Thanks jack. Sometimes i feel like an idiot because i see responses to things I've said that are far more intelligent than the things ive said. That being said, maybe I'm just a pessimist. Personally, i hate the way technology is reshaping the world and the social structures that we've all seen change. Mine was the last generation to play in the street, remember when boys played street hockey while the girls played barbies in the yard? Now i watch my neice have friends over and they sit inside playing video games and texting each other while they're in the same room! Sigh. Guess I'm just getting old.

This makes very interesting reading and I am learning a lot...im from england so I dont know any of this stuff and im now hooked to hear more....sorry to interrupt...please, do continue.

Not the NWO!!! I would hate to see the union dissolve into a fragmented bunch of confedarate states. We tried that and the central government was too weak. What happens to interstate commerce disputes? What happens to unbalanced aquifer usage when the aquifer resides in 2 or more states? What happens if South Carolina gets invaded? Does Texas help? What if South Carolina chooses not to maintain an army, should we have to defend them? No, I prefer the Republic! The Russians tried it, and there country splintered apart. The only problem in America is voter apathy. The NWO is a fantasy. The second biggest issue facing us is a self imposed isolation from a dissenting voice. People don't read or watch news that they disagree with. Instead they seek news that validates their belief. I will paste a link that is excellent and enlightening. It explains how Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc... customize our information flow to our personal preference. For example, I work with some very conservative people. They talk about the President and his policies as if he is some usurper. The fact is that the President won the popular and electoral college vote. The majority of Americans THAT VOTED wanted him not the other guy. So here, check out this link about how we are brainwashing ourselves.
www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

I experimented during the election cycle. My FB page was getting blown up by ads from Romney and Obama. I "liked" both of them, no more adds. The filter did not know what to do. It was interesting.[/quote]

---

TX, you are a thoughtful and wise human being...we need more like ya, buddy! Now, can you fix my speeding ticket???

...and kudos for knowing about Ted.com. Folks, if you want to expand your knowledge, start watching these presentations. They can make you mad as hell, optimistic, pessimistic, dumbfounded, but I guarantee you will be better informed. Amazing stuff! (maybe not as much fun as YouTube, but a hell of a lot more informative!)

You say about the.country being split into union states? We are having the problem but in reverse and its causing a problem...people dont like massive change as it messes up what they are used to...basically they want england to become part of europe.officially....this means a change in all law and even a change in currency. ..some would benefit and some wouldn't. I can kinda relate as we aelre all used to our areas laws etc and if that all went face down in the mud then what would we do? Wow things arent really all tha different or am I totally missing something?

I'm right there with ya HD. I'm a simple redneck trucker having these discussions with professional writers like Wig, and although I'm not sure, I'm going to guess that Beatea is possibly an attorney. It makes the little midget running around in my head scream sometimes.

Beatea, the best answer I'm able to give you until I get some more sleep (how's that for a copout??? ) is that even with all of the problems, these rules have served us pretty well for our 237 (yea I know they were post 1776, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now) years of existence. In many ways, we have outlived our life expectancy as a nation anyway, but here we are.

I guess my point in laymans terms is that if your ceiling fan is broken, don't knock down the whole house and dig up the foundation to try to fix it. What we have works very well. It has served us well. Some problems have taken longer than others to address, but for the most part they eventually have been addressed. Some things that should have been obvious took over a century, but it happened without rewriting the rule book. I believe that so many of our current problems are a result of us trying to reinvent the wheel, rather than use the perfectly good one that we have been given. The rules work if everyone obeys them. And so on...

Ok. I'm cliche'd out for now.

Isnt it true that sometimes like technology...someone comes along and says "ive got an idea" and everyone says wow and ten years later you cannot fathom how you lived without it? Maybe a reconstruct would achieve it? - of course it could go horrifically wrong and screw up everything but if we dont take risks we never move forward? But then in risk there is danger? I made my own argument both ways there....make of it whatever you want...I want to see everyones ideas.

Jacklpe wrote: I'm right there with ya HD. I'm a simple redneck trucker having these discussions with professional writers like Wig, and although I'm not sure, I'm going to guess that Beatea is possibly an attorney. It makes the little midget running around in my head scream sometimes.

Beatea, the best answer I'm able to give you until I get some more sleep (how's that for a copout??? ) is that even with all of the problems, these rules have served us pretty well for our 237 (yea I know they were post 1776, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now) years of existence. In many ways, we have outlived our life expectancy as a nation anyway, but here we are.

I guess my point in layman a terms is that if your ceiling fan is broken, don't knock down the whole house and dig up the foundation to try to fix it. What we have works very well. It has served us well. Some problems have taken longer than others to address, but for the most part they eventually have been addressed. Some things that should have been obvious took over a century, but it happened without rewriting the rule book. I believe that so many of our current problems are a result of us trying to reinvent the wheel, rather than use the perfectly good one that we have been given. The rules work if everyone obeys them. And so on...

Ok. I'm cliche'd out for now.

Jack, your midget is doing just fine...and no, I'm not an attorney: HOW DARE YOU!

To play with your ceiling fan analogy a little, for the most part I'd agree with you. I guess the question becomes, if you're sitting down in Florida baking in the humidity and your ceiling fan is working just fine and there's no better alternative except personal servants chasing you around with hand fans, then there's not much reason to change. If it breaks, just fix the fan, don't tear down the house.

But if the neighbor comes in and installs air conditioning that suddenly makes their life a lot more livable and/or enjoyable its not about fixing the fan anymore. Now, some die hards will, and did, obstinately stick to their ceiling fans. But more and more folks came in and wanted that newfangled air-conditioning thingy. For all those long-time Florida residents that thought those asshole snowbirds just couldn't hack it, they could still think that, but when they wanted to sell their homestead to those dumb Yankees at exhorbitant prices, the ceiling fan went out and the AC came in. Now, that didn't mean the fan no longer worked, just that the AC worked "better" and was more popular. The wheel wasn't re-invented, the whole system changed. [...and it is not for nothing there is the phrase that the New South would never have existed without the Carrier corporation...)

Sticking to that analogy, at some point I'm sure there will come a newer idea/technology that brings a shift to our air-conditioning addiction. We went from window units, to central cooling, to stand-alone units, to non-cfc units, and on-and-on. Who knows, someday, we may all just wear our AC units 24/7. That damn fan still works, but no-one pays much attention...

Those are my cliché's for the day...

Bernard my friend you are an educated.fellow...great argument and I believe there is no argument against your take on it? Davy - thoughts?

onsekone wrote:

woospy wrote:

onsekone wrote:

woospy wrote:

onsekone wrote: I have to dissagree about rule 5. I don't know any other phenomenon that has affected to our culture and civilization more than religion.

I totally agree with rule 5.
But it is of no importance as i will not participate.!

Good luck !

Ps : apologies to anybody i hurt

More seriously than in my precedent post i read about this man (Pope François, not pictured) that he regularly escape incognito from Vatican to meet people living in the street. As some can see even in "Socialist Europe" as i have read in the precedent thread we have people living in the street. He is certainly a very courageous man, as personnaly i am now living in the countryside as i do not want to see anymore people lying in the street. Just i pay my taxes so i am not competitive. Perhaps here in France we will eat all we have then we will disappear as a great country, but untill we will have something to eat, we will share food and medecine.

Onsekone wrote :
We're cool. Did you know Jorge Mario Bergoglio used to work as porter of night club in Buenos Aires? Quite a career development.

madtothebone1 wrote: You say about the.country being split into union states? We are having the problem but in reverse and its causing a problem...people dont like massive change as it messes up what they are used to...basically they want england to become part of europe.officially....this means a change in all law and even a change in currency. ..some would benefit and some wouldn't. I can kinda relate as we aelre all used to our areas laws etc and if that all went face down in the mud then what would we do? Wow things arent really all tha different or am I totally missing something?

Good questions, Antknee. The EU situation is very different from what we are faced with. By and large American states are pretty consistent in culture, language, etc. They were a political subdivision that provided for more local governing by the people that was more locally representative.

By contrast, the EU is a collection of "states" with separate and distinct histories, cultures, language, currency, and so on. If anything, it is probable best as an economic union so all could benefit and cooperate to mutual advantage. But as far as governance, its gotta be a tough go....

Jacklpe wrote: I'm right there with ya HD. I'm a simple redneck trucker having these discussions with professional writers like Wig, and although I'm not sure, I'm going to guess that Beatea is possibly an attorney. It makes the little midget running around in my head scream sometimes.

Beatea, the best answer I'm able to give you until I get some more sleep (how's that for a copout??? ) is that even with all of the problems, these rules have served us pretty well for our 237 (yea I know they were post 1776, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now) years of existence. In many ways, we have outlived our life expectancy as a nation anyway, but here we are.

I guess my point in laymans terms is that if your ceiling fan is broken, don't knock down the whole house and dig up the foundation to try to fix it. What we have works very well. It has served us well. Some problems have taken longer than others to address, but for the most part they eventually have been addressed. Some things that should have been obvious took over a century, but it happened without rewriting the rule book. I believe that so many of our current problems are a result of us trying to reinvent the wheel, rather than use the perfectly good one that we have been given. The rules work if everyone obeys them. And so on...

Ok. I'm cliche'd out for now.

You have a midget in your head? Mine's an angry soulless drunken ginger dwarf lol, but seriously. Its hard to be optimistic about the future when everything appears to be crumbling. Case in point: a few years ago a survey was done to grade america's infrastructure. Know what grade we got? A D. Why? Bc the things that were broken were just patched instead of replaced. Patches only work for a limited time until they either wear out or are properly repaired. Politically, it seems to me we're taking the same patch it approach. We saw what that did to the infrastructure, can we really allow that to happen politically?

Ok Bernard..a lawyer? Such lack of imagination davy....I would be most probaby wrong but il take a stab in the dark and guess...a university lecturer, probably at professor level?

Hello guys, i see my name was mentioned a couple of times, not sure why but I think they wanted my thoughts. I've kept my thoughts out of this because i sorta got carried away on that one thread. I've felt pretty bad about that let me tell you. I'm impressed about the civil discussion that is going on so I will share some thoughts.

First i believe in our constitution as it stands, no changes. The problem as I see it is the politicians and I'm talking about both parties. The most important thing to our politicians is based upon keeping them in power whereas the most important thing should be what is best for the United States of America. They put their parties interest over the interest of the USA.

I also believe highly in capitalism. It's large companies that provide jobs from the top executive down to the janitor. It's the large companies that provide stocks and bonds for the American people to grow financially with. Without large companies it would not be possible for the small business to be created and successful. Capitalism is by far the most successful form of structure in history.
But once again this great way of life has been tainted by greedy executives taking large bonuses and basically doing what is best for them to get rich and powerful instead of doing what is right for the employees and the shareholders which gives capitalism a negative image, understandably so.

Imagine what life would be like if we had folks in leadership in both private industry and government that were honestly trying to do what is right for the USA and the world.

Last thing is that I believe in way less government. Privatize many areas of the government and you would probably save a fortune.

Beatea. I like your Carrier = New South analogy. I'm gonna save that and use it later.

But, even when you install an a/c, you keep the same house. You just improve on what was already there. No need to tear it down and start over.

Oooohh.. New cliche that'll make my point!!! Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

BT, at the risk of taking the fan and a/c analogy way too far... it's great if the a/c really is forward progress, with no unintentional consequences (or consequences that are worth the gain). But if the a/c is exhausting on a neighbor's house and melting their siding, or if it sucks in birds by the flock, or if it winds up filling trash dumps with humungous piles of a/c waste, then it's possibly one step forward and two steps backward. But how would we know?

We SHOULD be able to discern forward progress from neutral or backward progress simply by our analysis. However, in cases of arguments over constitution adjustments, we might be fueled by citizens, but ultimately the decisions lie in government. And government, despite its multiple do-good roles, in recent decades has shown that it is ill equipped to make such decisions for the good of country. Money, power, and politics rule, and twist righteous objectives into "survival of the party", whichever party is hosting. My confidence in government to do the right thing is only high when coincidences align political power struggles with righteousness struggles.

And even when that happens, it becomes un-aligned easily, at which point politics wins. And we lose. Basically, with the extreme proliferation of manipulated media and a voting public that can't tell the difference, I have lost faith in our centralized government to make decisions around important foundational issues.

Manfred

Jack, don't be putting words in my mouth...nowhere do I suggest the house should be torn down to switch to A/C.

I'd carry the "tearing down" part of your analogy to something like the Civil War. That's an extreme where residents of the house simply can't decide which cooling method to use and wind up in a fatal argument.

Mr. M, not sure I understand your extension of the analogy to the negative externalities of air conditioning as it concerns neighbors, passing birds, or landfills. But, if I read it right, you're suggesting we should think our choices between fans, A/C, a swimming pool, or nothing at all through more thoroughly before we make the final choice.

If that's the case, I'd agree with you generally, but these things tend to come up in a historical context. Henry Ford dreamed up mass production of cars so they'd be more affordable to the "everyman", but the auto industry never had the foresight to see the need for more efficient energy consumption and conversion, seat belts, air bags, crush zones, cruise control, etc. Similarly, they never built the costs of all the damage smokestack industries pump into the public air and water and the related problems. It would be nice if these things evolved in a way that we did forecast all the possible good and bad effects of our choices, but I can't think of any good examples for when that has happened...in the private or the public sector. Who knows, maybe Google will ultimately be the cause of WW III.

And you are right. In our and other systems, politics tend to rule. In the best sense, that's because it was a preferable alternative to forced choice or war. In the worst sense, the public that elects these folks fail in their oversight and let the hidden motives of money and power determine the choices that are made. But this is hardly a new phenomenon. The railroad barons of the mid-1800's bought and sold politicians by the bucketful so they could expand their lines on any public or private property they chose. The bad choices of our financial industries, aided by loose regulation and greed, have pretty much been accountable for all of our economic catastrophes.

On the one hand you have folks who bless the founders for a system that is forced to take time before decisions are made. On the other, there are folks clamoring for change they feel is essential to correct any of a number of perceived "wrongs." Somewhere in the middle we have an imperfect system that is trying to make decisions for more than 300 million people. Come on, put two people in a room and they probably won't agree on the time of day!

So yep, I agree with the frustration and anger. I have my ideas about what government should and should not do, and I am sure that there's a healthy percentage of Americans who don't agree with me. I'm also sure there's many who do. That's where the representative democracy part comes in. And yep, it ain't perfect. Remember the old phrase: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." (all credit to Alan Sherman...) More often than not, we get the camel when we want the horse, but it probably shouldn't be that surprising when 300 million folks are trying to voice their preferences.

And sure, we all have our particular visions of what's right or wrong, efficient or inefficient, fair or unfair, moral or immoral, godly or ungodly. I am sure each of us would find it pretty easy to provide a laundry list of criteria for a perfect system. The problem with that in the real world is that each of us has a different vision. Politics is the means by which we can aim for some of the goals we can reach common agreement on. The alternative is exactly what we escaped with our Revolutionary War - Only Kings, Tyrants, Dictators, Emperors can impose their "perfect vision". I prefer our way of doing things, thank you very much.

Didn't want to quote everyone. BT posed a topic that many struggle with in terms of changing the interpretation of the Constitution. The Founders were deliberately vague. They designed a skeleton on purpose. They wanted the government to remain flexible. Nothing in the Constitution is inviolate because very little is defined.

Example 1: Article II states: The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. There is a big problem with this, the term "natural born citizen" is never really defined. Not to start up a bunch of birthers, but the country could possibly elect someone who might not qualify in 2016. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother. The founders most likely intended to prevent a foreign national from immigrating and claiming the presidency. They would probably be fine with a man born and raised as an American for his entire life. John McCain was born in Panama on a naval base.

Example 2: The 2nd Amendment 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. Our society has seen fit to prohibit a felon, a person convicted of family violence, or a person involuntarily hospitalized in a psychiatric facility from owning a gun. On its face, these prohibitions are uncosntitutional. The government is infringing on a citizens right to own a weapon. I think we can agree that these people for the good of all have forfeited this right. Why cannot I protect my house with a claymore mine? They are easy to use, clearly labelled "this side towards enemy." I would feel more secure with strategically placed claymores. If I own a ranch, I might need a fuel air bomb to protect such a large land area. An Apache helicopter with cluster munitions would really come in handy too. My rights to these arms are clearly being infringed.

Example 3: The 4th Amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment was written when formal law enforcement was scattered at best. This amendment basically says the police cannot enter your home except by consent or with a warrant. By the letter of the law, I could look in the window of a house and see a grown man sexually assaulting a 3 year old and not be allowed to intervene until I had warrant. Of course this is ridiculous, I am allowed by law to break in the door and shoot the suspect to death ( American police shoot to stop the threat, and killing the person is usually the easiest way to stop the threat) to prevent further injury to the child immediately after observing the act.

We use case law and judiciary interpretation to put the flesh on the skeleton of the Constitution. It is brilliant. The Framers never had to imagine the internet, local police forces, citizens born on foreign military posts that want to be president, etc... Case law allows us to adapt to a changing domestic and international environment. Take gun control, legislative acts will always have limitations because of the second Amendment. If this country truly wants gun control, then 75% of state conventions will have to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If this happens, its not treasonous or anti-freedom. It is the will of the people. I am pretty sure it is a pipe dream in my life too. The point is we can change anything about our Constitution. We can amend it to allow "naturalized" citizens to be president. Then we could have Presinator Schwarzenegger. That is the beauty of our system. Things only remain sacred as long as we collectively as a nation hold them sacred. Whew! That was a lot. I sure can get on a roll.

Nicely put!

Quick, someone change the number of my thank you's received!!! Starting to get seriously evil urges (That is intended as a joke, folks!)

BT

Not putting words in your mouth... I promise. But, we began discussing constitutional flexibility (that works, right?) on the suggestion (I think by Big C) that we should just start over. My mind was still there, as opposed to trying to decipher what your views are. Most of what you have posted has been more educational, and less opinionated. My don't throw the baby out with the bath water analogy is my take on the whole subject... Not against your comments...

Ok as to the rest, I agree with some, less with others, but I like it all.

Carry on.

Davy Crockett wrote: Hello guys, i see my name was mentioned a couple of times, not sure why but I think they wanted my thoughts. I've kept my thoughts out of this because i sorta got carried away on that one thread. I've felt pretty bad about that let me tell you. I'm impressed about the civil discussion that is going on so I will share some thoughts.

First i believe in our constitution as it stands, no changes. The problem as I see it is the politicians and I'm talking about both parties. The most important thing to our politicians is based upon keeping them in power whereas the most important thing should be what is best for the United States of America. They put their parties interest over the interest of the USA.

I also believe highly in capitalism. It's large companies that provide jobs from the top executive down to the janitor. It's the large companies that provide stocks and bonds for the American people to grow financially with. Without large companies it would not be possible for the small business to be created and successful. Capitalism is by far the most successful form of structure in history.
But once again this great way of life has been tainted by greedy executives taking large bonuses and basically doing what is best for them to get rich and powerful instead of doing what is right for the employees and the shareholders which gives capitalism a negative image, understandably so.

Imagine what life would be like if we had folks in leadership in both private industry and government that were honestly trying to do what is right for the USA and the world.

Last thing is that I believe in way less government. Privatize many areas of the government and you would probably save a fortune.

I think when he said Davy, he was referring to me.

btschuman wrote: Jack, don't be putting words in my mouth...nowhere do I suggest the house should be torn down to switch to A/C.

I'd carry the "tearing down" part of your analogy to something like the Civil War. That's an extreme where residents of the house simply can't decide which cooling method to use and wind up in a fatal argument.

Mr. M, not sure I understand your extension of the analogy to the negative externalities of air conditioning as it concerns neighbors, passing birds, or landfills. But, if I read it right, you're suggesting we should think our choices between fans, A/C, a swimming pool, or nothing at all through more thoroughly before we make the final choice.

If that's the case, I'd agree with you generally, but these things tend to come up in a historical context. Henry Ford dreamed up mass production of cars so they'd be more affordable to the "everyman", but the auto industry never had the foresight to see the need for more efficient energy consumption and conversion, seat belts, air bags, crush zones, cruise control, etc. Similarly, they never built the costs of all the damage smokestack industries pump into the public air and water and the related problems. It would be nice if these things evolved in a way that we did forecast all the possible good and bad effects of our choices, but I can't think of any good examples for when that has happened...in the private or the public sector. Who knows, maybe Google will ultimately be the cause of WW III.

And you are right. In our and other systems, politics tend to rule. In the best sense, that's because it was a preferable alternative to forced choice or war. In the worst sense, the public that elects these folks fail in their oversight and let the hidden motives of money and power determine the choices that are made. But this is hardly a new phenomenon. The railroad barons of the mid-1800's bought and sold politicians by the bucketful so they could expand their lines on any public or private property they chose. The bad choices of our financial industries, aided by loose regulation and greed, have pretty much been accountable for all of our economic catastrophes.

On the one hand you have folks who bless the founders for a system that is forced to take time before decisions are made. On the other, there are folks clamoring for change they feel is essential to correct any of a number of perceived "wrongs." Somewhere in the middle we have an imperfect system that is trying to make decisions for more than 300 million people. Come on, put two people in a room and they probably won't agree on the time of day!

So yep, I agree with the frustration and anger. I have my ideas about what government should and should not do, and I am sure that there's a healthy percentage of Americans who don't agree with me. I'm also sure there's many who do. That's where the representative democracy part comes in. And yep, it ain't perfect. Remember the old phrase: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." (all credit to Alan Sherman...) More often than not, we get the camel when we want the horse, but it probably shouldn't be that surprising when 300 million folks are trying to voice their preferences.

And sure, we all have our particular visions of what's right or wrong, efficient or inefficient, fair or unfair, moral or immoral, godly or ungodly. I am sure each of us would find it pretty easy to provide a laundry list of criteria for a perfect system. The problem with that in the real world is that each of us has a different vision. Politics is the means by which we can aim for some of the goals we can reach common agreement on. The alternative is exactly what we escaped with our Revolutionary War - Only Kings, Tyrants, Dictators, Emperors can impose their "perfect vision". I prefer our way of doing things, thank you very much.

My favorite post yet... 'Cept for the first line.

Hey Jacklpe I did mean you yes, however I like to hear davy c's views..they may enlighten us to new ideas as many minds come up with a greater scheme of things. Please stay davy c. Anyway I think this thread is superb and wether you like ceiling fans (broken or not) or if you like a/c (again broken or not) or even throwing babys from baths???? All are opinions and as everyone has veriety it makes each idea unique...I personally like bernards ac speech as it seems beyond reproach? Certainly sold it well.

I may put a smile on some faces...its similar to the whole outdated debate...here in the uk we have certain laws which, for the most part get changed to suit....then there are those which have not changed at all, a couple of them are listed below.....enjoy.

It is against the law (prisonable offence) to use any wheeled carriage, motorised or otherwise on a footpath/walkway
(This technically includes wheelchairs and babys prams)

In a couple of cities of historical signfigance (I believe york amongst others) if a person from another land arrives on horseback after a certain time of day (this was a sign of a knight) he is allowed to be shot with a longbow!

In scottish fishing towns it is customary for a man who has proposed to his love...to be paraded through the streets in a horse and cart and have fish guts and fish heads thrown at him for good luck!

All land must be left to the eldest son.

Divorces are outlawed.

Since 1313, MPs are not allowed to don armor in Parliament.

Those wishing to purchase a television must also buy a license.

No cows may be driven down the roadway between 10 AM and 7 PM unless there is prior approval from the Commissioner of Police.

It is illegal for a woman to be topless in publicexcept as a clerk in a tropical fish store

.It is illegal for two adult men to have sex in the same house as a third person.

If a steam locomotive is driven on roads, a man must walk in front of the vehicle with a red flag during the day and a red lantern at night to warn passersby.

Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks (enacted by Edward VI).

All steam locomotives are limited to 4mph on roads.

Excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow.

Anal sex is prohibited.

During his reign, Oliver Cromwell banned the eating of mince pies on Christmas day, as they were insufficiently Puritan.

Chelsea Pensioners may not be impersonated

One may not “blemish the peace”.

A bed may not be hung out of a window.

Yes these are real laws that still exist!

I hope you had a good giggle.

Keep talking. You'll get there.

"My favorite post yet... 'Cept for the first line. "

My apologies, Jack...I didn't mean to be a rude smartass...just wanted you to know I didn't want to burn your house down! My bad phrasing...trying to keep it light...

Oh, and thanks for the thanks, guys...that 666 thing made me nervous!

Tom

Just a thought here, all this talk of cannons claymores, Apache helos, ect. Isn't the wording, "right to bear arms" that in any interpretation means arms that can be carried by the 'bearer' and used whilst the bearer is bearing them. Just a thought.

Flyingmuck wrote: Just a thought here, all this talk of cannons claymores, Apache helos, ect. Isn't the wording, "right to bear arms" that in any interpretation means arms that can be carried by the 'bearer' and used whilst the bearer is bearing them. Just a thought.

If The Founding Fathers were thinking about right to hunt ducks or defend home, that would be the case. If they were thinking about possible tyrannical government, weapons that can be carried might not do it. And preparations for such event must be done beforehand. If there is weapon ban (or assault weapon ban), you cannot go to Wallmart and buy FN Minimi or claymore. So maybe right to "keep and bear arms" should include everything up to (and over)Apache copter. Just my two cents...