![thinking :thinking:](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
![Sarcasm :sarcasmon:](./images/smilies/SarcasmOn.gif)
*Edit:
Obviously, this problem is easily avoided by not killing Scotsmen, regardless of location or armament.
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
Well when i clicked on the link it wanted me to log on as you or no access.SteveUK wrote:Odd, it’s stored in my public folder...
It isn't. This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day. So in 1463 King Fuckknows said it's okay to burn Catholics, and there's no formal and specific record of this being adequately repealed, ergo it's still the law. In reality it has been superseded by centuries of civilisation and lawmaking, and Catholics (even Sottish ones in York) share our universal legal protections.BoomerSooner17 wrote:If it's legal...
Your explanation matches exactly with what I assumed to be the case regarding that law: that it is technically not repealed, but that it is legally obsolete and no longer enforced or used. Texas (and most U.S. states, probably) has similarly archaic laws such as "Don't tie your horse to hitch rails in town on Sundays".Hercule Parrot wrote:It isn't. This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day. So in 1463 King Fuckknows said it's okay to burn Catholics, and there's no formal and specific record of this being adequately repealed, ergo it's still the law. In reality it has been superseded by centuries of civilisation and lawmaking, and Catholics (even Sottish ones in York) share our universal legal protections.BoomerSooner17 wrote:If it's legal...
There's another silly myth about a right to lawfully rebel against the crown, which has been mentioned here occasionally.
BoomerSooner17 wrote:Your explanation matches exactly with what I assumed to be the case regarding that law: that it is technically not repealed, but that it is legally obsolete and no longer enforced or used. Texas (and most U.S. states, probably) has similarly archaic laws such as "Don't tie your horse to hitch rails in town on Sundays".Hercule Parrot wrote:It isn't. This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day. So in 1463 King Fuckknows said it's okay to burn Catholics, and there's no formal and specific record of this being adequately repealed, ergo it's still the law. In reality it has been superseded by centuries of civilisation and lawmaking, and Catholics (even Sottish ones in York) share our universal legal protections.BoomerSooner17 wrote:If it's legal...
There's another silly myth about a right to lawfully rebel against the crown, which has been mentioned here occasionally.
I added a sarcasm tag to my earlier post.
Could we characterise these as 'Folk Law'?This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day.
I actually own a longbow and I believe the unofficial advice for carrying in public is that you should be at least two and preferably three actions away from being able to loose an arrow. If you carry the bow unstrung, the arrows in a locked arrow tube and preferably have the points separated from the shafts you're on fairly sound legal ground. You would probably still have to have "good reason or lawful excuse" to be carrying it from point A to point B though.JimUk1 wrote:I doubt, for one, that even carrying a longbow with arrows would get you as far as the top of your own street these days without the armed police turning up for a quick quiz?
Yet another difference between US and UK norms. Texas, for instance, allows open carry for concealed-carry license holders (don't ask me what I think of openly carrying a handgun in public without a badge to go with it). And ALL the police are armed.JimUk1 wrote:
I doubt, for one, that even carrying a longbow with arrows would get you as far as the top of your own street these days without the armed police turning up for a quick quiz?
I would have expected the A61 crowd to have latched onto Robin Hood before now, considering his association with Prince (later King) John of Magna Carta fame, his hostile relationship with local law enforcement (Sheriff of Nottingham), and his devotion to helping the oppressed (basically everybody).JimUK1 wrote: Actually thinking about it, have any freemen latched onto Robin Hood? We’ve seen just about every olde English niche except for Old Robyn!
The Robin Hood we all know and love has one very important similarity to the law of the land as touted by the 'rebels'... They're both fictional.BoomerSooner17 wrote:*Edit: I forgot, Robin Hood is also similar to (some of) these people in that he started out as the land-owning Robert Locksley, Earl of Huntington, only to be evicted and outlawed by the oppressive powers-that-be.
I didn't know modern Druidism went back that farSiegfried Shrink wrote:Oh no!!
Next you will be telling me that the Victorians invented the Druids and ancient highland tartans.
Yes, the US relationship with guns seems very strange through UK eyes. So many firearm homicides, countless tragedies involving children and accidents, mass shooting incidents every week, and yet the answer always seems to be "we need more guns". But I can also see the logic of that - if guns are so freely available and widely used by criminals and psychos, then it makes some sense to arm oneself against that perceived threat. It's a pickle.BoomerSooner17 wrote:Yet another difference between US and UK norms. Texas, for instance, allows open carry for concealed-carry license holders (don't ask me what I think of openly carrying a handgun in public without a badge to go with it). And ALL the police are armed.
[Stepping up on my soapbox, after which I will take the soap out and wash my mouth with it]:Hercule Parrot wrote:Yes, the US relationship with guns seems very strange through UK eyes. So many firearm homicides, countless tragedies involving children and accidents, mass shooting incidents every week, and yet the answer always seems to be "we need more guns". But I can also see the logic of that - if guns are so freely available and widely used by criminals and psychos, then it makes some sense to arm oneself against that perceived threat. It's a pickle.BoomerSooner17 wrote:Yet another difference between US and UK norms. Texas, for instance, allows open carry for concealed-carry license holders (don't ask me what I think of openly carrying a handgun in public without a badge to go with it). And ALL the police are armed.