Walsingham

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?!

yup... if sombody was resposnisble for putting you in a "kill that poor sap or I'll kill you" situation. the other person can be charged with Murder I watch wayyyy too much Law And Order. That's where they are coercing you to commit the act itself.

You keep saying that, but I no no think it means what you think it means. It's all about control. Nonsesne. It's about the passionate rythm of the salsa.

I do know that women prefer a guy who's been working out. BUt I don't think that's the sweat so much.

I think it's sad. I'm old enough to remember her being a sex symbol instead of a ropey fat weirdo. When someone dies who you've fancied it's strange.

I believe so. You must be guilty of an actual act under most legal systems. I can't find you guilty of shooting a civilian just because you were in a position to do so.

They werren't inside the house, but they were hanging off it outside my bedroom window with a knife. I was going to shoot, thinking in the clinical way you chaps are advocating, but I suddenly thought about the consequences, and also the fact that I'd never know why on earth they were doing it. So I stuck the gun in their face and demanded an explanation. A slightly unrepeatable occurrence, perhaps, but I think you can see my point. *shrugs* maybe it's because I've met too many criminals to consider them inhuman. I'll defend myself and my property, but to the extent demanded. I certainly don't relish the prospect or think about the means of defence as an exciting opportunity to shoot someone.

No apology necessary. I suppose I sould clarify myself. Im not against cures for diseases or even so much for subsidizing the cost (although it does rankle me a little). Im against the government MANDATING anything medically that does not effect the wellbeing of the populous. I would also be against a MANDATED HIV vaccine. Not because its not a good thing, not because you would be an idiot not to get it, but because in those examples (non-communicable) they have no business in your body. Now regarding parents who "just cant be arsed" to educate and provide a ride to the clinic, well tbh, thats their problem. We do not need a nanny government that attemts to MANDATE every aspect of our health. Money is one issue (see subsidizing) but just plain ole dont give a damn isnt an excuse for the government to step in. Thanks for accepting my apology and for clarifying your position. I can certainly understand you much better now. I can't recall teh justification, but it's my understanding that for a vaccination program to be truly effective it needs to be mandated. The example which springs to mind is smallpox.A hideous disease, but which was actually annihilated thanks to a concerted global effort.

They were dressed entirely in black, and appeared to be hanging off the edge of teh roof with a knife in their hand. It turned out that my neighbour (the judge) was cleaning the gutters while suffering from insomnia. I also happen to like Plano's idea of neutralising and confusing the intruder. Bright lights, strange noises etc would serve the other purposes of alerting your loved ones and the neighbours to a problem. I'd suggest something like pepper spray would do a good job at convincing them to leave the premises. I should add tat I'm well aware, from my past work, of teh fact that you will occasionally find criminals whose intent is sadistic, not larcenous. Your firearm really will come in handy then. BUt equally, trying a lesser response first will serve to convince both you and a court that lethal force was required. You'll fight a lot harder and shoot better if your conscience is clean. BTW, if the moral argument doesn't convince you, you have realised that getting blood all over your house will require you to replace a lot of stuff like carpets which will almost certainly cost more than the poor fool can steal?

You keep saying that, but I no no think it means what you think it means.

Read what I said. The war does not have to be legal for deployment to be legal. Now read it again. His order is deployment. What's illegal? In his mind, the war. What's legal? His order, the deployment. NOw that IS an interesting angle. He was refusing deployment, but deployment isn't illegal. I guess in some ways one could argue in favour of a division by tactical, operational, and strategic responsibilities. In short, f a tactical actor (soldier) believes a tactical order (shoot gentleman x) is illegal then he is required to refuse. However, strategic decisions (go to war) are not his responsibility (in any way other than being a voter), and are the responsibility of the strategic authorty i.e. Congress. Is that any clearer?