Page 2 of 2

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 10:45
by pilvikki

i suppose anyone used to meandering about with a gun would feel pretty 'naked' without one... if i forgot, as a kid, i'd go back for my knife before heading out into the woods. not for protection, but as a tool to cut branches, dig up plants...

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 12:17
by Ice.Maiden
LOL - I used to do the same. My brother had this Swiss army knife, and I used to sneak it out of the house when we went to play in the woods. Lethal - but useful.

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 14:08
by bermbits
I have a cell phone for emergencies, a pen and pad of paper in my shirt pocket, and a Swiss knife I always have with me. If any one of the three aren't with me, I too feel a bit anxious.

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 20:07
by Ice.Maiden
The phone, pen and paper are sensible. Knives can be useful for a variety of things, but let's face it, you can't blame people for wanting to carry something that may help to fend off an attacker - who're usually armed with something anyway!

Carrying weapons such as knives, is banned over here, but since the criminal element carry them, it seems ridiculous that you're not allowed to fight back in a situation where these things are used. The trouble is, that'd make it alright for everyone to be armed in some way, which's precisely what we don't want!

Women can't even carry pepper sprays, but ARE encouraged to have rape alarms which emit a piercing shriek. Anything found about a person which could be used as a stabbing weapon's illegal, although metal ballpoint pens, which are strong enough to stab with, can be carried for the purpose of writing with, so I suppose they're better than nothing.

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 21:26
by Ice.Maiden

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 22:32
by bermbits
I think we are more attuned to these stories more than ever. There's something basically wrong with a lot of people!

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 08:00
by pilvikki

i think the gene pool needs chlorine....

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 11:26
by Ice.Maiden
Think that's why Prince William was allowed to marry a "commoner". Looking at the very interbred Royal family, it's no surprise that hereditary illnesses've been passed around, such as porphyria and haemophilia. The last carrier of the disease in the Royal family was Prince Waldemar of Prussia, who died in 1945, but because Queen Victoria's parents weren't carriers, they still don't know how the Queen was able to pass it on to several of her offspring, although it can suddenly occur without parental genes being passed on.

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 15:02
by pilvikki

although it can suddenly occur without parental genes being passed on.


...unless? well, you know... one of the parents... wasn't. :whistle:

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 18:42
by Ice.Maiden
Naturally, that's been suggested! :lol:

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 10:02
by pilvikki

go figure... :think:

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 12:10
by threenorns
if there's one thing she's not, it's "common":

Kate Middleton, the Princess-to-be who is constantly described as a “commoner” is actually anything but. Recent news reports have discovered what the Royals have already known – Commoner Kate is actually a blueblood. The monicker of “commoner” is merely for the benefit of a “profane” populace that now feels that their earthly gods known as the “Royal” family have the same feelings and emotions as themselves.

Indeed, It turns out that Kate has quite the impressive family background.

Her relatives include various celebrities such as Guy Ritchie (the ex-husband of Madonna) and TV host Ellen DeGeneres. Yet Middleton’s relatives also have more than mere connections to the entertainment industry.

Genealogical research reveals that she is related by blood to the author of the “Star Spangled Banner,” Francis Scott Key, as well as famous WWII General George Patton. Another distant relative, notorious Freemason and American President George Washington, in addition to her connection to “several families who colonized Virginia in the late 1600s,” also ties Middleton to some rather prestigious bloodlines. It seems the future Queen of England has a great many connections to America’s past.

But Middleton’s connections do not stop with America’s colonies. She is also related by bloodline to the infamous Sir Thomas Leighton, Governor of Guernsey and enthusiastic supporter of hanging, drawing, and quartering.

Some more interesting names that pop up in Middleton’s ancestry include Hobbes and Davenport, with the latter gaining some infamy in the United States in the early twentieth century.
Nevertheless, if one were still doubtful about whether or not Commoner Kate was truly as “common” as she is being portrayed in the globalist mainstream media, one need only look to one of her current living relatives as proof of her blueblood connections – Prince William.

That’s right. Commoner Kate is actually the cousin of her fiancé Prince William! Although this genetic relationship is not being lingered upon by the fawning media, the marriage between Middleton and William Saxe-Coburg/Gotha (the true name of the British Royal family) illustrates the obsession that the elite have had for decades on “keeping it in the family.”


[url]http://theintelhub.com/2011/04/29/commoner-kate-and-prince-william-are-cousins/[/url\

(author is a crackpot but he put everything on one page and summarized most succinctly)

PS: 14th cousins, not immediate, and i doubt it's a matter of "keeping it in the family" so much it being rather impossible to find someone in europe who ISN;T in the family!

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 12:55
by Ice.Maiden
Love the last line.

If we delve back, most of us can find a link to nobility/aristocracy/Royalty in some manner - especially on this small island of ours.

That article's not strictly true. One of Catherine's ancestors was Sit Thomas Leighton, who was a murderous despot. He was a soldier who happened to marry a cousin of Queen Elizabeth 1st, and it's only through marriage, not birth, that this 16th century governor's something like her 12th or 13th cousin once removed. She's so watered down, as to not have any "Royal blood" in her at all, and even then, it was only partially so.

The word "commoner's" been used out of context on many occasions. It doesn't mean that the woman's not well bred, but it DOES mean that she has no direct Royal bloodline (in other words, she isn't the direct descendent of a monarch). She's so far removed from the Royal line as to be able to breathe new life into William's bloodstock, which is what they need with all the prior in-breeding.

Children that attend the sort of schools which both William and Catherine went to, often find that their families can be traced back to the great and grand, and this's why parents like to encourage their kids to marry back into them, thus perpetuating lineage. It's a British thing really. No doubt her American connections came from the UK or Europe to begin with. We have Davenports in our own family, but apart from living in rather nice houses, they'd have to go back hundreds of years to find any connection which meant anything, because they're watered down by successive generations.

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 15:52
by threenorns
mom always claimed blue blood for me - told me any number of times i was a royal pain.

Re: gun question

PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 16:47
by Ice.Maiden
OMG!!! :lmao1: :lmao4:

That's beautiful!!

Well now, laugh ye not. With your mum being Finnish, there's every chance that her own stock WAS from Finnish Royalty. It seems that this was decreed by chivalrous deeds, and 73 Finnish families were off-shoots of an original family, interbred with Swedish nobles. I shall send you an invitation when I have a grand tea party, threenorns! :thumbup: