Grimlord

My college merged with others in the County, making one large college with multiple campuses. They have a Facebook page of their own, but I can't say I study there. Well, I can, but the actual Page isn't linked. Rather, it looks as if I've made the college up. How do I add the page if it isn't in the automatic drop list?

It's my understanding that he has been in Guantánamo Bay since 2001 without trial. Isn't it written somewhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the US Constitution that all have the secured right to a fair trial, and that a such a trial may not be withheld for an excessive amount of time? If that is true, why aren't the US following their own laws, and even then, why isn't the UN saying "Hold up a minute, is there something in rule 6 I didn't understand?" I don't care if he's guilty or not guilty, he should have the right to a trial either way.

They are very handy things to have on you, but the law is strict on the whole knife part. The blade is less than 3 inches, but some other tools are not. Is it legal to carry the SAK on my person if I choose to, without any kind of specific explanation?

If the US passes an ACTA-like law, how would that really impact the internet? Would the relevant websites served from the US be shut down, and external ones blocked to the US, or would the world have to bend to the law? I know there was a massive global backlash against ACTA, which makes me wonder.

If abortion should be illegal because the bible says "Thou shall not kill", why should you have guns? You know, those machines specifically designed to kill?

Also, if, as so many Conservatives said during the swarm of gun control questions, "Liberals should stop getting so emotional about Sandy Hook" etc, shouldn't Conservatives stop getting emotional over abortion?

I am not going to say I am on either side, but I do dislike hypocrisy.

It would be a purpose built facility in Antarctica, perhaps the size of a small town to house the criminals that would have had a high sentence in their own country. It would be funded by the governments of the countries involved, E.g. If you want to put your criminals there, you have to contribute to the upkeep. It would a very strong deterrent to serious crime, because who want's to spend 10 years in Antarctica of all places? It would open up spaces in current prisons, allowing us to put away criminals for longer, as opposed to the current revolving door system. The prisoners would be held in a jail in their own country until a plane can transport the prisoners, and supplies, perhaps monthly or every 2 months. It may be costly, but I think it will in the long run lower crime levels in more or less all countries involved. What do you think?

I think it should for the following reasons.

Prostitution is going to happen, legal or not. Legalising it would allow for safe environments where women can work, rather than being picked up by people on the streets, going to a random location where they can be abused, or worse, killed.

It would allow women to earn a living wage from it, rather than earning a small percentage of what their pimp collects.

Sexual health would improve due to the necessity of workers and clients to be either sexually clean, or use condoms.

Women can quit if they so choose. Currently Pimps can harm the women to keep them "in line", and the option of leaving the pimp is too dangerous, forcing them to maintain the work, becoming a victim.

I think I had more, but they don't spring to mind at the moment. This is what I think, and why I think it. What is your opinion, and why do you support it?

When the adverts come on, particularly on E4, I can tell which advert is the last one, excluding sponsors and announcements. I will often say "Last Advert" just before it ends, and lo and behold, the programme comes back on.

I experience a lot of strongly opinionated Staters. I find this baffling as this is not a common trait of people of my own or other countries that I communicate with. It is very difficult to change such peoples minds on matters, as the 'Grey Area' is non-existent to them. Everything is either black or white. Why is this?

It's not really an issue, but my stereo, at lowest volume is -82. It then goes to -76, -72 and continues jumping in 4s until it reaches it's loudest, at 0. Like I said, it's not an issue, I just wan to feed my curiosity.

I dropped the Nokia 302 in question in to fresh water. It retains full functionality, but no matter where I take it, I get no signal. Not even one bar. It can still pick up radio, and can search for and find Wi-Fi. Does anyone have any solutions/ideas on how to fix this?

I want to play games on my second screen (TV) while being able to communicate via Facebook etc on my laptop. However, ePSXe always starts on the monitor, and I can't seem to drag it to the tv screen. Any advice?

I recently quit my 'job'. I earned a grand total of £40 this month, and decided it isn't worth my time. So now I intend to go to College and learn all I need to join the RAF. However until then I need some money to pay for the luxuries. You know, food, electricity, rent. Where would I begin? What do I do?

I really like the idea of flying around space as Sovereign or Harbinger, or even in the SR2 (Never SR1). I would like the concept of the Collector Ship, but it seems implausible to make it feel it would belong, what with being so large and slow turning.

First thing. This is not a shooting gallery against your least favourite political party. I don't give a flying **** if you think Liberals are stupid or Democrats are gun nuts. This is for seeing if anyone can come up with an agreeable means of controlling guns in the USA, without angering the other side. To not control weaponry would be stupid. To prevent those who may need it obtaining it is also stupid. Present your cases.

I'm not saying they all are, or that no other country has those kind of people, but the US seems to have more of them. It's always Red vs Blue, or Right vs Left, or Lib vs Con vs Dem or some ****. You never hear in an argument, "I see you're point but I also so their point. Let us try to make them work together." There never seems to be a compromise, if you don't get exactly what you want, the exact way you wanted it, everything turns to "Tyrant Government" or "Communism" or "Nazis". I just don't understand the mindset.

Just doing a random poll. I am personally for independence.

I have a few ideas on some manner of gun control laws for the US. I want Anti-Control guys to read the below, and help me understand whether or not they would agree to these laws. As for Pro-Controllers, build a temple in my name.

Background Checks

It has been said that repeat criminals are at an all time high. They go into jail, get out, and wind up back inside in no time. If this is true and criminals are likely to break the law again, I think a background check would help keep weapons out of their hands. It would also prevent anyone with a recorded history of mental health issues from obtaining one.

Registration

When criminals can't get guns directly from the shop, they could just get Mr X to buy one for him. Unless Mr X has to register the gun in his own name. Then when Criminal is found with the weapon, and let's say the police seize the weapon, they can find out that Mr X has been supplying firearms to criminals illegally. Mr X would be arrested, and this would deter Mr Y for buying a criminal a gun, tightening the noose on illegal gun circulation.

Mandatory Safety Test

A mandatory safety test would ensure people were at least educated in gun safety, hopefully reducing accidents at home. It would only need to be done once, giving the buyer a certificate allowing them to purchase any weapon for 5 years, at which point they must resit the test if they wish to buy any more guns. Should they fail the test, they can resit it next week. Current Soldiers, Police, etc with gun training do not need to take the test upon providing evidence of their occupation. However if they have left their job, they most take the test 5 years after leaving.

Firearm Officials Home Visits

Since at this stage all purchased firearms would be registered, Firearm Officials, experts in handling weapons and weapon safety, may perform a Home Visit to gun owners three times a year. This would allow the Official to ensure the guns are being treated responsibly, and more importantly, that they are all accounted for. For example, if Mr X had bought 14 guns that month and there were only 5 that Mr X could prove were still in his possession, he could be investigated for possible illegal gun distribution.

The Theory Behind It

The plan is, that because criminals can't get guns directly, they need Mr X. Mr X, however is aware that he may serve a jail sentence for this and the chances of being caught are high, so he is unlikely to do so. The alternatives for criminals are steal them from legal gun owners (which doesn't sound like the best idea in the world), or smuggle them over the border from Mexico or Canada, or even overseas. I WILL admit, some guns will slip through the cracks, but the increased price of illegal guns smuggled in because of the fact that the criminals don't have many other options would deter most "gangbangers" from buying one, as they are often poorer than average. As time goes by, the circulation of illegal guns would decrease to a point, due to confiscation by the police and by criminals needing to destroy evidence. Good gun owners have a little more hassle to go through, but criminals get hit harder.

The aim of my new 'Laws' is to reduce access to guns to those who may harm themselves and/or someone else with their weapon, intentionally or otherwise. Not to ban them, as so many people of the US seem to be against very strongly. This is a compromise. I have gone over the 'Laws', and as long as you are a law abiding, responsible gun owner, you shouldn't have a problem.

To clarify, we (meaning the people of my local area) class Junkies as being Heroin addicts, Smack heads, whatever. Currently, they tend to take money form the government, take hits in their wee horrible flat all day, and turn to crime, often violent. Now IF, and I say if because it's unlikely, but if a Junkie got a job etc, and only shot up at home where they stayed until they were sober, how would you feel towards them? I am aware it would be incredibly unlikely, but none the less...

The following was extracted directly from the Wikipedia article relating titled War Crime.

War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

Would nuking two separate cities full of civilians not count as an example of wanton destruction, and the murder of civilians? It may not have been in an occupied territory, but that much is regardless. I would not say it is justified because although the war may have carried on for longer, it WOULD have been won by the Allies, with fewer civilian casualties, and less brutal at that. In my opinion, the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was simply an excuse to show of the new "toy", and that the US should have paid a fine of some manner to the Japanese. What do you think?