The British empire was mild compared to the Spanish and French. Portuguese were in between even though they started the Atlantic slave trade.
l[quote=“thatoneguy, post:103, topic:8615”]
His rifle was not illegal. Nor was his protecting property.
[/quote]
Yes it was illegal under the circumstances .
a) he was not under supervision of an adult
b) he was not protecting his property
Gun laws in Wisconsin
Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”.
However, the exceptions are: “when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun” and "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice der the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."
**[8] Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."[9]
Statute 29.304(3)(b) states: “No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm” with added exceptions listed.[10] Children over 12 and under 16 are allowed to use rifles and shotguns under very limited, supervised situations.[11]
It came down to the length of the barrel. Which to me is a joke. The law needs to change. The NRA has made it difficult to define what AR means. Self respecting hunters don’t use them. It’s not a weapon for a kid
You think we got to defeat them all by being mild? (Portugal wised up quick and became our oldest continuous ally). You think we got to be the greatest empire the world will ever see by being mild? Like Jesus? We beat everybody to a standstill including the US in 1812 but we didn’t know it. You surrendered. But we burnt the Whitehouse with the surrender document on the desk. We conquered Brazil in an afternoon. We annihilated Denmark because it had too many ships. Copenhagen was the first city to be destroyed by rocket fire. Enslaved China to heroin for a century after enslaving Africa for 150 and exporting them to ruin America morally to this day. You died by a million to keep or free them. And failed. Jim Crow’s back. He never really went away did he? We ruined India for 300 years. Lorded over Africa from Cairo to Capetown, finishing the job of obliterating ten thousand kingdoms started by our Portuguese allies. We facilitated the displacement of Palestine by alien refugees driven by OUR antisemitism. We carved up India as badly as possible. Mild eh? You know nothing of British history. We killed God knows how many millions. The Spanish and the French were amateurs. You’re not even there. Nice little Philippine imperialist genocide notwithstanding. Millions in Ireland alone. Let alone India - three million in two years, China - five million without thinking about it. Mild eh. A great English beer. We won so hard we wrote all the history books. We weren’t even competent about it. Clever. Just unbelievably violent. Corrupt. Savage. Barbaric. Evil. Treacherous. And utterly self deluded. We do it so well we’ve even deluded you. It’s amazing what you can get away with if you’re polite. The funny thing is, it’s all on public record. Eventually. We fully documented all of it for a thousand years and more. It’s all there. Even if it’s still under D Notice. Like our Nazi King. A noted historian told me personally in private that ‘They’d have hung him if they could’. What he told me about Churchill was another nail in the coffin too. We’re crazy like a fox.
1 Like
Yeah and now we’re busy destroying the biosphere that supplies our life support systems, the society that raised us, and the future our children depend on.
How’s that for western progress?
1 Like
I know. The Spanish were the worst, but the U.S. was a close second.
But you still ask God to save the queen. That’s OK, you still do better than the U.S. a some things. Not sure what the U.S. does better though.
1 Like
This competition to claim that one’s country was the worst colonial, imperialistic slaver power seams senseless to me.
France has its share of atrocities.
Now it is a question of circumstances. Belgium, a small not powerful country, and his king did so well in Congo that even the other European colonial powers were shocked. Conan Doyle wrote a book about it.
[The Crime of the Congo - Wikipedia]
[Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia]
the Japaneses were not romantic bringer of civilisation either.
I could go on.
The Queen, PBUH, is the most… noble expression of noblesse oblige. Until the myth, illusion, delusion of democracy is overturned, I will be her willing subject. And Charles III’s. He’ll man up. And William V’s if I’m lucky. They seduce even me. There is no hope that I’ll ever call them Mr. Windsor.
No imperialism compares quantitatively and qualitatively, in manners, with English. Qualitatively the French were worse in Haiti, sure. Leopold II shocked Britain, which took some doing, in the Congo, believe me. But these were small, local affairs. We did it global. Still do. On American coattails. Thanks kids!
What is this acronym?
However, like many, I think Charles ordered Diana killed. It’s said that even his son are suspicious that their dad may have had their mother killed. Personally, my current admiration of the Royals is Megan and Harry. That took courage, but it also showed that Harry was concerned about Megan and knew exactly what was causing it, choosing his wife and family over title and symbolism. His own mother struggled with the demands of the position too, thus how he knew the problem… which leads me to believe maybe what I’ve read about his suspicions of his father are accurate. Then again, maybe it just supports my suspicions that Charles ordered her killed.
But that’s another topic for discussion and completely off topic for this thread. However, it does show that not every country is perfect and has its own problems.
Peace Be Upon Her, adapted from Islam. Conspiracy theories work on the assumption that people are competent. Al Fayed’s chauffeur was drunk.
Well Put!
If only gov’t or companies were as efficient as these conspiracists give them credit.
1 Like
Aye, it really is quite elegant isn’t it? The assumption of competence is incompetent. When I worked in IT our doctrine was that for our customers; i.e. always assume commercially that they know what they are talking about whilst they have no idea how incompetent we are.
This is true, he was drunk, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t planned.
By whom? How? Hypnosis and suggestion? I’ll bet no one has ever suggested that. The Manchurian Candidate Solution. It would explain everything minimally with just enough paranoia. No lizards necessary. I just don’t go down infinitely proliferating rabbit holes.
??? What are you going on about?
You must know Condon’s brilliant book and two films. The first is the best of course. Lawrence Harvey and Sinatra. How else could Henri Paul have been programmed to do what he did? That’s the first level of conspiracy. You don’t have Rothschild lizard people running everything over there? That’s the 23rd. A surprising number of people know it’s true.
I know what those things are, but not how they relate to this conversation, or even whatever you are trying to say
They relate to @mriana believing that Princess Diana was murdered? By Prince Charles? Henri Paul being the driver? And that’s all conspiracist ideation.