, the gun cabinet is open. I'd be very much obliged if you didn't keep repeating yourself with numbers you've snatched from any source that'll support your agenda. Man has kept weapons in his dwelling ever since the dawn of civilization, and will continue to well into the future. To continue taking offense at the inevitable will just make you look like an even bigger prat than you already are.

And the armed forces reference (not "army", do keep up) was a parallel I drew with a very broad statement. I keep guns for a variety of reasons. Most of which you'd be too narrow-minded to accept. But no-one's in any danger as a result of my legally held weapons.

All my weapons in the States are kept under lock and key. The only firearm that you could consider relatively accessable is the .38 snubnose I keep in a locked box in our bedside table. All of our children have been laboriously instructed on how to handle a gun safely and that such an instrument demands the utmost respect, of which they and I all duly pay. Continuing to claim that 10,000 (a suspiciously precise number) people perish as a direct result of the 2nd Amendment every year in America is tenuous to say the least. You're just parroting a rumour.

Ridgely, imprisonment isn't a measure used to "solve a problem". It's used to punish convicted criminals. As long as any of the accused rioters - or anyone who's profited by association, such as fences - aren't facing the electric chair or any other comparatively draconian sanction (bar hefty custodial sentences), I'm all for taking a very hard line with all these 'people'.

Huguenot, try to not let intellectual defeat cloud your already irrational judgement. And I don't care how widely an opinion is held, because it doesn't make it a fact. Fact.