SarniaSaint Posted 13 March, 2015 Share Posted 13 March, 2015 Still waiting for a reply SOGGY and Pap Smear .........Cat got your tongue???? or just brain overload:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 14 March, 2015 Share Posted 14 March, 2015 Yes ...........and I aint a sandwich ........... No, but reading this thread through belatedly, I can see that you're a sandwich short of a picnic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 14 March, 2015 Share Posted 14 March, 2015 Still waiting for a reply SOGGY and Pap Smear .........Cat got your tongue???? or just brain overload:) Aw, Sarnia. It's nothing personal, mate. I was just enjoying seeing Hamilton pull you up on us "no-nothing" types. btw, the photo I posted the other day was an attempt at humour. There are posters that I definitely enjoy "getting" when they deserve it, but alas, your brand of dull-bladed whatabouttery doesn't mandate any bloodletting on my part. You're turning the knife on yourself with most of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 March, 2015 Share Posted 14 March, 2015 I loved that pic btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 14 March, 2015 Share Posted 14 March, 2015 I loved that pic btw It was from a Telegraph slideshow on some of the most insane stock photos in existence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/11462072/What-where-they-thinking-17-utterly-baffling-stock-pictures.html Fill yer boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 14 March, 2015 Share Posted 14 March, 2015 Cheers. Signal in and out as on train so will look later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 14 March, 2015 Share Posted 14 March, 2015 No, but reading this thread through belatedly, I can see that you're a sandwich short of a picnic. LOL ........never heard that one before.........maybe you ain't the sharpest tool in the shed!! ......know (spelling) you think you are ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 Aw, Sarnia. It's nothing personal, mate. I was just enjoying seeing Hamilton pull you up on us "no-nothing" types. btw, the photo I posted the other day was an attempt at humour. There are posters that I definitely enjoy "getting" when they deserve it, but alas, your brand of dull-bladed whatabouttery doesn't mandate any bloodletting on my part. You're turning the knife on yourself with most of your posts. OMG .......with every reply you (yeah you pap) just show how the british mind set is today............and if you think in your pea sized brain that I am turning the knife on myself..........LOL LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 LOL ........never heard that one before.........maybe you ain't the sharpest tool in the shed!! ......know (spelling) you think you are ....... At least I'm sharp enough to realise that America's gun laws should have been repealed years ago. Here are some other choices for you to choose from, most of which could apply to those members of the American Gun lobby. http://dan.hersam.com/lists/not_bright.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 At least I'm sharp enough to realise that America's gun laws should have been repealed years ago. Here are some other choices for you to choose from, most of which could apply to those members of the American Gun lobby. http://dan.hersam.com/lists/not_bright.html Whatever you say its part of the constitution...........now I know that there are no rights or written constitution in the UK you just do what the government tells you as subjects of the crown............so what is your point?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 Whatever you say its part of the constitution...........now I know that there are no rights or written constitution in the UK you just do what the government tells you as subjects of the crown............so what is your point?? The constitution is not some set of magic unchangeable rules that transcends the human existence. It was written by actual people with viewpoints and ideas. And it's been changed numerous times since it was first drafted. 27 times. And guess what - the right to bear arms was the second amendment. Which means it wasn't even in the original drafting. There's nothing that stops the constitution from being changed again. The argument of "it's in the constitution so it can never be changed" is plain dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 That was telling you who he was OK.............and he was not lying on the ground unarmed......... was trying to get the officers gun..........what part of that don't you understand or refuse to understand??? The last sentence in your reply is..........well........... just shows how clueless you are HTH Sorry it has taken a while to respond, I have been busy boring people on the Clarkson thread. I will need to look at the clip again but to me it looked like he was shot whilst lying on the ground. I also believe I saw the guy surrounded by well trained (I assume) officers. One homeless guy. Is it so hard to deal with one guy who is probably not in the best condition without shooting him 5 times? Please don't patronise me. I am not stupid but I cant see how the only was to deal with the guy was to fill him full of holes. He was unarmed wasn't he? Do I understand that correctly? As for the last sentence, it was a joke. You have jokes in America, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 Whatever you say its part of the constitution...........now I know that there are no rights or written constitution in the UK you just do what the government tells you as subjects of the crown............so what is your point?? Did you not see my point? It was that it should have been repealed decades ago, as it archaic. The Second Amendment was passed in 1791 and says:- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Perhaps they ought to take that as verbatim and only allow people to bear arms if they are members of a recognised militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 The constitution is not some set of magic unchangeable rules that transcends the human existence. It was written by actual people with viewpoints and ideas. And it's been changed numerous times since it was first drafted. 27 times. And guess what - the right to bear arms was the second amendment. Which means it wasn't even in the original drafting. There's nothing that stops the constitution from being changed again. The argument of "it's in the constitution so it can never be changed" is plain dumb. Hence the term "amendment." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 Did you not see my point? It was that it should have been repealed decades ago, as it archaic. The Second Amendment was passed in 1791 and says:- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Perhaps they ought to take that as verbatim and only allow people to bear arms if they are members of a recognised militia. You rolled all that into one there is the national guard (first bit about the militia) and the second bit which allows the people to keep and bear arms..........HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 Whatever you say its part of the constitution The constitution is v important. That's why the 8th amendment is there, to prevent the govt strapping people to a chair and then either electrocute them to death or inject them with a substance that paralyses them then systematically shuts down every organ in their body. Or y'know Guantanamo. Thank god for the constitution protecting the citizens of the US from "cruel or unusual punishment". now I know that there are no rights or written constitution in the UK you just do what the government tells you as subjects of the crown http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 Hence the term "amendment." I know there is no written constitution in the UK except that you are all subjects (LOL) of whoever is on the throne......maybe that's why you all have difficulty understanding how the rest of the world lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/12/1363996/-Pasco-Washington-police-have-killed-more-people-than-police-in-Germany-the-UK-combined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 I know there is no written constitution in the UK except that you are all subjects (LOL) of whoever is on the throne......maybe that's why you all have difficulty understanding how the rest of the world lives As a Canadian you are a subject of the Queen too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 As a Canadian you are a subject of the Queen too. Uh no...........she maybe head of state but we have our own constitution and no Canadian is a subject of the queen......HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 And if you are really interested the head of state in Canada means nothing ............could be one of the Muppets of Bart Simpson!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 And if you are really interested the head of state in Canada means nothing ............could be one of the Muppets of Bart Simpson!! So that's the same as the Queen then. Do you even follow football? Sorry "soccerball." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 So that's the same as the Queen then. Do you even follow football? Sorry "soccerball." Yeah saw the game on TV ................just to tell you the queen don't have no say in Canada and don't own the country .........sorry if that don't agree with what you believe HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 15 March, 2015 Share Posted 15 March, 2015 You rolled all that into one there is the national guard (first bit about the militia) and the second bit which allows the people to keep and bear arms..........HTH I'm pretty sure that I quoted it verbatim. You might have chosen to interpret it that the sentence comprises two parts, but I read it that the ordinary citizens should have the right to bear arms in case they were required to join the local militia if the need arose to protect a free state. I think that you'll find that the National Guard came much later. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 16 March, 2015 Share Posted 16 March, 2015 (edited) I'm pretty sure that I quoted it verbatim. You might have chosen to interpret it that the sentence comprises two parts, but I read it that the ordinary citizens should have the right to bear arms in case they were required to join the local militia if the need arose to protect a free state. I think that you'll find that the National Guard came much later. HTH OK you have your opinion and I have mine............just read this.........https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment or this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment Edited 16 March, 2015 by SarniaSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 16 March, 2015 Share Posted 16 March, 2015 OK you have your opinion and I have mine............just read this.........https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment or this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment I have read both of those and the background for the framing of the Second Amendment was naturally consistent with the historical background of the time, when any healthy young male would have joined the local militia to fight to protect their local community against attack by American Indians or European aggressors. Of course it was desirable at that time that weapons of defence were readily available to repel attacks which could come at any time. That much I knew already from my history lessons at school. However, it would be insane to argue that those same historical circumstances exist today and the main reason why there is this insistence by the gun lobby that citizens have the right to bear arms, has far more to do with self-defence against others having guns and prepared to use them aggresively for criminal purposes. Also the use of guns is glorified by Hollywood as a macho thing by films like Death Wish, Rambo, Dirty Harry, etc and is so ingrained into the American psyche and the gun lobby is so powerful, that it will take many more innocent children to be slaughtered in their classrooms before the clamour to change the law will take hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 It's actually pretty laughable that the second amendment is so poorly written as to be ambiguous and still argued over today - to the extent that even the Supreme Court could barely agree on what it means (5-4 decision is hardly overwhelming). And yet the constitution is held up as some kind of magic perfect document, despite being over 200 years old, and to even consider changing it would be an affront to the American Way . Lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 It's actually pretty laughable that the second amendment is so poorly written as to be ambiguous and still argued over today - to the extent that even the Supreme Court could barely agree on what it means (5-4 decision is hardly overwhelming). . There are many things I love about the states but their attitude to gun law and the courts are not one of them. Supreme Court judges are political appointments and their decisions frequently / usually divide along party lines. I find that breathtaking. My American boss (Quaker, Harvard educated) finds it impossible to believe that British judges are independent and routinely overrule the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 It's actually pretty laughable that the second amendment is so poorly written as to be ambiguous and still argued over today - to the extent that even the Supreme Court could barely agree on what it means (5-4 decision is hardly overwhelming). And yet the constitution is held up as some kind of magic perfect document, despite being over 200 years old, and to even consider changing it would be an affront to the American Way . Lunacy. An even bigger lunacy is having no written constitution......which means that who ever is in power can do what they want so no rights for citizens..........supported by some hereditary power that is straight out of the middle ages........ Hey if you're happy with your lot well OK ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 There are many things I love about the states but their attitude to gun law and the courts are not one of them. Supreme Court judges are political appointments and their decisions frequently / usually divide along party lines. I find that breathtaking. My American boss (Quaker, Harvard educated) finds it impossible to believe that British judges are independent and routinely overrule the government. Independent???? and they really overturn your government ..............pork pie time!!!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 I have read both of those and the background for the framing of the Second Amendment was naturally consistent with the historical background of the time, when any healthy young male would have joined the local militia to fight to protect their local community against attack by American Indians or European aggressors. Of course it was desirable at that time that weapons of defence were readily available to repel attacks which could come at any time. That much I knew already from my history lessons at school. However, it would be insane to argue that those same historical circumstances exist today and the main reason why there is this insistence by the gun lobby that citizens have the right to bear arms, has far more to do with self-defence against others having guns and prepared to use them aggresively for criminal purposes. Also the use of guns is glorified by Hollywood as a macho thing by films like Death Wish, Rambo, Dirty Harry, etc and is so ingrained into the American psyche and the gun lobby is so powerful, that it will take many more innocent children to be slaughtered in their classrooms before the clamour to change the law will take hold. OK do you believe in the right to defend yourself ?..............I do and would in a heart beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 An even bigger lunacy is having no written constitution......which means that who ever is in power can do what they want so no rights for citizens..........supported by some hereditary power that is straight out of the middle ages........ Hey if you're happy with your lot well OK ......... Yeah sure, because several hundred years of mature legal framework and case law are totally worthless unless you have some kind of quasi-religious 10 commandments style document as a start point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 OK do you believe in the right to defend yourself ?..............I do and would in a heart beat. Top trolling. Although it's now very boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 Yeah sure, because several hundred years of mature legal framework and case law are totally worthless unless you have some kind of quasi-religious 10 commandments style document as a start point. That is how the American constitution was framed ............remember they were all Brits who got ffffd by the British Crown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 (edited) Top trolling. Although it's now very boring. Not trolling is a genuine question.....OK if you're bored don't make a comment...........guess I hit a nerve !!!! Edited 17 March, 2015 by SarniaSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 Not trolling is a genuine question.....OK if you're bored don't make a comment...........guess I hit a nerve !!!! Getting on people's nerves, yes. Hitting nerves with the "defend myself" argument for the 17th time on this thread? I'm saying no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 17 March, 2015 Share Posted 17 March, 2015 Getting on people's nerves, yes. Hitting nerves with the "defend myself" argument for the 17th time on this thread? I'm saying no. WOW so you would not defend yourself........... can't believe it all animals defend themselves ...........hey never realized it was 17 times LOL thank you and may your police protect you........but don't hold your breath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 WOW so you would not defend yourself........... can't believe it all animals defend themselves ...........hey never realized it was 17 times LOL thank you and may your police protect you........but don't hold your breath As long as they don't shoot him multiple times when unarmed and on the floor eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 WOW so you would not defend yourself........... can't believe it all animals defend themselves ...........hey never realized it was 17 times LOL thank you and may your police protect you........but don't hold your breath That's nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 I love it how Sarnia is literally singlehandedly keeping this thread going, and everyone keeps responding in an increasingly tired, but non complaining fashion, even though every possible point that could be made, has been made to death. Respect Sarnia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 Independent???? and they really overturn your government ..............pork pie time!!!! LOL He didn't say overturn, did he? Do try to read and comprehend simple English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 OK do you believe in the right to defend yourself ?..............I do and would in a heart beat. I'm sure you would. Somebody would punch you in the face (probably because you deserved a slap) and to get even, you'd probably get out your heaviest duty semi-automatic assault rifle and fill him full of holes. Such is self-defence in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 I love it how Sarnia is literally singlehandedly keeping this thread going, and everyone keeps responding in an increasingly tired, but non complaining fashion, even though every possible point that could be made, has been made to death. Respect Sarnia. Remember the dude in Wayne's World that used to say "I love you, man!"? If the recipient said "I love you too", it could go on for ages. Wayne and Garth would quickly advise people to say "thank you", the only known code word to end the exchange. Perhaps Sarnia's input is a bit like that bloke. All we have to do is say "nah, actually, there isn't a problem with America. You were right all along, Sarns, me ol' fruit and nut". And then it's over.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 Remember the dude in Wayne's World that used to say "I love you, man!"? If the recipient said "I love you too", it could go on for ages. Wayne and Garth would quickly advise people to say "thank you", the only known code word to end the exchange. Perhaps Sarnia's input is a bit like that bloke. All we have to do is say "nah, actually, there isn't a problem with America. You were right all along, Sarns, me ol' fruit and nut". And then it's over.... Yes, it's exactly that!! But I don't want it to end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 I love it how Sarnia is literally singlehandedly keeping this thread going, and everyone keeps responding in an increasingly tired, but non complaining fashion, even though every possible point that could be made, has been made to death. Respect Sarnia. As I said, top trolling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 Yes, it's exactly that!! But I don't want it to end! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 I know there is no written constitution in the UK except that you are all subjects of whoever is on the throne......maybe that's why you all have difficulty understanding how the rest of the world lives You do realise that the Monarch is a figurehead, who effectively sits on the throne because Parliament wishes it. The Queen has 'powers' but cannot exercise any of them independently. As a republican, I'm a British citizen but "subject" to nobody. My only interaction with the Monarch is to handover their head in return for goods purchased or to lick the back of it to indicate postage has been paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 You do realise that the Monarch is a figurehead, who effectively sits on the throne because Parliament wishes it. The Queen has 'powers' but cannot exercise any of them independently. As a republican, I'm a British citizen but "subject" to nobody. My only interaction with the Monarch is to handover their head in return for goods purchased or to lick the back of it to indicate postage has been paid. I used to think this. These days, hearing reports of vetoes, etc, I am not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 In the spirit of scientific investigation, why don't we take it in turns to reply to Sarnia so that we can then learn just how long he is prepared to keep this going? I'm betting it will be a matter of years. You never know, we could write a article entitled 'Internet Forum Psychosis' on our findings, submit it to the Journal of Physiological Research for publication, and then become fabulously wealthy on the earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 March, 2015 Share Posted 18 March, 2015 These days, hearing reports of vetoes, etc, I am not so sure. The Royal veto is only, ( and very rarely ), exercised on the advice of ministers, so whose vested interests do you think such act would be serving ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now