Forgot the 17th. Now there's a disaster.
Appreciating our First Amendment...
- Thread starter Beemerguy53
- Start date
Forgot the 17th. Now there's a disaster.
I like 14th, as it makes explicit that states can give us more rights than the Constitution, but never fewer.
Last edited:
The Last Standing Knight
Member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Britain also outlaw possession of certain kinds of pocket knives "unless you could prove your valid need for one"? Didn't they also regulated glass bottles for fear they could be used as weapons?
I remember reading somethings on this a while back when they passed laws outlawing "zombie knives" (I had to google what they mean by that...basically any knife that looks mean and evil)
OP
From the official British government website on the subject:
"The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife or weapon illegally is either 4 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. You’ll get a prison sentence if you’re convicted of carrying a knife or weapon illegally more than once."
Selling, buying and carrying knives and weapons - GOV.UK
Lol yet some states do the opposite.
If it bothers enough, there're always the courts. And voting out the legislature.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,342
- Reaction score
- 5,533
Sounds dreamy. Like the 1950s.
The 2A has been doing awfully well in the courts. And thanks to state legislatures, concealed carry is far more available than even 20 years ago, let alone the 1950s.
Last edited:
Wonder how that effects me. I long have been suspicious of many in congress and the MSM.-
HOUSTON RICK
Member
The last paragraph of 1984 reads: "O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself."1. This moment marks the completion of Winston's trajectory since the opening of the novel, as he now loves Big Brother and has totally accepted Party rule,
The thread was about appreciation. We Americans have a unique gem in our system, one that nearly all the world respects. For my part, I am grateful for the foresight of our founders and the truly useful gem of a system they created. Appreciation.
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." - Matthew 7:6
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." - Matthew 7:6
I thought proselytizing was against the rules. 
OP
Thanks for "getting it", biku...
Several years ago, I took some German friends to Washington to do the tourist thing. While we were walking along Pennsylvania Avenue, in front of the White House, there were several demonstrations taking place there, with various groups of people waving signs and placards in support of, or opposition to, this-or-that cause. My friends were amazed, and asked me several times if this was really legal, if Americans can really go to the President's home and do something like this?
In many places around the world -- and not just in Third-World backwaters -- there is no right to free speech, and no freedom of expression (or assembly, or religion, or of the press). Quite the opposite: Even in Western nations we think of as free, and where citizens certainly consider themselves "free"...there are things you just can't say, or write, or read, or do, under penalty of law.
I have long considered the United States Constitution to be the most brilliantly enlightened way ever devised to organize and run a government of free people, and stories like the one that provoked me to start this thread only validate that opinion.
I thought proselytizing was against the rules.
For Orwell??
Literature is literature, and within all lasting writings there are useful observations.
LVSteve
Member
You know, one of the beefs on this forum is that stuff gets taken out of context, or a sequence of words gets snipped by the antis in a way that shows gun ownership in a bad light. Thank you for developing such a prime example for us to view.
For those who have not read the articles linked in the OP, here is the full context.
Do I think this "offense" passes the threshold of ridiculous overreach? Yes, I most certainly do, it is a piece of law brought to you by a legislative body infected with a bad case of "do-something-itis". Even so, the full context is required to understand that the UK intends to stamp out any thoughts, symbols, or overt support, of terrorism. Where that may take British society by a process of judicial creep is a subject beyond the rules here.
There are also factors about the "silent majority" in the UK of which most of you here will not aware that drive Parliament to come up with this type of legislation. Again, due to the rules here I cannot expand on that statement. Suffice to say I have seen what a frustrated "silent majority" in the UK is capable of, even without firearms to aid them.
Last edited:
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
I read it and it still stands that they were found guilty of "suspicion". Their actions did not give rise to suspicions that lead to evidence that they were involved with anything. The article says that they were charged and convicted of suspicion, not convicted of supporting terrorism.
Nothing out of context. Thank you for playing.
Last edited:
This thread is about appreciation for something priceless. The 'pearls' writing was about not appreciating valuables.
Is that helpful?
Is that helpful?
