Walsingham

Think 1940s/Russ Meyer.

I think we are facing a lameness gap. We need to improve our lameness.

So a US serviceman serving in Hawaii is actually guilty of torturing people in Abu Ghraib? i'd argue that in fact the average citizen is more guilty of Abu Ghraib because unlike the servicemen they had free reign to object and enquire. Collective punishment is outlawed in the Geneva convention as an abuse of human rights. I would suggest that logically the concept of mass guilt must be wrong as well.

Big concerts are for raising awareness. I rather think everyone with access to electronic or print media already knows climate change is an issue. Do I think it will help? Excuse me while I laugh bitterly. These gigs are about making simple travelling minstrels feel like world statesmen, and apathetic dribbling masses feel as if they are doing something 'right on'. The only thing that is worse is a multi-billion dollar concert for food aid or world poverty. *sour look*

I think it's sensible to buy something that tells you which way the gun is pointing in the dark. Hell, you need that on a can of deoderant! GD, on the subject of whether gun owenership reduces property crime I'm finding I can disagree little with your conclusions based on the facts you have observed. As Alan says this makes it almost imperative that you track down these figures. However, I would ask you to consider my observation that well-trained, regulated gun owners would make a more effective deterrent to both criminals and government, and be a smaller hazard. I really cannot retreat from that position yet.

Actually they'd have done better to refer to the fact that prior to 9/11 there were substantial numbers of bombs made by outright fruitloops, like our dear mailbomber who is currently active in the UK. Leaving illuminated signs everywhere that exploded would be perfectly consistent with anarchists, revolutionaries, or anyone who looks really weird. I personally don't think it was unreasonable to treat the devices as suspect. But mostly I hate advertising chimps, and nothing is too bad for them.

It's like I always said. The norges are planning Ragnarok.

Probably just the God Bhaal empire-building.

I know how you feel. I've never been much for porn (of any stripe; just doesn't strike my fancy), but Anna Nicole Smith represented sexy women to me, and she's the only Playboy Playmate during my lifetime that I had any interest in. Donna Edmondsen. ....*happy sigh*

Thanks for trying to clarify, but I need your continued assistance. In the Uk the cops will take ten minutes to half an hour to turn up, assuming they do at all! But that doesn't mean (in general) we would rather have everyone dispensing 'justice' in person. I might gently observe that efforts would be better spent on trying to stop people busting into so many houses! With regard to the revolutionary war I would likewise gently observe that you chaps owe a great deal more to the ineptitude of our officers than some jihadist fervour. But that's not really the point. If you know the fight is doomed, and you'd raher die than survive, then why not arm yourself with a really kickass flagpole, and a cutlass?

It's the nature of PR to be oversensitive about a handful of nutloops. [Mafia] Fogeddaboudit [/Mafia]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6345361.stm For those of you who can't recall who she was. I do think it's very sad the way fame crushes the individuality out of people. Perhaps because as people we have a natural tendency to let others define us. Even to be too defined. I was particularly saddened to hear that she'd been bereaved recently. Not being a celeb hound I didn't know.

YOu mean like waking up in a motel next to a dead former Playmate?

In my opinion the only really wrong side is the one with the headboard on it.

Perhaps I should throw in the fact that I strictly opposed gun amnesties in Afghanistan. There you realy will be disarming the very people who support and uphold the law. But the United States is no longer the Wild West. Most nations industrialised to the same extent as you give up their right to personal force as part of the social contract. This might take care of the personal/home defence aspect. I still maintain that thinking a handgun or even rifle is going to protect you from a properly orchestrated fascist takeover is pure wishful thinking. Particularly given the massive disparity in weaponry and other equipment between the State agencies and the average cit.

It certainly sounds as if you'd have a hard time. Firstly, I'm endlessly boggled by the notion that military intelilgence being wrong is surprising or evil. Secondly, as we've said before you make a commitment when you sign up to do x and y. If you fail to do so and suffer the penalties then have the good sense not to whinge about it. I believe we had a similar debate at the end of last year about the need to obey the Official Secrets act. You are entitled to your own morality, but when you sign up you commit to keeping secrets, and handling objections in a certain way. If that certain way doesn't get the desired results then tough. You agreed to it.

I don't think it is wrong to eb fascinated by death. It is the one thing we can be sure we will do, and you can't deny it could be tricky.

Steady on!

I do agree with Lucius to an extent that a far more important issue is why people own guns and how they use them. Hence my objections to the tone of the original post. Clearly, GD, I have to support your stance. By all means change the amendment, but don't do it by stealth. However, I do recall something about a well regulated militia. My own view is that if you really intend your firearm as a means of securing personal freedom you should make a plan for when and how you will act. Failure to set up the 'trip switch' in advanec will likely lead to disaster. *shrugs* just a thought. Aram, the sysetm may well be different in the US, but in the UK you cannot own a car unless you are can demonstrate that you understand how to use it responsibly. You also have to have it checked for safety etc etc. This is because cars are potentially deadly. I don't understand why it is a big step to insist upon the same standards for owning a firearm, which is designed specifically to kill. Such insistence would help keep firearms out of the hands of the unsafe, and would improve teh military usefulness of those who own them.

I'm still going for the conspiracy angle.

Aram, you are clearly free to debate whether the 2nd amendment should stay or not. I'm saying that disposing of one does not invalidate all of them. I do not, however, equate responsible gun ownership with depriving the people of the right to self defence. You do not object when the government regulates car ownership, even tohugh removing all private transport would be an excellent way to maintain a police state.

Plus ten points for replaying Torment!

Thanks for that. The tongue thing sounds a little alarming, but mechanically sound. I take it, therefore that no direct interface would be required? I was thinking of having a simplified feed, rather than providing someone with sight.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html/re...5/?docId=580338 I wouldn't normally pimp out amazon, but I know several people have been thinking about buying the Baldur's Gate series. And the rest of you SHOULD have been. You can grab it, and other classics for ten pounds at the link above. Bear in mind this does not represent an endorsement of the company or product as sold, and you may find it cheaper elsewhere etc etc.

I used to correspond with a militia guy, and took exactly Calson's line. If you think handguns are going to help you fight the armies of thugs you are out of your teeny tinies. The government would be far more sensible to regulate organisationa nd transport. Wait, that's right, they already did. And Guarddog I'm very surprised to hear you taking that line. The amendments are designed to be alterable. They're none of them set in stone. And teh notion that because one on arms is wrong tehy're all wrong. Please?!