| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mace |
Posted - 28 April 2008 : 10:15:26 AM
A Message from John Cleese
To: The citizens of the United States of America:
In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of
the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the
revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over
all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does
not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America
without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you
noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following Rules
are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be
amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and
'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping
half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.
Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable
levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as
"like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication.
There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your
behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the
reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your
original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or
therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that
you're not adult enough to be independent.
Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort
things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not
grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more
dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to
carry a vegetable peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your
own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start
driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go
metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables.
Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense
of humour.
9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline)-roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French Fries
are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are
properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and
dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer
at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer,
and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as
Lager.
South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the
greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They
are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.
American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all
can be sold without risk of further confusion.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English
characters.
Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a
Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a Cheese
grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of
proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in
time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American
football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or
wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby -
the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an
event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of
America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your
borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will
let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their
deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all Monies
due (backdated to 1776).
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4pm with proper cups, never mugs, with
high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.
God save the Queen.
John Cleese
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ankhsy |
Posted - 08 July 2008 : 10:46:45 AM
Last month I dealt with a statement from a shooting in the USA. The shooter (teenager) swears he was shooting wide to scare someone who was threatening him at a high school party; but the bullet hit an innocent girl someways behind the intended (or not as the shooter alleged) target. Warren, sometimes the lack of accuracy can be a killer.
One could argue that this killing was accidental, but they are not unusual. Any right is limited by the right of the next individual not to suffer unfairly as a result. The right to bear arms is no different. I despair when I hear people insist on this right and that right, with little consideration of the damage the exercise of that right could do to others.
"We are Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
|
| Mace |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 10:03:40 PM
Oh yeah, it does take accuracey to shoot well, but inaccurracy often causess more problems. All you have to do is shoot. I've shot enough guns to know. Miss a target and see bullet go for a mile beyond.
Going back to the original discussion: why should a law dating back to when the best gun supplied could only be reloaded via a hand pump apply to a gun that can blow a home apart in an instant, or send 200 bullets into the area with a single action be avaible to anyone outside armed forces? Are the US expecting Canada or Mexico to become the "axis of evil"?
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| John Prigent |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 8:58:34 PM
Hear, hear!
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
| WarrenH |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 8:18:03 PM
Thats a laugh - I have attened murder scene where the deceased was hit once in 10 rds that were fired at him.Knife deaths were a dim a dozen, they were allways, stabbing hacking each other, or using "knobkerries" on themselves and others - seen the stick fighting on TV? Yip just like that, but not as controlled as they did for the programme.
Believe it or not, but there is a certain amount skill required to shot accurately........
The person who misses with a knife, well they should vist spec savers then. LOL
You can argue the matter till the cows come home, murder is murder no matter what weapon is used! and That is That!
There I have said it again...........
 |
| Mace |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 4:09:34 PM
not really. You can simply miss the intended target with a knife and hit nothing but air. But there's a damn good chance that a bulet is going to hit something once it's fired.
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| WarrenH |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 3:43:14 PM
Shoot, stab, hit run over etc - all same a person(s) do the action and person(s) get hurt even die as the result.
There is not differnce between shooting someone, or stabbing them........
If one does want to get technical - stabbing is worse - as you have to be u close and personal - a very personal act.
Shooting it so point, aim at "target" and shoot! it can be up close and personal, or from a distance...
Personaly both are as bad as each other - as there is intent and unlafullness at play!
|
| Mace |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 12:14:32 PM
Personally, I think it would be easier to shoot someone in the heat of the momnet than stab them. You're comparing a weapon that requires the victom to be within arms reach (or slightly more with a sword) with one that requires ANY victom to be within a hundred feet of the gun. How many times have you heard of friendly stabbing. And to pull out a knife and stab someone must take alot more effort than simply pulling a trigger.
What are you trying to protect with your handgun anyway? If someone broke into my house, I'd probably make sure they left as soon as possible. If that means losing my TV, so be it. I'd hate to have a gunfight with someone in my home with my wife and kids there. Once that bullet leaves that gun, you can't pull it back.
And do you even have to get training to own a gun? your banks and car dealers hand them out in special offers like a free stereo; that's really what you think the law should allow?
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| Beerswimmer |
Posted - 05 July 2008 : 03:07:28 AM
First it was clubs, then swords and knives, and then we invented guns. If 1 is bad, aren't all of them? Will the government ban pointy sticks because criminals could poke people with them? Criminals will ALWAYS have guns, because they are criminals. Why should I be limited to less of a weapon to defend myself against one?
Sorry about this big discussion, but it's always going to be a gun friendly country. It's just the way we are. And since we are made up of immigrants from around the world, isn't that showing what our ancestors really wanted?
Carry on.
UT ALII VIVANT!!! |
| Mace |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 9:58:21 PM
Yse, those large predators are called "men".
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| John Prigent |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 9:30:05 PM
Mace, it depends on how long since I washed them! (Big grin).
Ankhsy, "arms" means "arms" now just as it did then. Any type of weapon fell into that category and still does. The preferred interpretaion seems to be that it applies to weapons for a single person - knives, swords, bows, rifles, pistols, that kind of thing. Those that need a crew seem to be excluded - tanks, artillery etc. Though there is a very grey area when you consider that individuals are still allowed to own muzzle-loading cannon for historical re-enactments! And of course it was taken to allow repeating pistols and magazine rifles, John Wayne films would be a bit boring without them. I suspect that the eventual legal interpretation will ban some weapons but allow others. The dividing line will probably fall somewhere around pistols for self-defence against thugs and burglars plus rifles for defence against animals - if they try to ban the latter they'll have a mass uprising in States that still have bears and other predators roaming around, which is the case over much of the US. Not everyone there lives in a city, and even in some cities the large predators still wander around.
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
| Ankhsy |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 9:17:31 PM
John, if your interpretation is correct, and that we must refer to the common understanding of the militia in 1791, then shouldn't it only apply to the right to bear arms that were in use then....muskets? How broad is the 'right to bear arms'? Should it include rocket launchers and hand grenades and other "arms" available today that didn't exist then? This is the problem I have with your interpretation. Maybe the answer is somewhere between the two, but for the moment, it escapes me.
"We are Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
|
| Mace |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 4:03:34 PM
I dunno: how likely is that your feet could kill from 30f feet away? Suppose it depends on wind direction...
If we're free to own a weapon that can kill others, why is illegal to take drugs that only effect ourselves? Lockup someone for a few grams of cocaine, but let that paranoid man keep his M16 and pump action shotgun: it's a right that people over 100 years ago decided was important while the slaves were looking at them angrily.
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| John Prigent |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 3:52:49 PM
I don't have a gun. But I do have the benefit of training in unarmed combat. Does that mean my hands and feet should be taken away from me as dangerous weapons?
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
| Mace |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 3:26:48 PM
Agree with Warren, there. If they can't get a gun, they'll use a knife; if they can't get a knife, they'll use a club, etc.
But to have acountry more fixated upon upholding the right to bear a dnagerous weapon than providing free healthcare or education to their own people is ridiculous.
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| WarrenH |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 1:29:39 PM
Ok - my bit! Guns do not kill people! People Kill People!
They have a problem over there with guns, we have a problem over here with KNIVES! Mostof the knives used in attacks are KITCHEN KNIVES! So are we to ban kitchen knives? Just a question.....
That point of the constitution, will be debated for the next 100 or more years............. The founding fathers and all that..........
Whilst in South Africa, I had been issed with 2 weapons, a Beretta 9mm PB, and an R4, assualt rifle. the later spent more time locked up in the armoury, whilst I carried the 9MM with me at all time, I mean at all time! In the my whole 12 odd years of service, I did not use my firearms on any person. I did have to shoot the odd dog or 2, but that was that.
The problem in my opinion is not the lack of gun control or who has the guns, but in how these muppets are actually brought up! Plankers the lot of them.
My Dad had several, and if he cuaght even looking at them, boy did we get a thrashing...... yip we did not look, touch or anything with them....... only when he supervised us.....
Now as for the US coming backinto the fold, I feel it will be more like us joining them becoming the 52/3 state or something........
We have nothing now, they have everything.... and more..............
So what now....... Mr Cleese?
|
| John Prigent |
Posted - 04 July 2008 : 12:35:07 PM
I begin to think that we should move this thread to Politics - Alex, can you do that?
Meanwhile, I'm sorry Ankhsy but your research stopped too soon. The Bill of Rights became part of the US Constitution on 15 December 1791 and therefore refers to the common understandig of the term "militia" _then_. The 1792 Act did not alter anything in respect of the American people's right to keep and bear arms, it merely codified the extent to which people were _required_ to turn out at call under pain of penalties. People not specifically _required_ to turn out still formed the informal militia, in much the same way as in the absence of paid firemen everyone within reach was expected to help fight a fire. Compare, if you like, the position here in England where from time immemmorial the residents were _required_ to turn out if the "hue and cry" was raised and assist in catching a criminal, or the legislation under which English men were _required_ to have arms at home with lists saying what should be had by each income group, not to mention the _requirement_ for Englishmen to train with bows and arrows in order to be available when needed. In fact it's less than 100 years (if I remember rightly it was early 1900s) since English people lost the right to carry pistols at any time. cf the Sherlock Holmes stories, which were certainly not thought of as wrong in Holmes and Watson having pistols in the late 19th century.
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
| Ankhsy |
Posted - 03 July 2008 : 9:53:00 PM
There is no need to repeal the clause. The Militia as it first existed in the 1790s never meant the whole population capable of bearing arms. The Militia as an armed populace is a myth. The Militia when it was first organised in 1792 was a compulsory military draft run jointly by the federal and state governments. The law (Uniform Militia Act 1792) at the time limited it to a certain section of the population (white men 18-45) who were eligible to be drafted into the Militia. However, the law also provided for many exemptions, so much so that there were complaints that the Militia was comprised of many people too poor and too stupid to get out of it. In the 1850s, the law changed it from a compulsory draft to a volunteer militia, which eventually evolved into the National Guard after the American Civil War.
There are no full stops in the sentence "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right to keep and bear arms" is directly associated with "A well regulated militia".
"We are Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
|
| John Prigent |
Posted - 02 July 2008 : 11:09:37 AM
But history tells us that the entire population capable of bearing arms was reckoned to be the militia. Only young boys and very old men were not expected to turn out in case of need. I believe that even women who turned out with their guns were welcomed. Remember, the purpose and intent of the Militia clause was to make sure that Indian raids and British invaders would be met by armed force even if no formal Army units were in the area. Nothing has ever been done to remove that clause from the US Constitution so it remains in force until enough States call for it to be repealed - which is likely to be a cold day in hell. And if we are to read the sentence as a whole, ignoring commas as the "experts" seem to want, it still clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. As a grammarian myself I can only assume that the "experts" consulted were carefully chosen to support the arguments of those _against_ the right to have guns.
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
| Ankhsy |
Posted - 02 July 2008 : 10:33:22 AM
The problem is the interpretation of a single line of the constitution, John. It says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When legislation is ambiguous, one way of removing the ambiguity is to look back to what was the original intention of the law-givers. In 1791, the intention was to allow members of the Militia to keep and bear arms, so that there was protection for the community against bandits, indians, and even militias from other states. Militia members were regular people who wear expected to come to the defense of their state when summoned. Today, the Militias have evolved into the National Guard and non-guardsmen are not expected to be called up, and so the right to bear arms for Militia purposes no longer exists.
But gun-enthusiasts interpret the constitution another way, reading "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as completely separate from the preceding clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
A correct linguistic interpretation is that the whole sentence should be read together, which is what expert opinion said in Court. However, the majority of US Supreme Court Justices (the vote was 5-4)called the linguists "mad hatters" voted to overturn the Washington DC interpretation.
"We are Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
|
| John Prigent |
Posted - 01 July 2008 : 3:54:17 PM
Hang on a moment - why _shouldn't_ Americans defend their Constitution? If the gun ban was unconstitutional (which the court said it was) but a local council decided to impose it anyway, what would have been next if they'd got away with it? Free speech? Freedom of the press? Frankly, I wish we had the same right in the UK. It would make no difference to the number of guns in criminal hands but would let those of us who live in some areas feel safer in our own homes. Did you notice that our beloved Labour leaders had to pass a special law to let the British Olympic pistol team practice in their own country? All because of the hysterical reaction to lunatics who shouldn't have qualified for gun licences in the first place, we have for that the Police Sergeant's testimony that he refused a licence but it was granted over his objections. With laws like the gun ban being imposed, Nisia would be arrested for her bow and arrows!
Cheers
John
Sum, ergo cogito |
| Mace |
Posted - 01 July 2008 : 3:10:50 PM
It's great that the major superpower of the world spend more money fighting to keep handguns than it does on helping the lowest earning people avoid illness and bankrupcy. The amount of money wasted by the US on just getting a Democratic or Republican nominee, or holding onto an automatic machine gun, oscar nights, etc, is obscene. And we seem to be following them.
"My Mom says I'm cool"
Millhouse. |
| Ankhsy |
Posted - 30 June 2008 : 9:10:03 PM
Talking of guns, the US Supreme Court has just ruled that the Washington DC ban on handguns is unconstitutional. People are entitled to bear arms as....wait for it....guns don't kill, people do.
Honestly, does the UK really want back a people that think like that? I'd let the Yanks keep it and tow the whole continent further west. Talking of which...I'm in New York next week.
"We are Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
|
| Parmenion |
Posted - 29 June 2008 : 07:26:13 AM
Beer....the only decent beer in the US is imported!!! LOL the rest is gnats pee!!
that aside...really the US is just a naughty child, a part or the empire thtas having a sulk...you know like taiwan is with china....you'll be back in the fold eventually.....LOL!!!
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
| Beerswimmer |
Posted - 29 June 2008 : 12:39:29 AM
(In my best Leonidas voice) Come and take it!
Seriously, rule #5 is going to be your big problem. We all have guns, and love them. If you defeat our military, we still have zillions of guns!! I have abou 23 right now and 6K+ rounds of ammo!
And the beer is delicious here! 
UT ALII VIVANT!!! |
| WarrenH |
Posted - 01 June 2008 : 09:36:55 AM
mmmmm - facebook anyone..........
|
| Mykk |
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 01:12:56 AM
Fantastic! I love John Cleese and I have always loved Monty Python and Fawlty Towers. Although I'm not to sure about the $10 a gallon for gas/petrol, we are a bit bigger than your island.
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
- Tolkien |
| Ankhsy |
Posted - 28 April 2008 : 2:30:34 PM
I'm with Andy & Gladius. Really, do you want them back? I suppose the backdated taxes to 1776 could come in handy, though. And it would come in handy if 'transportation' as an alternative to prison ever got brought back.
"We are Starfleet officers, weird is part of the job."
|
| scarrow |
Posted - 28 April 2008 : 12:05:54 PM
I do hope that's dropping into email in-boxes all over America as we speak. I'd just love to observe the responses. |
| Gladius |
Posted - 28 April 2008 : 10:40:12 AM
Great stuff  I wouldn't want them back lol!
Do, or do not. There is no 'try' - Yoda
|
| AndyCanty |
Posted - 28 April 2008 : 10:33:31 AM
absolutely brilliant, if only this could be true in only a small way! although do we want the US back???? LOL
_____________________________________
If all the worlds a stage?
Where's my script???
http://andycanty.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
