8 posts • joined Thursday 11th December 2008 15:39 GMT
I don't quite get it...
George Carlin said it best. "Selling is legal. F***ing is legal. Why isn't selling f***ing legal?" and "why should it be illegal to sell something it's perfectly legal to give away for free?"
Seems we ought to answer those questions first.
Do I really need to explain why Paris?
Surgery or steroids?
How is surgical modification to her body to improve her game any different from taking drugs to improve her performance?
For the record, I have no opinion on whether or not she should have the op done. My question is solely in regard to the governing body's decision about her future play. If it were up to me, she'd be ineligible, just like if she took steroids.
And as I read all this . . .
The one phrase floating through my mind is "When in the Course of human events . . ."
And what's one of the complaints those men raised against this same government you're all griping about now? "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose.
I remember one time, must have been nearly twenty years ago now, I was young (< 10), and my family was waiting between a wedding and the reception. To keep me amused, my mother was asking how to get from point A to point B (something I seem to recall her doing not infrequently, for the same reason). Apparently, this really impressed the person at the next table over - to be fair, that was probably more to do with my age at the time rather than the lack of GPS or other navigational aid.
Paris, because she can keep me amused any day.
re: History Lesson
> Wars of conquest started by the Americans:
> War of 1812: failed attempt to steal Canada from the Brits
Was a legitimate part of the war, started by the U.K.'s actions, including but not limited to the seizure of US vessels while conducting their lawful traffic on the high seas and the impression of their crews into Royal Naval service. At the time, of course, Canada was a part of the British Empire.
> Mexican-American War: successful attempt to steal Texas, California etc from the Mexicans
Following decades of border skirmishes. And Texas revolted from Mexico independently. It was (one of only 3 states to be) its own republic prior to entry into the United States. (Vermont and California are the other two, btw, and Hawaii was, of course, a Kingdom)
> War of Northern Aggression: successful attempt to conquer the Confederate States of America
There was no such thing as the Confederate States of America, at least not as a separate nation to be conquered. The CSA was a group of breakaway provinces, whose status is actually rather similar to what the entire US's would have been had the Continental Army failed in 1776-1789
> Spanish-American War: successful attempt to steal Cuba, the Phillipines etc from Spain
War declared by the Spaniards. Neither territory was taken as colonial province, but were transitioned rather rapidly to independence. What, precisely, is the record of the British Empire on this point?
> Second Gulf War: successful attempt to steal Iraq from, er, the Iraqis
Second phase of U.N.-authorized use of force following Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and repeated violations of cease-fire. Should have started ten years earlier.
> Not to mention all the little "interventions" like Grenada, various bits of Central America, SE Asia etc.
Again, ironic in the extreme to hear Brits condemning the US for that. Think we learned too well from you? Is there any continent besides Antarctica in which the British Empire did not maintain colonial presence well into the 20th century? Of course, the US has always attempted to maintain, or rapidly restore, local control and governance.
> Do we see a pattern here?
I do. Revisionist history to make a charge which is without significant basis in fact and can be made, typically with more justification, against any large power in world history.
You seem to have missed the main thrust of my post, which is that if the British Empire had not abused its North American colonies, the Revolutionary War would not have occurred and therefore the Second Amendment would likely not exist. Thus Britons belittling Americans for their ownership of firearms is a textbook example of irony.
That said, I agree with you entirely. Modern US gun laws do gut the spirit, and in most places the letter, of the Second Amendment. I happen to think that Vermont and Alaska are the only two states with Constitutional laws with respect to handguns and nobody has them with respect to the heavier arms of which you speak - let alone military (other than observation, transport, and artillery spotting) aircraft and the armament for same.
Britons telling Americans how little they need guns...
As I (natural-born US Citizen) recall, the United States Constitution was written in order to correct and prevent the abuses prevalent on this continent under the former (British Empire) government. The Second Amendment, while it does protect the right of citizens to hunt and to defend themselves against petty criminals, exists predominantly to provide the citizens with the ability to shoot back at the government. The men who wrote it had just fought a long war, against the world's only superpower; one which they could not have won without the fact that the common people had the right to, and did, keep top-grade, state-of-the-art infantry small arms at home and practice with them regularly.
By this standard, the current interpretation - that a citizen has the right to handguns and semi-automatic long guns is ridiculous.
What's next? Perhaps Germany will be reminding the Poles or the French how little they need a standing army to defend their borders.
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action