Now THAT is a very mature POV. Really needed to be said, thanks JT.

I am a big believer in constitutional rights. However these people that talk about taking on a gov't run amok, for example, are not living in the now.

To readers abroad, the right to bear arms was in fact built in EXPLICITLY for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical gov't. The problem is, when the constitution was drafted, the people and the 'law' had a nice even playing field. There was no advantage on either side, it was musket vs. musket.

That is not at all the case anymore, the people have peashooters (and I don't care if we're talking 50 cal), the military/police have microwave weapons that will melt your skin off, sonic weapons that can make you physically sick, and a huge number of other toys that make any firearm look silly.

If it's home defense you're concerned with, anything bigger than a .38 is just going to make more noise. And anything that requires both hands, rifle or shotty, will be cumbersome and leave you one less hand for throwing heavy objects while you're unloading rounds... and for agility in extreme situations.

I have no love for guns, they are simply tools. This is from someone who knew how to reload .223 rounds at age 9. By the way I'm not bragging, it's hardly what I wanted to be doing while everyone else was outside playing...

I really like what you said there JT, more people would realize how unprepared they were just by doing a simple drill, or break-in simulation. Families have fire drills, no reason to not have a drill for an intruder. You may have the tools, but do you have the actual preparedness?

Adding to what JT said, I would think that most people who have small children in their home keep their guns locked up making it more difficult to access in the middle of the night.
As for american's love of guns, I think it's because the country was founded in the gun era, where the gun was almost a necessity for survival. Even poor people owned guns. Most other cultures started before the gun era.

I love the 870 (I have an Express Super Mag) but the action is too smooth and refined. Chambering a round with the 870 is like politely saying "Excuse me sir, would you mind leaving my home?" whereas a Maverick 88/Mossberg 500 is more like a "GET THE $%^& OUT!" I agree with JT, a shotgun is the best for home defense because it's easier to hit and minimal collateral damage due to over-penetration. 2 3/4 00 buckshot is perfect for personal defense, imagine getting hit by nearly a dozen .38 special or 9mm rounds at once and that's basically what that shell is (my 3.5" 00 buck shells hold 18 :yipi:). If you are not prepared to use it and accept the consequences, don't use it for defense. There have been cases where the person was too afraid of taking a life and the burglar was able to take the weapon from the home owner and used it on them, if you aren't going to pull the trigger don't use it for defense.

A hunting rifle is a great way of taking something down, but that all depends on the range. Since he is a first time gun owner it would be better to learn to shoot on a bolt action (preferably singe shot) because you learn to make your shots count better, with a semi-automatic and a 30 round magazine if you miss you get in the mindset that you can just shoot again. I have a Remington 700 .243 with a 3-9x scope that is very efficient at taking down animals (good for hunting because it is powerful enough to drop the animal but doesn't blow a huge hole in them and waste anything). The action on the 700s is very good and it has been very reliable. I got it out of pawn shop for about $300 so much cheaper than an AR.

Gotta love gun threads, all the foreigners like to come in and act all self-righteous and pretend they know everything. It is a part of our history and culture and will continue to be as long as we value our freedom and safety, get over it!

woow, hold your horses cowboy :) I suppose you are refering to me with "all" foreigners?..(since I am the only non-American who posted in this thread)
But if you would read my post carefully, I was not judging, let alone be "self-righteous"
I actually was trying to understand it. I even thought it had to be something historical that is now part of the "American culture" if it is so deeply rooted.

So who am I to be self-righteous and tell a big nation like the USA what to do, right? :)


ow, maybe a wiser option: having no fire arm in the house in the first place = no risk at all of anybody getting shot...

That wasn't directed at you, but I never understood why people have to troll threads like this. It is part of our culture, it is how we became a nation and it is how we will stay who we are.

If you think that's a wiser option, you should open your eyes....

I've ben reading this thread and trying to stay out but I can no longer keep my mouth shut.

The US is one of the best places to live for many reasons, and yes we have some serious problems but letting home owners own self defense firearms is NOT one of them. Unfortuately these laws make guns accessable on the street for felons gets their hands on also, a chance we take I guess ?

I'd much rather live in a country that allows folks to owns firearms than live in a country that does not and have to defend my homestead and family with a stick or throwing a sheep at a burgler ? Thats Horseshit, I'm gonna blast the the theiving asshole that dares to step foot in MY HOUSE. And inspite of a privious post mentioning some don't have the testicular fortitude to hold a gun on someone or take life. I've done it(He didn't die but is a vegetable), and I'll do it again gladly, My conscious is crystal clear.

why?

okay, I understand that your country was formed under violent speration from the English rule. And that the US expaned to the west also with violence.
So I can understand that violence has been part of the american culture...
However, the US are not the only country that made itself independant by the means of violence, but they one of the most prominent gun-lovers in the world.

That's what I was trying to understand. The whole cultural-historical arugment is becoming less valid.

Anyhow, why do I have to open my eyes if I think that less guns is more safety?
Isn't that logic? Here in Europe the home defence with guns are a vast majority, so are we all blind and stupid here?...



So, you are in favor of private gun ownership, but more regulated and bound to strict (safety) rules (like in Europe) and against easy acces to get any gun for private use?

We have grown quite attached to our rights and freedoms and don't take kindly to them being taken away.

Less guns does not equal less crime, the region of the U.S. where I live (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota) has the loosest gun laws and highest gun ownership per capita in the U.S. yet it is the safest place to live? By your logic there should be murders every day and the whole countryside overrun with panic and chaos but that is not the case. Violent crimes occur all around the world (take Austalia as an example). Criminals don't care about the law, that's why they are criminals, so outlawing guns only takes them out of the hands of the 90+ million law abiding citizens and only assists the criminals. So much easier to be a criminal when your victims cannot defend themselves.

The people are vastly different in the "majority" of the country Unsullied, which is why you see the difference in attitude towards this issue. I dont know how to explain in a short blurb, but think res mentality mixed with 1.5 million self absorbed a-holes.

Indeed, I can open carry down main street here and nobody would care. Try that in Seattle and people would freak out. It isn't the gun that you have to worry about, it won't load itself and go crazy, its the person that I worry about.

i dunno bondonuts....sheep are pretty heavy!! :rofl:
i'm pretty isolated down in tasmania and all our crims are soft :lol: we had like 1 murder in 10 years and everyone was like OMG!! and the case was looked into until last year when they found a rusty machete in my towns river.


not quite...i'm Australian....and i started this argument with a 4 word post :cry: ....(sorry everyone!)
i kinda wanna move to America some day because of some of the unusual sports they have over there (big fan of hovercraft racing).
we got footy and cricket but that's it.

and you have to remember... us foreigners see is a patriotic country with very strong rights! that's prolly far from the truth for all i know.


LETS NOT TURN THIS INTO A FLAME WAR GUYS!!

we are better than that :wink::smile:

Me too. And throwing a sheep isn't as bad as some countries do:whistle:

I have to clarify some, I said I have no love for guns, not that I don't have or use them. I just don't kiss them goodnight like a lot of non-Americans might think. And Bondo I don't think JT's post was directed at anyone here, and neither was mine.

Having to fire shots is an unenviable position to be in, and would surely change most people's outlook on the matter. Shooting for sport is great, hunting, as well as defense. I think what JT was saying (and don't mean to put words in your mouth) was that there is a generation or two now that grew up in the 'thug' culture. And these are the ones that have a Glock just so they could be badass or gangsta... whatever. I also know there's very young kids who ARE taught properly. The point here is the fact that you own a gun does not immediately demand my respect for you. Again, not directed at anyone. This is an argument where no matter what 'side' you choose, you will be attacked by someone.

Maybe I'm one of the few 'open minded' Americans who can actually see both sides, and also see how it would look to an Aussie or a Belgian. It's not the guns, it is the attitude that comes with it for some people. Defense is fine, it's when people go on the offense with it, and I think we can all agree the crims are the offenders. I often wondered what the hell I would use instead of a gun, might be fun to tase the shit out of someone. But really there isn't much else...

I still find it amazing that coppers in Britain don't carry, every bit as baffling as we must seem to them. I don't think any less of other cultures for being non-gun societies. But I think I'd only wanna visit, not stay.

Bondo I've shot pretty much every Ruger there is, lots of match rifles, SKS's,
and I was pretty good for a short while, then just pretty much lost interest in it. I actually know the #1 guy in the nation currently, he can do 1000+ yds with open sights, Fcking unreal.

I ain't got it no more.. :lol:

"i kinda wanna move to America some day because of some of the unusual sports they have over there (big fan of hovercraft racing"

Alright, I need to clear this up once and for all. We do NOT all have hovercrafts in our garages, we do not take our hovercraft to Hover-Mart and do our shopping with hover carts.

:angel:

Really tho, are you serious?

That's the oddest thing I may have ever heard... I did not realize Aussies think that's big over here!?

Unless NASCAR actually makes the leap into the 20th century and does something like that, I don't see it.......

Wow, alot here to digest, here we go.

I like FN products, especially when they were partnered with John Browning (The Master) and produced alot of his designs. Currently I have a few fn guns and a few browning as well, plus I have alot of licensed built copies of fn/browning firearms. Not much better product to be had.

I am a collector and an informal target shooter. No hunting, and I mainly like to see all of the crazy and inventive mechanical actions available. Plus guns always go up in value, so they are a good solid investment.

I guess they just do not understand that there are alot of guns floating around this country, and it is easy for a criminal to arm themselves to commit a crime. A gun is a tool, but it is a powerful tool. I will say that is you look at the statistics, violent crime goes up massively when a country disarms its citizens... Just look at AU and the UK... The numbers are out there, and you would be surprised. I am not talking about just murders, but violent crime.

Someone once said an armed society is a polite society. Makes sense, you do not start carp with people if you think they are armed, especially if you are not. A gun is a great equalizer. A 90lb woman can defend herself against a 250lb rapist very well with a 38 snubbie, not as good with her hands (unless she happens to be some sort of black belt ninja chic). A gun is a tool, and it should be kept off people who will use it incorrectly. People who go to work and pay their taxes are not those people, yet they are the people who follow the laws, not the criminals. So gun laws are by and large a waste of time. I have guns cause I can ,and for defense, and cause I just like collecting them.

Until someone comes into your house with a gun, then you are a bit lacking, and potentially dead...

If there were no guns we would be clubbing each other with sticks like we did in the good old days. Then the advantage would go to the person who was the strongest and quickest. You cannot change human nature. We get mad, we attack each other, we covert thy neighbors ass (hahahaha) and that is just how it is. Civilized society has no place for any item that can be used as a weapon. Pity that civilized society is only skin deep...

Maybe you do not have as much "scum" where you are than we do here in the US. I can definitely see a direct corolation (sp?) to IQ amount and lower violent crime. It may be hard for you to understand, but that is how it is over hear. I would not drive my car in some parts of New Orleans, and if I did my 9mm would be on my lap, my doors would be locked and I would think twice at stopping at red lights, especially at night.

When you find yourself in a gunfight with a cricket bat, you will come to the realization that you are at a huge disadvantage. The cricket bat extends your reach a few feet, most handguns are quite accurate to 50 feet with the worst shot behind the trigger. I can hit a coke can 100% of the time at 75 feet with my 40cal, and can usually follow it in the air shooting from the hip...

well it's a lot bigger over there than it is here:lol:...granted it's prolly only a select few who actually do it anyway...hence why i referred to it as unusual.
same case here...no not EVERYONE owns sheep and wrestles crocs. that was like 3 guys who happened to get famous. sheep are good for the lazy person who dosent wanna mow the lawns though like us:lol:
heck...we have NOTHING here in comparison!!
lol...nascar..."oh look...another left hand tuuurrrrnnnnn" jk

if that's right, than Americans are stupid?...:lol: that is what you are saying ;)

Sorry to admit, but a large majority are pretty F-in Dumb or just lack a healthy dose of common sense. These are the folks whom add to our rep for the violence and crazy shiz you read in the news.

no need to apologize bro!
As far as I can tell from the postings, you guys on the board do not seem te be like any of the gun nuts that show up in a Michael Moore or Louis Theroux docu :)

+ at least you have a sensible president now! And that is something to be proud of!;)

I think the jury is definitely still out on this one....we may be applying to your gov't for financial aid in the next few years.

I'd agree with Linc's IQ statement. Getting a "piece" is a status symbol among some of our minority communities.

come again?...how come?

I must say to him, respect + a job very very well done in having the courage to actually implement health care for every single US citizen! :yipi:
Health care is for the general public and so it is only normal that the general public finances that kind of system.

So I welcome you to the club of countries with a public health care system, at last ;)

I have a feeling the jury will never be "in"...

And yes, having a "gat" is a status symbol, especially to the various scum...

What you say is very true, however the US lacks the needed laws to keep this sort of thing fair to the people paying in (ie me). Too many people on welfare, illegal immigrants and also too many people who do not take care of themselves (smokers, fat bastards, drug addicts, etc). Not sure if i am interested paying for health care for people that I do not think are worth the air they breathe. I am a small business owner and the burden of paying for all of this crap falls on me and my peers. The health care system does need reform, but the proposed health care system does not benefit people like me, yet I am expected to cough up for it. Not really fair.

I can only imagine that you do not have the quantity of free loading scum in your country that we do... Maybe I should move there! But it sounds like I would have to finance the move by selling my gun collection... Catch 22 there!

I must admit that what you say is also true, also here in Europe we are oposed to people who are abusing 'the system', of course.
Escpecially when I am talking about our unemployment benefit system. But talking about health care, everybody (in our eyes) has the right to be threated in a hospital and have medical help with the least expense.
In our system you do not even have to be national resident, every foreigner can just go or walk into a hospital and have the best medical care at no cost, if that person is in need of medical health care.
No papers no nothing.

We have our principles and for us Social Welfare is crucial in society, a society and system build on 1 think solidarity.
In fact social welfare is almost holy (and public health care is the most important elements of that social welfare).

We have put all cons and pro next to each other and in the end, the whole community is better of with a system that is build on "solidarity"
Its not like the government just decided one day to have such a system, no, the whole system (pension, unemplyoment, health, etc) came from private initiative begin 20th century late 19th century. And it has grown, and since the world wars our goverments have realized that they had to end all this injustice on these many areas, so they began to take initiatives and in time it all went government controlled organisations.
So another example of something that has grown historically and still works on till today.

Let me also say that there are very small majorities in european states that would like to build down the system (not completely, tha tis not accepted here), but let's say, these people are not so popular. Mostely ultra libiral parties (you could compare them with the Republican party)

I can imagine however that in a society like in the States where it is and always has been "each and everyone for his own", more individual minded (some would call it more selfish) it is hard to accept principles like solidarity.
But what I find worring in the States is that the so called Healt Care organisation and companies that should be involved with the health and wellbeing of the people, that they are only after money and profit and that Healthcare is subsidiary...It is no secret that the insurance companies in the States are/were based on profit, wich is criminal in the eyes of people who live in a social social welfare state...

Can you accept the fact that you have to pay a bunch of money for a small but needed operation, medicine etc etc etc.
In the English system for example you only pay 1 pond for any medicine you need, no matter what it is, if you have a proscription from the docter and you need a certain medicin or whatever you just pay 1 pound, no matter the product you need, no matter what your disease. That is because we think our health is so vital that no expense should be taken to secure our health...and that kind of thinking can only be subsidiated by a system were EVERYBODY makes a small contribution.
The idea of paying a lot of money for medicine, how small or big they may be, is just absurd in our eyes.


So you see, not all things controlled by the goverment have to be evil or communist, that is the misperception too many Americans have about a Welfare system, just look at Europe, are we communists? are we that poor? I didn't think so :)
And Obama knows this and wants to change things, wants to end that kind of injustice, but somehow, there are (pretty plenty) americans who think that any kind of social program or goverment regulation is a form of communism for god sake! :surprised:
It is not only a change of system, but for many Americans a change of minds and opinions. That is his hardest task as president I think...changing a way of living that has been going on since the late 18th century.

Personally, I think health care is the best idea and system modern society has every invented!
And believe me if I tell you, Obama ain't no communist nor are his ideas ;)



ps: there are also political parties (the far right, some extremists some not so) that are making a program out of people (mostly foreigners, being muslims in the first place) who profit from our social welfare state (unemployment benefit, etc etc)
True for some of those people, but certainly not all of them.
So, also here we have issues :)

Keep in mind that the socialist views of the rest of the world is generally being paid for by America, as we have the largest amount of disposable income (maybe cause all of us selfish people are paying for our own health care) we have. We are the biggest "buyer" in the world... Just ask China (see how they are getting more capitalist), they know how to sell us stuff. Also take a look at how the UK was affected by the economic meltdown in the US... When we stop buying everyone else has to cough...

Nothing against socialism (well I do but that is just me) but when I go to a socialist country like the UK (where I am from) I can see the weight of the gov't pressing on the people and the general lack of money. Just my observation.

I am personally also somebody that is not in favour for the one or the other.
My ideological preference is social oriented yess, but a general socialist run country is not ideal imo, for reasons you hint at.

A bit of socialism mixed with some libiral views, combining the best of 2 ideoligies is the best thing, I think. However that can sound a bit contradictory :)
(In belgium we had for about 10 years such a government: libirals + lefties (+ green) )


okay, simply said the biggest economic power and (so far) no social welfare to match all that power..that is disturbing.
So, if I were an American with "european" vision, I would be thrilled by Obama's plans...:)

Ow and the main problem is the lack of government controll in the banking system in the US that caused the economic crisis with worldwide consequences.
US banks gave to much and to high credits to too many people who couldn't pay back their credits, that was the cause that started the whole thing.

All banks had assets and loans in other banks: US - European - Asian banks all connected to one another in some way.
It got bad in the US and the rest of the world had to pay the consequenses.

It was Reagan who had deregulated the control over the banks, and it is Obama again who is planning to put the banking world bank under strict controll.
Even in Europe, wich is already strictly controlled by the govermententities, they are going towards stricter regulations.


hmm, isn't that almost a stereotipical narrowminded vision of the American tourist going outside his borders and making a arrogant remark?
That sounds like you actual believe that the UK has only poor people DUE to the social system that sucks out all the money and that the US is a country from wich the citizens only have benefits DUE to the lack of a system like in the UK?

please, how many people are in deep shit because of lack of a descent wellfare system?...
it doesn't take a degree in politics to see that the system in america causes a lot of dramatic situations. How many Americans don't have a healt care insurance? 30 million, or more?
And of the ones that do have one, wich of those insurance companies does actually help you out the way it should be I wonder :)


Like I already said, you guys have a history of "absolute freedom in every level" and introducing a system wich is based on solidarity and basically means 'to give money for the greater cause' is not something that will be accepted overnight.

PS: comparing the economic might of the UK with that of the US is not very wise since the UK is many times smaller and has 5 times less inhabitants...
If you would compare the US with the European Union, wich is a Economical Union (a collection of well organized social wellfare states vs the US) that is more like it.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
So, is our system that bad? or are some of you really that arrogant to deny the facts?

Being British it would be hard to stereotype me as a narrow minded American.

Also, people move to the US for a reason. I cannot imagine it is because they are 100% happy with their socialistic home country...

My father moved from the UK to the US in the 80s, and he will tell you that it is better here. More opportunity to succeed, grow, and prosper.

You may also want to keep in mind that in the UK more than half of the population is employed by the gov't in some way. So the other half get to pay for it (17% VAT is a good start). Big gov't does not do anyone any good, save for the people in power, and who ever they favor.

Also you mention that the UK has 5 times less people, but it is also the size of florida. So there is alot more people per land unit than the US. Not sure what you are getting at with this...

Also, what is the problem with people just paying for what they want? Maybe 30million americans do not have health insurance, but how many of those want to pay for it? Maybe they chose not to pay for ins and just pay when they needed it? Should we nationalize whores too? That way I can go and wait in line for that all day? Pay as you go is a good idea for alot of things, and for people who go to the doctor every 5 years it is way cheaper to pay when you need it.

Base point is that i do not want to pay for other people. Period. People on welfare are not doing anything positive, and if they ceased to exist tomorrow all we would have would be more space and money. Same thing with everything the gov't gets their greedy mitts into. Nothing is done correctly by the gov't (which seems to have an average IQ of 75) and that is why the bulk of us narrow minded republicans do not want the gov't in health care. They will just f it up like everything else they do. And big gov't equals big taxes. Pretty simple to understand that, the more people that are working for the gov't, the more you have to pay, thus the taxes have to go up. Hard to refute that.

Here in the US, mainly thanks to a bunch of pussies, we are catering to the least common denominator. Schools pander to dumb kids, the dumbest people get the most help, and the intelligent people are crucified whenever we point this out. But we are still expected to pay for a bunch of people who do not deserve to be here. We are focused on minorities of all types, instead of doing things that will most benefit the majority of us. Everyone wants something free, and that is all this democratic health care is, another handout to people who refuse to get a real job and step in line with the rest of us.

I will say that it seems a bit arrogant of you to somehow understand how the american society needs this health care without having any experience about how american society works... I am glad socialism is working for your country, and hope that it continues to do that. I can say that it will not work here, for many reasons.

I have some very good friends from Belgium that have lived here for the past 10 years that would strongly disagree with you Riko.

In fact he commented that when his wife got breast cancer about 6 years ago how much better our system was and how much quicker and more efficiently she was taken care of than her mother back in Belgium who suffered Breast Cancer under socialized medicine.

More intrensic to me however would really be food, the most basic neceesity to live and undoubtly more so than healthcare. People have lived for many thousands of years without healthcare but no one will last more than a few weeks without sustinence. Maybe everyone should get free food from the government?

Next before healthcare would be shelter, easily the second most important need behind food. Maybe everyone should be entitled to a free house?

The list goes on........

On to the subject at hand, Linc I am with you in the Belgium made Brownings. My dad has 6 which are shared with my brother and I. 1-270, 2 30-06's, 1-243,a 20 gauge and a 12 gauge. The are awesome guns!

for home defense i recommend a .22 semi automatic handgun. its light nimble and will get the point across. i keep one in my nightstand with bird shot in it. not enough to kill someone but sure will put the sting on especially to the face, after one shot however its real bullets so they better be on their way out by then.

DOH!....I read this and wondered "didn't I say my Browning was from Belgium?" A quick check, and I see I said Savage (must of been thinking about my Flux or something...). Thanks Tex and Linc for pointing out my................well, you can come up with the term.

:rofl:

Thanks, I needed that laugh!

A .22 might piss off a determined intruder...bird shot would mildly irritate them. I shot a clay pigeon with a 9mm bird shot round and it didn't even break the clay, and that's more powerful than a .22. .22s are great for learning to shoot, plinking, and small varmint but for home defense you need something more substantial. Shotguns truly are the best because they are easier to aim (due to the spread of shot), powerful, but don't over-penetrate like a handgun or rifle. They are readily available and depending on where you live you should be able to get one with a short barrel and pistol grip, which makes it small enough to be usable. 2 3/4" 00 buckshot is very effective, easy to get, and won't kick hard enough that you would need a full stock.

man, poor old Obama has a lot of mess to clean up!
poor guy, what a time to get precedent.

hmm...double barrel shotgun, first round is blank/birdshot, next one is real?

wow, I am sorry to hear that....

But I must say you can't generalize that for the whole system + that situation is really not representive, very strange indeed.
There must be more than that going on...

Ow and LOL, thousands of years ago, there weren't that many people living on this planet, and thousands of years ago the diseases were different than today.
Compare now with thousands of years ago is...kinda a desperate argument if you ask me.

Anyhow, I am sorry to hear that from your Belgian friends about the breast cancer situation.


yep, he sure does!
He has the most ungreatful job at the moment + his timing is also very bad to become president.

Financial and economic crisis + the war on terror started by his cowboy predecessor + wanting to drastically change some fundamental things in the US (healtcare being the most obvious one) I hope some the majority of the Americans will reelect him again for another 4 years, but I fear not...

Isn't that called a miss.:tongue:

I would argue that the timing was perfect. If Bush hadn"t funked things up so badly I don't think Obama gets elected.

I wasn't talking about the moment of his election...(that came perfectly since bush...well you said it)

but I am talking about the years to come and the mess he is facing now

Riko, after reading your posts I can tell you were looking for a chance to call us dumb Americans, and start an argument. You posted it must be an historical thing twice trying to get a rise from some one. Auto 5 light 12 Thanks for the shot gun belgium, and I decline your thanks riko! This thread was'nt to bash the US.What is a troll again?

Not when there are pellet holes in the pigeon :tongue:

Rnemhrd, to avoid misunderstanding and flaming in what is still a civil discussion, I want to say that I am not searching or waiting for certain reactions of Amercians so that I can pick at them....this is not the case, okay?
I hope you can believe that, because if I was searching for a pick or a laugh, than I would already be calling you a dumb american since you are giving me the chance with your reply, you are actually the one starting an argument...
But I am not doing that now, it was a good and civil discussion about, health care, politics, and visions. So lets stay adults in this and prove that you can be too.

About my posts, I know what I was saying at first, and at certain times somebody said something that I thought I had to react, and it turned out into a interesting discussion with mutual respect.

So again, pls don't let this be the beginning of a flaming or a "you vs me" or a "US vs all the rest" -discussion, because than I will ignore it, it's not worth it.
And maybe you got some kind of impression of me (wrongly) because I seem the be the only non US member to discuss here :) besides the Australian member :)

And why that provoking rhetorical question? are you trying to start a flaming with that troll thing? just don't...because you are kinda confirming what you are judging me of = a chance to call me dumb non-American (or troll), and start an argument :angel:

I agree with you on the mess, but I believed that a black man was not getting elected president in this country any time soon, short of what happened in the previous administration. I think that knowing what he now knows, if he had the choice of being president in this mess or not being president at all, he would choose president (as would most people who would run for that office).

:lol: