h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It sometimes seems to me that gun owners in the US fall into several broad categories. There are people whose jobs involve(d) guns and who treat them with respect. There are people who live in the country and use guns to control vermin and/or for hunting. These people also treat guns with respect. The gun may be an essential tool for them. Then there are the people who live in cities. They don't need to own a gun. Many have no idea about safe gun use or ownership. They don't seem to treat guns with respect.

As I said, these are just impressions. I live in the UK, where gun control is much tighter. I spent several years in the T.A., so I have handled guns (SMG, SLR, Browning pistol) and treat them with the respect they deserve.

Coincidentally, I watched Runaway Jury last night. I know it's fiction, but films like that, plus real events like the recent shooting in Charleston SC, make me wonder if the Second Amendment is a good thing.

Aargh! Hit Post too soon!

I was going to say that the Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia. The weapons used in the late eighteenth century were pretty much the same as those used by the army, so a militia could have been formed. How well-regulated it would have been is another matter. Nowadays you'd be unlikely to form any kind of militia from the gun-owning people in the US.

I believe that debate on the Second Amendment is still happening in the US, alongside debate on gun control. They are matters that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

The "well regulated" clause is the legal foundation for the licensing restrictions I mentioned.

"Nowadays you'd be unlikely to form any kind of militia from the gun-owning people in the US."





Oh, no, there are "militias" all over the place. Not the sort you would want actually supporting the army, you understand. But I guess that doesn't matter because they're all formed with the intent of OPPOSING the army.



As for debate, there isn't one really. Just a lot of hemming and hawing and your occasional mention of "y'know, uh, maybe we should, like, uh, talk about this or something."

But no one ever does...



Now I'm not sayin' that we necessarily SHOULD repeal the Second Amendment, I don't even know myself whether I *want it* repealed. But we could at least have a grown-up, ADULT conversation on the subject.

I'm worried people don't have those anymore. I'm certain Congress doesn't. If they ever did...

Not meaning to scare anyone away with my bitterness, you understand.

Hey, Mr X, don't worry about scaring people away. Silence for a day is nothing to worry about. Threads have been dead for years and been revived.

PHOTD: people using random words as filler. The latest craze seems to be to throw "obviously" into the mix. "Hi, I'm Mr Annoying-Telesalesman from ABC Co and obviously I'm calling today about pensions". Um, how is that obvious?

Deb

People use "obviously" so much these days. Drives me mad. Has it taken over from "literally" which has been equally abused.

Both, of course, used entirely wrongly, as you say, Deb.

Post 14680.

So I was complaining about the use of the word 'so.

But nobody else seems to have noticed it. In retaliation I am not going to notice the use of the word 'literally'. Obviously.

PP.

I really can't stand the Wimbledon crowds, that's the tennis you understand not the AFC Wimbledon crowd who are as friendly a bunch as you'll ever meet, this 'Come on Andy' nonsense, what do they think the bloke's doing, not trying? and slow handclapping people when they get into an argument with the umpires or whatever, it's unsporting and unseemly, they'd never do it to a British player. And the daft so and so's on the hill or whatever they call it bursting onto cheers like storm-troopers every time the TV cameras are on them, oh and applauding the ground staff every time they pull the covers on, they must be bored witless! Can't wait for the cricket to start tomorrow and see some real sport.

I had a moan about the word 'so' a while back, but the general consensus seemed to be it was OK to begin a sentence this way. I however remain unconvinced.

This is a PH that might also have been covered before: people who post pics of their food online. It hardly ever looks appetizing and does nothing but put me off the idea of eating at their homes, ever (which come to think of it could be the purpose of posting the pics in the first place).

Maybe it's the amount of water between me and most English-speaking natives, but "so" doesn't bother me, provided it's used as a conjunction, which I think it was originally supposed to be. Although I think I remember our English teacher seemed to have a thing about "so", as he did with "a lot" and "alright".

However, I have heard it misused in, say, radio interviews. The interviewer asks a question and the interviewee then goes off at a tangent - in fact not even a tangent, more like a complete non sequitur, and starts the sentence with "So..". Then it is enough to make your blood boil, I do agree. It is a CONJUNCTION, folks, and should relate to what has just been said before.

And a PH would be radio interviews or interviews in general where a pertinent question is asked, which the viewers/listeners are also interested in, but the interviewee just waffles on about what's in their head. It would make more coherent listening, if they just let the people waffle, then edited in suitable questions every now and then, but that somehow goes against the art of journalistic interviewing.

PH: Dead trees. Not in a natural woodland but ornamental ones in parks streets and gardens. I pass at least 6 on my way to w*rk. This time of year they stand out like a sore thumb and are a potential hazard. Chop 'em down!

>>Can't wait for the cricket to start tomorrow and see some real sport.

So you won't be seeing the cricket?

Regarding dead trees, they can be an important habitat for birds, invertebrates, fungi and lichens. I assume the dead trees died where they stand, although it's possible they were 'planted' for artistic effect.

Occasionally I pass a field where a single dead tree has been left standing. It's something I'm always pleased to see, partly because of the habitat it provides, partly because a dead tree can be a thing of beauty. Let the dead trees stand. They'll be cut down when there's a risk of them falling.

So I think you're worryin' about this too much.

Language evolves. Often unpredictably. So how a word started and how a word ends up don't always have anything to do with each other.

Just felt the need to point that out.

...

That being said, "all right" is absurd, and anyone who insists on writing that is being deliberately foolish at best (downright stupid at worst), and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I start sentences with "so" all the time.
When speaking it generally gives people time to focus on me, that I'm about to say something, and not miss the beginning of what I've said.

When I start a post (here, fb, elsewhere) with so, it is more to give the feel of a conversation, or that it's totally banal or something.

Sorry, not apologising for that (or in inteweb speak: #sorrynotsorry )

PH: Wimbledon Towels. Just stop now.

Speaking as one of the AFC Wimbledon crowd, I'd have to say that there have been times when we would cheer the groundsman if he threw a large sheet over the ground and stopped proceedings.

PP.

What is wrong with Wombles knowing where their is?

<BB<

PH: people who dawddle at train stations. Get Out Of My Way!