Political Crossfire Forums

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3451 Location: London

Well, maybe for devil's advocate reasons and because I'm bored, I thought I'd do an anti-gun post with a few thoughts I've been going through (ducks for cover as the formidable barrage of pro-gunners gets me in their sights!).

Right, here's my argument. My argument concerns home intruders but not psycho drugged up serial killers! Firstly, I would suggest in the main that criminals only use guns when they have to. If I wanted my neighbours plasma screen and was a burgler, I'd wait until they were out, break in, and take it. I wouldn't take a gun. There's no-one in, theres no point, I'm just upping my own sentence if I get caught.

So, when would I take a gun (and risk a needle being put in my arm by the state later). Well, the only time I would bother is if I could only get the plasma TV WHILE they were in the house, AND I thought they might have a gun and be prepared to use it.

If I knew they didn't have a gun there's simply no way I'm risking going from perhaps 6 months in jail for getting caught unarmed, to having a needle in my arm from shooting someone trying to tackle me with a tennis raquet. It's not in my interest.

In the UK burglers generally don't bother being armed, as they presume the home owners arn't so they are committing a more serious crime than they need to, to get your possessions. Besides, it's really difficult (whatever you say) for them to get hold of a gun anyway. The bottom line .. THEY ONLY WANT YOUR BLOODY PLAYSTATION 2! They simply don't want the grief of attacking your family, there is no point .. there is no good end result for the criminal.

So for the best protection, isn't your family safest if the burgler knows you're not armed, so he doesn't have to defend himself against you (potentially) by bringing along a peice?

Go on ... own me !!! ;)

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

britboy wrote: Well, maybe for devil's advocate reasons and because I'm bored, I thought I'd do an anti-gun post with a few thoughts I've been going through (ducks for cover as the formidable barrage of pro-gunners gets me in their sights!).

Right, here's my argument. My argument concerns home intruders but not psycho drugged up serial killers! Firstly, I would suggest in the main that criminals only use guns when they have to. If I wanted my neighbours plasma screen and was a burgler, I'd wait until they were out, break in, and take it. I wouldn't take a gun. There's no-one in, theres no point, I'm just upping my own sentence if I get caught.

So, when would I take a gun (and risk a needle being put in my arm by the state later). Well, the only time I would bother is if I could only get the plasma TV WHILE they were in the house, AND I thought they might have a gun and be prepared to use it.

If I knew they didn't have a gun there's simply no way I'm risking going from perhaps 6 months in jail for getting caught unarmed, to having a needle in my arm from shooting someone trying to tackle me with a tennis raquet. It's not in my interest.

In the UK burglers generally don't bother being armed, as they presume the home owners arn't so they are committing a more serious crime than they need to, to get your possessions. Besides, it's really difficult (whatever you say) for them to get hold of a gun anyway. The bottom line .. THEY ONLY WANT YOUR BLOODY PLAYSTATION 2! They simply don't want the grief of attacking your family, there is no point .. there is no good end result for the criminal.

So for the best protection, isn't your family safest if the burgler knows you're not armed, so he doesn't have to defend himself against you (potentially) by bringing along a peice?

Go on ... own me !!! ;)
Burglars in the UK don't usually have guns, but they do have knives, which can be just as dangerous. And if a burglar thinks the owner is armed with a gun, theyre not going to burgle them, its not worth diying to the burglar to get a TV or something. Theyll just go for an easier, unarmed target. A burglar knows that if hes armed and so is the home-owner, the odds are stacked against him, seeing as the home-owner knows his own house better than the burglar does. Look at the burglary rate in places like texas, then compare it to a state with very low firearm ownership, like california or DC. Hell, the burglary rate in the US is lower than our one, and we have quite a few less guns than they have.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

britboy wrote: Well, maybe for devil's advocate reasons and because I'm bored, I thought I'd do an anti-gun post with a few thoughts I've been going through (ducks for cover as the formidable barrage of pro-gunners gets me in their sights!).

Right, here's my argument. My argument concerns home intruders but not psycho drugged up serial killers! Firstly, I would suggest in the main that criminals only use guns when they have to. If I wanted my neighbours plasma screen and was a burgler, I'd wait until they were out, break in, and take it. I wouldn't take a gun. There's no-one in, theres no point, I'm just upping my own sentence if I get caught.

So, when would I take a gun (and risk a needle being put in my arm by the state later). Well, the only time I would bother is if I could only get the plasma TV WHILE they were in the house, AND I thought they might have a gun and be prepared to use it.

If I knew they didn't have a gun there's simply no way I'm risking going from perhaps 6 months in jail for getting caught unarmed, to having a needle in my arm from shooting someone trying to tackle me with a tennis raquet. It's not in my interest.

In the UK burglers generally don't bother being armed, as they presume the home owners arn't so they are committing a more serious crime than they need to, to get your possessions. Besides, it's really difficult (whatever you say) for them to get hold of a gun anyway. The bottom line .. THEY ONLY WANT YOUR BLOODY PLAYSTATION 2! They simply don't want the grief of attacking your family, there is no point .. there is no good end result for the criminal.

So for the best protection, isn't your family safest if the burgler knows you're not armed, so he doesn't have to defend himself against you (potentially) by bringing along a peice?

Go on ... own me !!! ;)

A couple things. 1) Any criminal with the presence of mind to distinguish between the crime of burglary and armed burglary, and to worry about the difference between the punishments, would probably go one step further and not break into an occupied household. At least in FL, there is a difference in punishment between breaking into an occupied and and unoccupied dwelling. Any rational burglar (if there can be such a thing) will only break into unoccupied dwellings. If the burglar is irrational enough to break into an occupied building, he is irrational enough to carry a weapon, or to be more involved in different crimes than mere theft.

2) If the burglar is bigger, stronger, and more experienced in fighting than I am, it doesn't matter if he's armed or not. He can possibly kill me with his hands. I'm not going to risk that.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

1. Shooting and killing someone does not mean that you get the death penalty. It has to me premeditated murder or outstanding circumstances such as murder during a sexual assult. Even then the death penalty is rarely sought and even more rarely enforced.

2. Here in the US you will face a longer jail sentance than 6 months if you actually break into someone's house and steal their belongings and get caught.

3. Any burglar that just wants one item (tv or playstation) is looking for fast cash probably for a drug fix and will not care who gets harmed in the proccess. Most burglars will take multiple items, anything they think they can make money off of. I have had my house robbed 3 times (years ago thankfully) and every time they took a lot of stuff.

4. What if that burglar steals the tools that I use to make a living. I worked for a plumbing company where everyone used their personal tools unless it was something like a jackhammer. I get all my tools stolen and I can no longer work my well paying job as a plumber and support my family. I am back to flipping burgers or someother low paying job until I can afford to buy new tools or until the insurance money comes through so I can replace my tools. We are talking a couple thousand dollars worth of tools and equipment so until they are replaced I am now making far less money while trying to support my family. It is more than just property that a burglar can take, they can take a persons ability to provide for their family.

Slythe · Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 1626 Location: US of A

And who is to say crooks are always there to steal your stuff? I have read and seen on the news on how a single woman was raped in her own home. Or a bitter husband seeking revenge on his ex wife and kids? Or a man in a wheel chair?

Jefferson · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3107

britboy wrote: Well, maybe for devil's advocate reasons and because I'm bored, I thought I'd do an anti-gun post with a few thoughts I've been going through (ducks for cover as the formidable barrage of pro-gunners gets me in their sights!).

Right, here's my argument. My argument concerns home intruders but not psycho drugged up serial killers! Firstly, I would suggest in the main that criminals only use guns when they have to. If I wanted my neighbours plasma screen and was a burgler, I'd wait until they were out, break in, and take it. I wouldn't take a gun. There's no-one in, theres no point, I'm just upping my own sentence if I get caught.

So, when would I take a gun (and risk a needle being put in my arm by the state later). Well, the only time I would bother is if I could only get the plasma TV WHILE they were in the house, AND I thought they might have a gun and be prepared to use it.

If I knew they didn't have a gun there's simply no way I'm risking going from perhaps 6 months in jail for getting caught unarmed, to having a needle in my arm from shooting someone trying to tackle me with a tennis raquet. It's not in my interest.

In the UK burglers generally don't bother being armed, as they presume the home owners arn't so they are committing a more serious crime than they need to, to get your possessions. Besides, it's really difficult (whatever you say) for them to get hold of a gun anyway. The bottom line .. THEY ONLY WANT YOUR BLOODY PLAYSTATION 2! They simply don't want the grief of attacking your family, there is no point .. there is no good end result for the criminal.

So for the best protection, isn't your family safest if the burgler knows you're not armed, so he doesn't have to defend himself against you (potentially) by bringing along a peice?

Go on ... own me !!! ;)

You are TRUSTING that a criminal thinks like a fair, just, and progressive person. Even if they are unarmed, you already gave up. Even if your not home, you gave up. Your whole attitude is already letting have the criminal have thier way. Your whole plan if I read it correctly is to go soft on crime.

Your TRUSTING that a criminal doesn't want to hurt you. How smart is that?

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

britboy wrote: Well, maybe for devil's advocate reasons and because I'm bored, I thought I'd do an anti-gun post with a few thoughts I've been going through (ducks for cover as the formidable barrage of pro-gunners gets me in their sights!).

Right, here's my argument. My argument concerns home intruders but not psycho drugged up serial killers! Firstly, I would suggest in the main that criminals only use guns when they have to. If I wanted my neighbours plasma screen and was a burgler, I'd wait until they were out, break in, and take it. I wouldn't take a gun. There's no-one in, theres no point, I'm just upping my own sentence if I get caught.

So, when would I take a gun (and risk a needle being put in my arm by the state later). Well, the only time I would bother is if I could only get the plasma TV WHILE they were in the house, AND I thought they might have a gun and be prepared to use it.

If I knew they didn't have a gun there's simply no way I'm risking going from perhaps 6 months in jail for getting caught unarmed, to having a needle in my arm from shooting someone trying to tackle me with a tennis raquet. It's not in my interest.

In the UK burglers generally don't bother being armed, as they presume the home owners arn't so they are committing a more serious crime than they need to, to get your possessions. Besides, it's really difficult (whatever you say) for them to get hold of a gun anyway. The bottom line .. THEY ONLY WANT YOUR BLOODY PLAYSTATION 2! They simply don't want the grief of attacking your family, there is no point .. there is no good end result for the criminal.

So for the best protection, isn't your family safest if the burgler knows you're not armed, so he doesn't have to defend himself against you (potentially) by bringing along a peice?

Go on ... own me !!! ;) Laws vary from Country to Country and State to State. Fortunately in some States, such as the one I live in ,they have finally realized that the police can't always protect you from a criminal intent on doing you harm, and have passed laws allowing you to defend yourself and others from bodily harm. Since I can't read minds, I have to assume that a person who enters my home illegally is there to do harm to me and my children. To think otherwise puts our lives in the hands of a person who has just shown a disregard for the law by breaking into my home. Maybe his intention is to only steal my PlayStation and leave. But how do I know? How do I know he hasn't brought a gun along? How do I know he is not there to rape my children? Or my Wife? The fact is, I don't. So I must take what action I can to ensure he can't hurt anyone.

Rubber Traits · Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 91 Location: Memphis, TN

Onevote wrote: Laws vary from Country to Country and State to State. Fortunately in some States, such as the one I live in ,they have finally realized that the police can't always protect you from a criminal intent on doing you harm, and have passed laws allowing you to defend yourself and others from bodily harm. Since I can't read minds, I have to assume that a person who enters my home illegally is there to do harm to me and my children. To think otherwise puts our lives in the hands of a person who has just shown a disregard for the law by breaking into my home. Maybe his intention is to only steal my PlayStation and leave. But how do I know? How do I know he hasn't brought a gun along? How do I know he is not there to rape my children? Or my Wife? The fact is, I don't. So I must take what action I can to ensure he can't hurt anyone.

Agreed. In my state, I believe it's legal to kill any home intruder on site. If I was home with my family and someone was in there that wasn't supposed to be, I'd exercise that right. You can never know what they will do, and hesitation will only allow those acts to happen. Criminals may carry lighter weapons if no responsible citizen carried a gun, but how many people would still rob occupied houses or mug people on the street if nearly everyone was carrying and knew how to use them?

A gun is a tool. In the right hands of educated law-abiding people, it would do only good.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3451 Location: London

Rubber Traits wrote: Onevote wrote: Laws vary from Country to Country and State to State. Fortunately in some States, such as the one I live in ,they have finally realized that the police can't always protect you from a criminal intent on doing you harm, and have passed laws allowing you to defend yourself and others from bodily harm. Since I can't read minds, I have to assume that a person who enters my home illegally is there to do harm to me and my children. To think otherwise puts our lives in the hands of a person who has just shown a disregard for the law by breaking into my home. Maybe his intention is to only steal my PlayStation and leave. But how do I know? How do I know he hasn't brought a gun along? How do I know he is not there to rape my children? Or my Wife? The fact is, I don't. So I must take what action I can to ensure he can't hurt anyone.

Agreed. In my state, I believe it's legal to kill any home intruder on site. If I was home with my family and someone was in there that wasn't supposed to be, I'd exercise that right. You can never know what they will do, and hesitation will only allow those acts to happen. Criminals may carry lighter weapons if no responsible citizen carried a gun, but how many people would still rob occupied houses or mug people on the street if nearly everyone was carrying and knew how to use them?

A gun is a tool. In the right hands of educated law-abiding people, it would do only good.

OK, so you come back from a family picnic, your family are still in the car, and you interrupt a real nervous boy, he must be 13 years old this kid. He noticed you'd accidentally left your back door open so crept in doing a crime of opportunity, to grab your DVD player.

You come into your house and he straight away falls to his knees and starts bawling his eyes out about how is mum is going to kill him and how he's going to be grounded for a month.

It's the middle of the day, you can clearly see he is unarmed at the moment. He's crapping himself and can't stop crying.

At this point, you'd dive up to your room, bring back a Glock, and execute the young kid as he's kneels, crying, in front of you? After all he may have lunged at you?

Wow, that's a fantastic policy you've got going on there ... well thought through ... :roll:

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

britboy wrote: Rubber Traits wrote: Onevote wrote: Laws vary from Country to Country and State to State. Fortunately in some States, such as the one I live in ,they have finally realized that the police can't always protect you from a criminal intent on doing you harm, and have passed laws allowing you to defend yourself and others from bodily harm. Since I can't read minds, I have to assume that a person who enters my home illegally is there to do harm to me and my children. To think otherwise puts our lives in the hands of a person who has just shown a disregard for the law by breaking into my home. Maybe his intention is to only steal my PlayStation and leave. But how do I know? How do I know he hasn't brought a gun along? How do I know he is not there to rape my children? Or my Wife? The fact is, I don't. So I must take what action I can to ensure he can't hurt anyone.

Agreed. In my state, I believe it's legal to kill any home intruder on site. If I was home with my family and someone was in there that wasn't supposed to be, I'd exercise that right. You can never know what they will do, and hesitation will only allow those acts to happen. Criminals may carry lighter weapons if no responsible citizen carried a gun, but how many people would still rob occupied houses or mug people on the street if nearly everyone was carrying and knew how to use them?

A gun is a tool. In the right hands of educated law-abiding people, it would do only good.

OK, so you come back from a family picnic, your family are still in the car, and you interrupt a real nervous boy, he must be 13 years old this kid. He noticed you'd accidentally left your back door open so crept in doing a crime of opportunity, to grab your DVD player.

You come into your house and he straight away falls to his knees and starts bawling his eyes out about how is mum is going to kill him and how he's going to be grounded for a month.

It's the middle of the day, you can clearly see he is unarmed at the moment. He's crapping himself and can't stop crying.

At this point, you'd dive up to your room, bring back a Glock, and execute the young kid as he's kneels, crying, in front of you? After all he may have lunged at you?

Wow, that's a fantastic policy you've got going on there ... well thought through ... :roll:
Now your just being silly, every situation has to be anaylsed seperatley, there can never be a set procedure for dealing with an intruder in your house.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

britboy wrote:
OK, so you come back from a family picnic, your family are still in the car, and you interrupt a real nervous boy, he must be 13 years old this kid. He noticed you'd accidentally left your back door open so crept in doing a crime of opportunity, to grab your DVD player.

You come into your house and he straight away falls to his knees and starts bawling his eyes out about how is mum is going to kill him and how he's going to be grounded for a month.

It's the middle of the day, you can clearly see he is unarmed at the moment. He's crapping himself and can't stop crying.

At this point, you'd dive up to your room, bring back a Glock, and execute the young kid as he's kneels, crying, in front of you? After all he may have lunged at you?

Wow, that's a fantastic policy you've got going on there ... well thought through ... :roll:

that's a little extreme as an example.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3451 Location: London

Hehe yup that is true -- I smiled when I pictured how extreme I could make the fella sound if I just stuck within the text he wrote.

It's a cheap way to debate (by me) -- you have to make certain assumptions with regards to everyone's text rather than warping it out of context ... But had fun thinking it up!!

:P

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

britboy wrote:
OK, so you come back from a family picnic, your family are still in the car, and you interrupt a real nervous boy, he must be 13 years old this kid. He noticed you'd accidentally left your back door open so crept in doing a crime of opportunity, to grab your DVD player.

You come into your house and he straight away falls to his knees and starts bawling his eyes out about how is mum is going to kill him and how he's going to be grounded for a month.

It's the middle of the day, you can clearly see he is unarmed at the moment. He's crapping himself and can't stop crying.

At this point, you'd dive up to your room, bring back a Glock, and execute the young kid as he's kneels, crying, in front of you? After all he may have lunged at you?

Wow, that's a fantastic policy you've got going on there ... well thought through ... :roll:

Legally, I'd be allowed to. I don't think that any gunowner that I know would do so. However, it's common sense to not burgle people's houses for that reason. Also, it's not like there's a rash of burglars being executed in the way you mention. Most legal gun owners are reasonable people. I will admit, I might get out a gun to hold the boy at gunpoint until the police show up. He needs to be charged with burglary and prosecuted. In terms of the crying about being grounded for a month, I'd laugh at him, and tell him that grounding by his mom is the least of his worries. He'd better worry more about what the courts are going to do to him. Burglary is a felony.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

britboy wrote:
OK, so you come back from a family picnic, your family are still in the car, and you interrupt a real nervous boy, he must be 13 years old this kid. He noticed you'd accidentally left your back door open so crept in doing a crime of opportunity, to grab your DVD player.

You come into your house and he straight away falls to his knees and starts bawling his eyes out about how is mum is going to kill him and how he's going to be grounded for a month.

It's the middle of the day, you can clearly see he is unarmed at the moment. He's crapping himself and can't stop crying.

At this point, you'd dive up to your room, bring back a Glock, and execute the young kid as he's kneels, crying, in front of you? After all he may have lunged at you?

Wow, that's a fantastic policy you've got going on there ... well thought through ... :roll:

Use some common sense. Unless you are just cold blooded you are not going to execute anyone. In this situation I would llaugh at the kid crying because he got himself into this. I would keep my family outside where they would be safe even if the kid happened to have a weapon and call the cops to come get the buglar, no matter how old/young they are. I woudl probably get a gun while waiting for the police just to be safe but I no not think that any sane person would shoot such a kid.

Rubber Traits · Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 91 Location: Memphis, TN

britboy wrote: OK, so you come back from a family picnic, your family are still in the car, and you interrupt a real nervous boy, he must be 13 years old this kid. He noticed you'd accidentally left your back door open so crept in doing a crime of opportunity, to grab your DVD player.

You come into your house and he straight away falls to his knees and starts bawling his eyes out about how is mum is going to kill him and how he's going to be grounded for a month.

It's the middle of the day, you can clearly see he is unarmed at the moment. He's crapping himself and can't stop crying.

At this point, you'd dive up to your room, bring back a Glock, and execute the young kid as he's kneels, crying, in front of you? After all he may have lunged at you?

Wow, that's a fantastic policy you've got going on there ... well thought through ... :roll:

Obviously, there is a difference between a crying, clearly unarmed, 13 year old boy and a grown man that may rape or kill your family. If they are clearly unarmed, I would not shoot them, but I would detain them. There are different ways to handle different circumstances, but if I perceive someone to be a clear threat and an intruder, I will do what I can to stop them actually carrying that threat out.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10015

britboy wrote: Well, maybe for devil's advocate reasons and because I'm bored, I thought I'd do an anti-gun post with a few thoughts I've been going through (ducks for cover as the formidable barrage of pro-gunners gets me in their sights!).

Right, here's my argument. My argument concerns home intruders but not psycho drugged up serial killers! Firstly, I would suggest in the main that criminals only use guns when they have to. If I wanted my neighbours plasma screen and was a burgler, I'd wait until they were out, break in, and take it. I wouldn't take a gun. There's no-one in, theres no point, I'm just upping my own sentence if I get caught.

So, when would I take a gun (and risk a needle being put in my arm by the state later). Well, the only time I would bother is if I could only get the plasma TV WHILE they were in the house, AND I thought they might have a gun and be prepared to use it.

If I knew they didn't have a gun there's simply no way I'm risking going from perhaps 6 months in jail for getting caught unarmed, to having a needle in my arm from shooting someone trying to tackle me with a tennis raquet. It's not in my interest.

Firstly, the only way to know for sure that the place being robbed doesn't have a weapon is if you already know them - and not just an aquaintance either.

Secondly, if the intent is to rob an unknown place, where the weapons are an "unknown" - it would probably be skipped by the thief as too big of a risk. The theives who wouldn't skip it, would be the ones who are very willing to carry arms and would not be as risk averse. Most professional theives will not take high risk jobs - there's just too much opportunity - it's the psychotics, drug induced, rapists, serial murderer types who home invade 90 year old grandmothers to rape and kill them - those are the ones you have to watch out for.

britboy wrote: In the UK burglers generally don't bother being armed, as they presume the home owners arn't so they are committing a more serious crime than they need to, to get your possessions. Besides, it's really difficult (whatever you say) for them to get hold of a gun anyway. The bottom line .. THEY ONLY WANT YOUR BLOODY PLAYSTATION 2! They simply don't want the grief of attacking your family, there is no point .. there is no good end result for the criminal.

You generalize about being armed, yet the black market arms are world wide and very profitable and it's as easy in Liverpool, Surrey or anywhere else in England, just like Stockholm, Chicago, Panama, etc. (whatever YOU say). You also generalize about their motives - how do YOU know they don't want to rape granny and kill her? Are you saying that doesn't happen in England? How do you also know what these theives want... the above paragraph is pure speculation with nothing else behind it. It's like saying English theives wear pink tu-tu's, use glitter sprinkles and poop in the sink and only take a few P for their trouble instead of cleaning out a flat. It's BS.

britboy wrote: So for the best protection, isn't your family safest if the burgler knows you're not armed, so he doesn't have to defend himself against you (potentially) by bringing along a peice? In Bitain, certainly. If a lawful homeowner has a gun and get's robbed, the homeowner gets thrown in jail and the robber can sue for even more money. Obviously robbing your neighbors is less of a crime and actually nullifies it since your neighbor had a hunting shotgun and fired it at a robber. Why not just have the police arrive, handcuff the homeowner and give the robber a 2 hour free pass at all he/she can carry from the homeowners flat, which is basically what the Brit's anti-gun and court system provides theives... it's very lucrative to be a burgler, theif, robber in England... quite a good day job and it helps when you can pick out the homes that still have guns so you can get away with it!

britboy wrote: Go on ... own me !!! ;)

I didn't have to... the British laws have already owned every single man, woman and child living on the islands. What's funny and ironic is that the citizens of the U.K. all getting f****d in the ass without even a reach around or some lube, and their happy about it. Stiff upper lip though - stiff upper lip!! You can take it!! :rofl:

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3451 Location: London

Rankor and Pissing wrote:

I didn't have to... the British laws have already owned every single man, woman and child living on the islands. What's funny and ironic is that the citizens of the U.K. all getting f****d in the ass without even a reach around or some lube, and their happy about it. Stiff upper lip though - stiff upper lip!! You can take it!! :rofl:

This post is clearly racism directed against the English. You should be dissapointed in yourself racism is pretty ugly.

Quote:
Forum Rules: Extremist/Racist Posts
Blanket statements condemning an entire demographic will not be tolerated. Threads posted for such reasons will be locked. A blantant post directed at a selected group for faults they cannot help, (I.E. Religious beliefs, Physical, Mental, Color, etc...) will probably result in being banned from the site.

Probably? Or definately?

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

britboy wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote:

I didn't have to... the British laws have already owned every single man, woman and child living on the islands. What's funny and ironic is that the citizens of the U.K. all getting f****d in the ass without even a reach around or some lube, and their happy about it. Stiff upper lip though - stiff upper lip!! You can take it!! :rofl:

This post is clearly racism directed against the English. You should be dissapointed in yourself racism is pretty ugly.

Quote:
Forum Rules: Extremist/Racist Posts
Blanket statements condemning an entire demographic will not be tolerated. Threads posted for such reasons will be locked. A blantant post directed at a selected group for faults they cannot help, (I.E. Religious beliefs, Physical, Mental, Color, etc...) will probably result in being banned from the site.

Probably? Or definately?
Not to mention rather nauseating, I had just eaten...

Rubber Traits · Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 91 Location: Memphis, TN

britboy wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote:

I didn't have to... the British laws have already owned every single man, woman and child living on the islands. What's funny and ironic is that the citizens of the U.K. all getting f****d in the ass without even a reach around or some lube, and their happy about it. Stiff upper lip though - stiff upper lip!! You can take it!! :rofl:

This post is clearly racism directed against the English. You should be dissapointed in yourself racism is pretty ugly.

Quote:
Forum Rules: Extremist/Racist Posts
Blanket statements condemning an entire demographic will not be tolerated. Threads posted for such reasons will be locked. A blantant post directed at a selected group for faults they cannot help, (I.E. Religious beliefs, Physical, Mental, Color, etc...) will probably result in being banned from the site.

Probably? Or definately?

That's not racism, that's criticism of the British government and the reaction of the citizens. He did not even bring in any point of inferiority to another race. Note: You can help your attitude towards the government, and you can vote to change it.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10015

britboy wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote:

I didn't have to... the British laws have already owned every single man, woman and child living on the islands. What's funny and ironic is that the citizens of the U.K. all getting f****d in the ass without even a reach around or some lube, and their happy about it. Stiff upper lip though - stiff upper lip!! You can take it!! :rofl:

This post is clearly racism directed against the English. You should be dissapointed in yourself racism is pretty ugly.

Quote:
Forum Rules: Extremist/Racist Posts
Blanket statements condemning an entire demographic will not be tolerated. Threads posted for such reasons will be locked. A blantant post directed at a selected group for faults they cannot help, (I.E. Religious beliefs, Physical, Mental, Color, etc...) will probably result in being banned from the site.

Probably? Or definately?

That's your rebuttal? :rofl: