ilovefuzz.com

that hasn't been the universal case for awhile now. how could it be, when criminals there have the same kinds of weaponry criminals have here despite the UK's anti-gun laws? you don't take a riot shield to a gun fight.

The guns are created when they combine their monocles with their top hats and canes.

and they fire cigar butts. for riot-control purposes: tea bags.

dubkitty wrote:The Bill of Rights: They Don't Have It In The UK™!

On the other hand, they have far fewer pants-on-head-retarded types running around screaming "That isn't in the Constitution! That isn't in the Constitution!" like a five year old who just found out there aren't any extra desserts.

And they always act like it's really, really important:

"That isn't in the Constitution! That isn't in the Constitution!"

i dunno, i kind of prefer being on the side of that equation that (at least theoretically) restrains the government from shooting an innocent guy in the head because he looks like a terrorist and then responding by saying "oops, my bad...but we work for the Queen, so tough shit." if you look at the history of the Twentieth Century, there's a good argument to be made for a Constitution that keeps the government from doing whatever the heck it wants.

Fo' sho to everything on this page. Constitutions and rule of law kick ass. It's really just the tenth amendment that is complete and utter shit. State's rights is and has always been a last ditch effort for hopeless conservatives. That's what D.o.S. is talking about.

dubkitty wrote:i dunno, i kind of prefer being on the side of that equation that (at least theoretically) restrains the government from shooting an innocent guy in the head because he looks like a terrorist and then responding by saying "oops, my bad...but we work for the Queen, so tough shit." if you look at the history of the Twentieth Century, there's a good argument to be made for a Constitution that keeps the government from doing whatever the heck it wants.

my philosophy on government is that it should be the door to the basement of the darker side of humanity.

the fact that the Tenth Amendment has been used to justify some morally reprehensible positions shouldn't be taken to discredit its validity. it also allows states to, e.g., legalize gay marriage despite the Defense of Marriage Act. anytime any law, and the Constitution is among other things the basic law of the land, defines what's legal/illegal (i.e. [un]constitutional) there's going to be dispute over what the law means. i'd really like not to get into another political argument, so can i leave it at that?

fo' sho' shit, half the founding fathers didn't think we needed a Bill of Rights. Personally, I think the tenth ammendment is bull-shit for plenty more reasons; I just find it odd that no one ever takes up states rights as a separate issue without some ulterior motive, but seeing as this thread was supposed to be about jolly old angle-land...


(yes I did google "British person" and this was the first image result.

dubkitty wrote:i dunno, i kind of prefer being on the side of that equation that (at least theoretically) restrains the government from shooting an innocent guy in the head because he looks like a terrorist and then responding by saying "oops, my bad...but we work for Homeland Security, so tough shit."

Anyway, I can't believe we've had five threads and no one's done it.

Yeah.

I have to.

It's Happening.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzPbNvIzMf0[/youtube]

But it's in the title

London's Burning, (now with 100% more boredom...


now!)