Why do you americans have such faggoty gun laws?

[Adam]

(I could be convinced that the faggot British cops are not the problem, however. It is the notion within the citizenry of being owed a specific lifestyle by a monarchy that must be shot to death)

[TheoK]

Ive no problem with removing the monarchy. Killing them seems a bit extreme though.

At this point in time I agree. During the French Revolution it was the right thing to do. A Tale Of Two Cities is a beautiful story, The Scarlett Pimpernel is wannabe faggotry. He should not have been shun ting the guilty out of France. 

If anyone deserves getting killed today it's not the kings and queens but corrupt and power-abusing politicians. Monarchs in Europe today are only figureheads.

But you would have been right there for the French Revolution right?

 

[P7PSP]

That's the spirit! 

['Butterflies']

(I could be convinced that the faggot British cops are not the problem, however. It is the notion within the citizenry of being owed a specific lifestyle by a monarchy that must be shot to death)

I'm not sure what he means by that. Perhaps he'll see fit to tell us

[Adam]

maybe we're just too dumb to understand

['Butterflies']

We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.

I really think it would be better for DD to be more prepared to back up his words. I would certainly have more respect for him, and I think it might help some of the people who don't really get him, to understand him a bit better.

[TheoK]

I think he means that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, since we have monarchies or have been used to have monarchies for about a 1000 years or so. I think he's partly right, even if that's not the only reason for the twisted view on guns etc that many or most Europeans have.

['Butterflies']

I think he means that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, since we have monarchies or have been used to have monarchies for about a 1000 years or so. I think he's partly right, even if that's not the only reason for the twisted view on guns etc that many or most Europeans have.

But our monarchy doesn't do anything. I don't think anybody believes that the monarchy owes us any lifestyle.

[Osensitive1]

I think he means that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, since we have monarchies or have been used to have monarchies for about a 1000 years or so. I think he's partly right, even if that's not the only reason for the twisted view on guns etc that many or most Europeans have.

Read it as a personal assessment of British citizens who live off the state but want to do away with their government, though could have misread.

[Scrapheap]

Ive no problem with removing the monarchy. Killing them seems a bit extreme though.

At this point in time I agree. During the French Revolution it was the right thing to do. A Tale Of Two Cities is a beautiful story, The Scarlett Pimpernel is wannabe faggotry. He should not have been shun ting the guilty out of France. 

If anyone deserves getting killed today it's not the kings and queens but corrupt and power-abusing politicians. Monarchs in Europe today are only figureheads.

But you would have been right there for the French Revolution right?

 

Fuck the French Revolution, lets have a second American one!!!       

['Butterflies']

I think he means that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, since we have monarchies or have been used to have monarchies for about a 1000 years or so. I think he's partly right, even if that's not the only reason for the twisted view on guns etc that many or most Europeans have.

Read it as a personal assessment of British citizens who live off the state but want to do away with their government, though could have misread.

You and Lits ideas are totally sound, and could well be right. I just think that if someone posts something they should be prepared to back up their words. Only the OP knows what he really meant, but he seems to have a problem with backing up his words on any topic. It's a policy I believe in trying to stick to. Even if that means coming out and admitting I'm wrong, or that I can't back up what I've said.

[P7PSP]

Ive no problem with removing the monarchy. Killing them seems a bit extreme though.

At this point in time I agree. During the French Revolution it was the right thing to do. A Tale Of Two Cities is a beautiful story, The Scarlett Pimpernel is wannabe faggotry. He should not have been shun ting the guilty out of France. 

If anyone deserves getting killed today it's not the kings and queens but corrupt and power-abusing politicians. Monarchs in Europe today are only figureheads.

But you would have been right there for the French Revolution right?

 

Fuck the French Revolution, lets have a second American one!!!       

Good judges don't grow on trees, they have to be put there by someone who cares. 

[Osensitive1]

You and Lits ideas are totally sound, and could well be right. I just think that if someone posts something they should be prepared to back up their words. Only the OP knows what he really meant, but he seems to have a problem with backing up his words on any topic. It's a policy I believe in trying to stick to. Even if that means coming out and admitting I'm wrong, or that I can't back up what I've said.

Reads like an opinion though, and some opinions can't be backed up. Don't mind if Dirt is hard to understand.

['Butterflies']

You and Lits ideas are totally sound, and could well be right. I just think that if someone posts something they should be prepared to back up their words. Only the OP knows what he really meant, but he seems to have a problem with backing up his words on any topic. It's a policy I believe in trying to stick to. Even if that means coming out and admitting I'm wrong, or that I can't back up what I've said.

Reads like an opinion though, and some opinions can't be backed up. Don't mind if Dirt is hard to understand.

I don't mind if he's hard to understand. I think it would be cool if he would make some effort to explain some of the stuff he says though. You, and Lit who both appear very smart people both seem to have different ideas of what he meant. I initially took it to mean something else.

It does seem to be a common theme in his posting style . He says stuff that is not very clear, and then refuses to clarify, or expand on it even though he's asked. I think it's a shame because I'm sure he has plenty of very good points to make.

[Osensitive1]

You seemed to be saying he should feel required to back up his words, when what you really want is clarification; just saying he might not feel required to clarify.