I was trying to explain to you what the Founders thought about the British King and what motivated them (in part) to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights as a protection against the tyranny of governments. Here are their words, and if you have a problem with them, please take that up with the Founders:
I was never in any doubt about these facts, just merely repeating that the "Founders" were addressing the "King" because the King was the head of state
, not because the King was tyrannical himself.
You maintain your high level and I keep mine to the lowest and dumbest denominator.
You said it, although "dumb" means unable to speak, I think that you are confusing the modern meaning for the word "stupid"
Personally, I would not allow ordinary citizens to possess most kinds of assault weapons. I am not sure of the current status of such bans, but I believe that some are already outlawed, and some laws to outlaw them apparently expired, but not 100% sure.
That is good to know, although (some of, I assume) those 12 people killed at the Cinema were shot with a legally obtained semi-automatic machine gun.
I would not outlaw hand guns, which are needed by some to protect them in their homes, or against wild animals such as bears, mountain lions, etc. I also believe that hand guns are allowed under the 2nd amendment.
What about "machine pistols" such as the Mac-9 and UZI and so on.? Also what would an average hand gun do to a bear, apart from really annoy it.?
I would also prosecute criminals such as Eric Holder (Obama's Attorney General) for selling illegal guns to Mexican drug traffickers, knowing that the Mexican government had no intent on following up and arresting those who purchased them.
Wise move, and also make it illegal to do such stupid things in the future by any means including 3rd parties and as-yet unidentified loopholes - this is a classic example of a "legal criminal act".
There is nothing in the US Constitution with the words "separation of church and state." Here is what the 1st Amendment says (in part):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Sorry, I must have confused a very popular often quoted line that I always believed to be written into American law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... ted_States
She might be English. I am most definitely not. I am British and will correct anyone who asserts that I am English as I have both Welsh blood (my mother is a Welsh speaker) and further back Scottish and Irish ancestory. Things are further complicated by my mother being born in Malta despite all of my Grandparents being British, although this has become easier to explain to the passport office since Malta is now part of the EU. I don't agree with seperatist sentiments from the consituent nations either despite having interest in them from a historical, cultural and linguistic perspective. Likewise I don't agree with regionalism of any form.
I wont argue with your description of your own nationality - who can.? Also it should not be discouraged by political correctness - after all, there are loads of people I know who have Welsh, Scottish and Irish (both sides of the border) ancestry.
Yes, I know that too funnily enough. What happens in the US though is the person that you have elected is then treated as if they are a king. These specific crimes against a person in particular are remarkably close to our treason laws. They also get to be called 'Mr President' for life, that kind of title comes closest to our royalty status, not like honours or nobility that we have, eg. Margaret Thatcher being made a Baroness. I'm sure you also spent lots of time at school learning the names of US presidents, we very rarely get anything in school about Prime Ministers, it's all about Kings and Queens as these are easy names and issues to understand. When a US president dies they are are entitled to a state funeral, again something in line with what major royalty is offered here. We don't offer it to ex-PMs in general, only 5 times has this happened: Wellington for his military career, Palmerston more for his work as foreign secretary, Disraeli who declined the offer in his will, Gladstone for just about everything and Churchill for leadership during WWII. So in many ways, your President traditionally is closer to what we have in our monarchy that what we have in our political system.
That is pretty much the way I, and anyone else I have ever spoken to views the situation, although I have always considered this due to the fact that the President is above any beyond anyone else in the whole country. The President is not just a politician with ties to a major political party, but also Head of State, has veto powers, and is in the media spotlight constantly, so way above and beyond all of the powers that our Monarch has, and indeed way more power than our leading political figure has (Prime Minister). This makes the American President something like a combination of King and PM, but gets so many more lifetime benefits than other Presidents around the world seem