atinymonkey

craps

Well, dinosaurs still existed past the point of the last fossil records. That voids your point somewhat. The term 'extinction of the dinosaurs' is not really true, they did not all just die out. It's a quick and dirty term for the end of the dinosaurs era as the dominant species and the rise of mammals. If that's your only argument, Atlantic is still presenting the most logical point of view. I presume your not a paleontologist, hence the lack of trust.

Yes, yes and what????

It was auctioned off on Ebay. I got outbid.

That's the point. You can stop producing landmines and sign the treaty. It's simple. You can't guarantee the use of mines will result in purely military casualtys. Mine are indiscriminate, shouting 'But I'm innocent' won't stop the death and so on.

Surely you mean the first step to the loss of freedom would be to amend the constitution? The right to bear arms not being in the constitution, but an amendment too it? Does it not seem a little odd to you that you think it’s fine to mess with the constitution, but to reverse amendments would be the loss of freedom? I was under the impression that the right to bear arms was the only amendment that had not been itself been amended. You don't believe in other countrys? But where would you go on holiday? Honestly, we arn't country bashing. It's policy bashing.

Why, old chap, it means the bounders can ignore your witticisms on the grounds that you mentioned the Hun. What what, eh? Poor show, old bean. Not keeping your end up, letting Jonnie Foreigner in on our elucidating discussion. Damn poor show.

Really? How do you plan to evolve yourself? I'd recommend radioactive milkshakes.

No problem. Welcome to the forum

It's less funny if you have to explain it:- http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Really? I heard success went to his head and his latest work is stongly influenced, and diminished, by his existentialist girlfriend.

Gregor Mendle

This thread just goes back to the old comparison of the United States and the Roman empire. The basic values that become elastic over time, and the ethos gets lost somewhere along with the ammendments.

Composition? Vivaldi’s barouche concerto for violin in D minor. That or George Gershwin’s rhapsody in blue. Damn right

: Drum roll: Top 5:- The Undertones, Teenage Kicks The Clash, London Calling Massive Attack, Protection Carleen Anderson, Nervous Breakdown Portishead, Glory Box Although Nina Simone, Radiohead, The Beatles, Counting Crows and Tracy Chapman were all close contenders.

Which you don't.

Well, the clans name is simple. They are part of the forces that Hadrian built a wall to defend from, so appear in quite a few documents. The scottish have quite a few skirmishes which the clan appears in so they can be traced back quite far. My mothers side were landowners, prior to the Norman invasion, so have deeds of ownership up until the civil war. From that point onwards it's tracable through public records. Just tracing the name is easy, tracing the actual ancestors is tricky.

It's not want I think, it's what the UK law is. That fact I train and taught sword work would point towards me not being adverse to sword ownership. Please read the full post before replying. FYI Miyamoto Musashi defeted one of the greatest swordsman in Japan with just a wooden sword. People are dangerous enough without a live blade, or a firearm. Hence my position with guns. I think that if I came toe to toe with an assailant armed with a gun, it's going to be messy however I'm armed. I trust the police to protect me from such severe threats. I suppose that's a personal decision. Perhaps that's the root of the differing opinions.

No, that's on the first page. It's a reference to the length of the Torah, with was relevent to the discussion even in it's flippant format.

Mine's a clan name, another way to get a name. Some surnames are the name of the region of origin, quite a few are local dialect (Welsh, Celt, Saxon) for the area of birth in a literal way (like 'by the river', or 'From the South'). Just for info, I can trace the family name my mothers side to around 900ad and my dad's back to the last Roman occupation of Britain. Records get a bit pointless past that point.

Oooh, feisty.

To hate tea?

That's interesting. The US can't seem to make a system that identifies allied equipment to prevent blue on blue mishaps. I wonder how they will manage to do that with landmines, if a tank is a bit tricky?

Just to clarify the law in the UK at least, you require a licence to carry a sword (and in must be in a carry case) in any pubic area. The licence is provided for practitioners of a sport that requires a sword (Fencing or Martial Arts). Private ownership is allowed, but it must be kept on the property. The only exception is for parades or religious occasions, and the weapon must be sheathed at all times. Much to everybody’s delight after my anti gun stance, I do have a licence to own and carry swords and other related paraphernalia for the purposes of training and instructing in sport. However I’ve never bought a sword with a live blade, as short of a display piece I really have no use for one. I do have a wooden sword for practice and, in all honesty, home defence.

I said the right to bear arms, not to own guns. Name one western country that give's the general population the right to bear arms. Back up what you say, tell me one country other than US/Canada. I can actually name one other country that has that right. Go find out which one it is. You mean Baron de Montesquieu, who after living in the England for two years used his observations as the basis for his philosophies. He died trying to formulize and extol the English model in 1755 (540 years after the English instigated the system he championed). Try not to undermine the principles and ideologys of the long dead, it's not good karma. Drinking tea does not alter the system of government. You are quoting assumptions and irrelevancies. The Magna Carta (1215) was signed to create the first parliamentary system. The system of government and law in American is the British model, that is indisputable. Trial by jury predates even that, and the judicial system is a result of the feudal system of law in the UK. Go read a history book. You obviously have not been taught history, economics or politics to an adequate degree to hold discussions on them. I'm trying hard to keep it simple, but there is only so much I can explain without lecturing you. I'm sorry if it appears patronizing, but you need to know the subject and not just have random opinions. Nobody's having a go at America, honestly. We are just commenting on what we see as faulty logic. We don't agree with the one ammendment to the constitution of America, that's all. Yup, most democratic countries are copied from the English model. America more so than others (see my privious reply and the one above). It's one of the reasons we are allies, the countries work in the same way at the same speed with the same pressure from the public and so on. When it comes to bureaucracy, we rule the world. We do still have a queen, but the monarchy is a figurehead that has held no power for centuries. Think of the Queen being the public relations person for Britain. It' a bit more established and impressive than a government bureaucrat who's only in power for 3 or so years. We quite a traditional country you see, and can't drop tradtions like the monarchy. It would be like sending in an auditor to Camalot to get rid of King Arthur and the round table, it's just not going to be supported.