quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Just googled that one. Wow, have so many sites leapt on it like hungry hyenas!

The Telegraph is a broadsheet paper read by generally elderly conservatives. (Av. age 61, apparently.) And there was no 'No, we don't want guns back' option to tick. Still, that shouldn't put off lots of American gunsters zipping off to the site to tick the 'Yes! Guns are yummy!' box ASAP.

Since when do conservative views and those of the elderly not count in your society?

K.

See, it is on the net but they find an excuse to dismiss it since it doesn't fit the narrative.

You surely aren't suggesting that the survey results are representative of the UK population as whole are you? I mean no one is that stupid, are they ....? It would come as a great surprise to discover that the results of the survey are even representative of the Telegraph's UK readers.

Outside of the US, gun 'rights' are a fringe interest and usually of no interest to the broad mass of the population. That is certainly the case here in Australia, where gun enthusiasts regularly gather about 1% of the vote. That's about as fringe as you can get without disappearing altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


~ FR ~

Here's an interesting find. On May 24, 2013, the UK Telegraph ran a "new law competition".

Telegraph new law competition: vote now

Last week, as Westminster discussed Private Members Bills, we asked you to provide MPs with some inspiration . . . The readers of telegraph.co.uk/politics did not disappoint, and provided us with a raft of ideas. These are the six that caught our eye. Now, it is over to you - vote below for the Bill you'd like to see debated in the Commons.

There have been a total of 31,333 votes recorded to date, a stunningly huge sample, and here are the results:



K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He didn't say they didn't count in his society. He was giving his opinion so you should ask why they don't count to him.

I didn't say it and nor did I imply. And I'm fairly confident that Kirata realises this.

Perhaps you two should just take this little gem of a pretend-affront to the 'Perpetually Offended' thread?

quote:

He then tried to imply that the voters had not choice because there wasn't a no guns option.

No, actually I succeeded in implying it. It wasn't hard to find that there wasn't a 'No, I don't want guns back' because, unsurprisingly, I was quite keen to tick such a box.

quote:

Now I have no clue why he would think they needed a new bill to talk about a existing law but perhaps he will come back and explain that one. He also implied that there was no way of knowing if the votes even came from the UK which is a valid point but gets lost among the other bullshit.

Yup. The votes could have come from any old windbag conservative gunster from America. (I understand that the Telegraph Online is quite popular with such types your side of the pond.) As for 'a new bill to talk about a existing law' ... I don't know what that means. You'll have to rephrase it.

The notion that lots of us, never mind a majority of us, want guns back here in the UK is *massively* counterintuitive. Which Brits - righties, lefties - here on CM's boards do you think would support this? The most I've ever seen is some guarded support for repealing the strict measures taken after Dunblane.

We don't want a gun situation like you have in the USA. It's a fantasy.

There are no conservative Brits on here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Let me say this out loud and very very succinctly.

There are no conservative Americans out here, not a one. There are people who hallucinate cretinous conspiracies, lies, propaganda without regard to reality and they call themselves that, but they are not conservatives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Now you are out and out lying you arsehole. Not only did you quote my words, at least the start and finish of my post, but you linked to it. You also said "Guess who that would be"....... Not much of a guess if you then pointed people straight to it you tosser.

What is obvious is that you went to the length of doing a search to prove a point and all you proved was fuck all about fuck all.

Well I'll admit that I'm playing a little fast and loose with you. It was a quote, of course, but I didn't put it in a quote box to identify the speaker, or claim that "Politesub53 said this." Yes it was you, but I didn't want to give away the secret up front. After all, who would have guessed?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Just googled that one. Wow, have so many sites leapt on it like hungry hyenas!

The Telegraph is a broadsheet paper read by generally elderly conservatives. (Av. age 61, apparently.) And there was no 'No, we don't want guns back' option to tick. Still, that shouldn't put off lots of American gunsters zipping off to the site to tick the 'Yes! Guns are yummy!' box ASAP.

Since when do conservative views and those of the elderly not count in your society?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There are no conservative Brits on here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I went n voted twice!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

If he did, he is as fucking stupid as you. I clearly said I dont see it as draconian which is hardly the same as calling it draconian, is it brains.

Nevertheless, you're the one who felt it appropriate to inject the adjective "draconian" in that context. Nobody else had suggested such a thing. Apparently you just felt the need to deny it anyway. Funny, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

And if you are going to me, do it in full or explain you have snipped a large chunk from my post, even if you did link to it. Your action kind of alters how it reads.

Quote you? Where? I didn't use the quote function, or even quotation marks, and I didn't identify the speaker in either edit of the post. I just reproduced some text, with an explicit ellipsis to show that I had skipped some intervening content. Should I have explained what an ellipsis means?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

once cos im english, the second because Im in canada.......the choices were deep....and obviously hugely serious to the life and times of the english people, it broke my heart that spitting wasnt higher on the list

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

once cos im english, the second because Im in canada.......the choices were deep....and obviously hugely serious to the life and times of the english people, it broke my heart that spitting wasnt higher on the list

I cant find one mention of it in any mainstream UK media outlet.

Not to worry though, because as a good conservative i have just voted to repeal the firearms laws to please Kirata.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

He didn't say they didn't count in his society. He was giving his opinion so you should ask why they don't count to him.

I didn't say it and nor did I imply. And I'm fairly confident that Kirata realises this.

Perhaps you two should just take this little gem of a pretend-affront to the 'Perpetually Offended' thread?

You didn't? Wow, perhaps that's why I said You didn't. ya think?

quote:

He then tried to imply that the voters had not choice because there wasn't a no guns option.

No, actually I succeeded in implying it. It wasn't hard to find that there wasn't a 'No, I don't want guns back' because, unsurprisingly, I was quite keen to tick such a box.

Why would you need to introduce a bill to ban hand guns if they are already banned? Don't you folks have enough shit to work on without redoing your own laws. Now I understand that you were really keen to tick such a box but it seems like a real waste of time from over here. They asked what you wanted to see discussed in the commons, and that makes it sound like they are looking for real issues.

quote:

Now I have no clue why he would think they needed a new bill to talk about a existing law but perhaps he will come back and explain that one. He also implied that there was no way of knowing if the votes even came from the UK which is a valid point but gets lost among the other bullshit.

Yup. The votes could have come from any old windbag conservative gunster from America. (I understand that the Telegraph Online is quite popular with such types your side of the pond.) As for 'a new bill to talk about a existing law' ... I don't know what that means. You'll have to rephrase it.

The notion that lots of us, never mind a majority of us, want guns back here in the UK is *massively* counterintuitive. Which Brits - righties, lefties - here on CM's boards do you think would support this? The most I've ever seen is some guarded support for repealing the strict measures taken after Dunblane.

We don't want a gun situation like you have in the USA. It's a fantasy.

Honestly I don't care if you have guns over there or not. What ever makes you happy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

No big shock that you accept an unscientific poll as some sort of fact Kirata.

You're making shit up again. I just said I thought it was interesting. The hidden clue to this can be found in the phrase, "here's an interesting find." The poll made no pretense of being scientific. It didn't screen for IP addresses from outside the UK, and didn't block multiple votes from the same address. Nevertheless, over 11,000 votes were tallied in the first five days. Somehow I doubt that they all came from Americans and people casting multiple votes.

K.

quote:

original Thishereboi

Why would you need to introduce a bill to ban hand guns if they are already banned? Don't you folks have enough shit to work on without redoing your own laws. Now I understand that you were really keen to tick such a box but it seems like a real waste of time from over here. They asked what you wanted to see discussed in the commons, and that makes it sound like they are looking for real issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

original Thishereboi

Why would you need to introduce a bill to ban hand guns if they are already banned? Don't you folks have enough shit to work on without redoing your own laws. Now I understand that you were really keen to tick such a box but it seems like a real waste of time from over here. They asked what you wanted to see discussed in the commons, and that makes it sound like they are looking for real issues.

See my previous post. This wasnt asked of all people, just those who read the telegraph. It isnt news here now and wasnt news back when the suggestions were asked for. All Brits and most Americans understand this, all except those of you who say you dont care but just have to make a snidey comment as you think this shit means we somehow wish to own firearms.