mmmcannibalism

There is obviously a line for self defense, explosives are outlawed in general because you cant use them in self defense in a practical manner while you can use explosives to cause harm. By assault rifles im going to assume your meaning fully automatics in which case it does fall under the same type of reasoning. You can use an assault weapon for self defense but no more effectively then you can a 45 revolver; however, an assault rifle is capable of more harmful activity then a 45 due to the rate of fire etc. The semiautomatic weapons that are also deemed assault rifles are a tricky middle ground. A large amount of them are legitimate hunting weapons, but I do agree that they are in many cases unnecessary.

I have to agree, maybe they will be doing something involving a new magic update to create a giant demand for soul runes?

ever permissible--yes in this hypothetical--yes in most real life--only as the last resort after the last resort Very few things are ever anything, killing someone is "always" wrong but obviously if someone is about to shoot your family and you could stop it by killing them choosing to kill them wouldnt be wrong.

p v m I dont think any monster will be able to "out smart" a player long term. Similair to revenants though a monster could be made to fight like a player and given a slight boost to make up for the weaker intelligence.

I dont think many people are that anxious to go out and break some pickaxes hoping to break money. If a lot of merchants are trying to buy at max, they will deplete the stock and shoot the price up like this.

I already said I agreed that it should be removed legally. But for a non natural born citizen to be elected we first need to remove the law forbidding it. y you ask? because we are a nation of laws, if we start saying the laws dont matter because of popular opinion we will have a mob society. I am specifically thinking back to the civil rights amendments just after the civil war, if we let popular opinion instantly overrule law without proper procedure we are left with chaos. edit--no, the constitution isnt some almighty document we know that, but I dont like the idea of just throwing it away at a whim just because one line of it is debateable. On topic, as I said earlier we can all be pretty sure Obama is a natural born citizen because the CIA would have checked this as soon as he announed he was running.(assuming it didnt need to be checked to become a senator and was taken care of earlier)

I see no reason why jagex would forget to deal with this, the only reason they are jumping in price is merchants hoping the loss of 50k at most will make them millions.

Only up to a point, near a school it would not be legal. Also, while nudity in the form of a protest and some other things (mass nude art shooting) is legal it would be illegal to just be naked in public as it would be indecency. Simlilair to the fact that you wont be charged for violating curfew(police not parent) if you are at a political protest(that is non violent).

. It would be an accurate and quick but weak by comparsion weapon. The comment about leather is an historical thing, the Japanese never used plate armor, so their swords focus on being fast while providing enough strength to go through leather. This is opposed to the claymore which is slower but designed to cut through plate. The rapier would be a one handed fast but weak weapon, the katana would be a two handed very accurate weapon, but would have weaker hits then other 2h's

he said noise, not the cause of it; however, a noise could disrupt your balance organs in the ear causing you to slip and fall in a fatal way.

What about a rapier as a weapon, yes there is already one but I mean bronze-dragon, makes sense as a perfect weapon for high attack but low strength. It would also be interesting as it would be a very fast melee weapon with a hopefully low max hit. Katana's from the eastern lands also provide an interesting outlet. Two handed and agile weapons, there strength bonus would be weak due to their purpose of being used on leather instead of plate armor.

hmm 1. Mr Lame Title 2. whats a title 3. i can has cheezeburger?

what temperature does mercury freeze at though? Also, I think mercury would pool inside of your body and still be detectable, neat idea though.

Whether or not animals aer actually gay or just angsty it proves homosexuality is "natural".

If he wasnt a citizen, him running for office would be a federal crime. We all know he is a legal citizen, and changing the law to elect him at a later time would be fine. If we start changing long standing legal codes on a whim we have a serious problem. Its good to amend old laws that are outdated for whatever reason, its bad to amend a law just because its old. There was a movement a few years back to remove the citizenship so arnold swarcheneger(spelling) could run for president. Im fine with them doing that, provided we have a reason for doing it other then "its an old law". For instance, laws regulating telegraphs coudl be removed, because they no longer apply to everyday life. Wanting the president of a country to be a natural citizen of said country is a legitimate reason to keep that law. edit--it is more natavist then racist, and while it wasnt entirely pure that clause did exist initially to prevent Britain from taking over again through political policy. Without actually being there I couldnt tell you which was the focus, but I do believe it was a reasonable provision. If a national vote to remove it came up for election I would vote for it if it still required more then just citizenship(ex 20 years in country or something).

well, thats why I dont like to say being gay is 100% genetic. It does seem flawed, but being gay isnt a one gene thing. When some amount of genes "line up" you end up with someone that will have a tendency towards homosexuality. Even so, it doesnt mean they will be gay, just like how someone with alcoholic parents can be completely sober their whole life.

1. 99.9% is a gross overstatement, I propose my two models of a. god is limited in power b. god greatly weakend himself when creating the universe as reasons you cant be that sure. 2. believing a god created everything is different then believing in a specific model of him 3. you understand the concept of infinity right? Its quite possible that the big bang was created by the past universe collapsing from a big crunch and so on back for an infinite amount of time.(its kind of a weird steady state universe model when you think about it). If reality can go back infinitely then a god also could. For instance, when was gravity created? who created it? it must have always existed. 4. evolution does not conflict with the existence of god, it conflicts to varying extents with specific faiths such as christianity that have a creation story(probably most if not all religions) 5. similair to 4, its quite easy to believe in evolution and god at the same time. The beauty of nature does not weaken and is not weakened by the beauty of the divine edit--evolution is a theory all it says is that things "evolve" how they do due to the process of natural selection. Its correct in general, im sure if we dig through it there are tiny problems with it.

Are you saying with regard to homosexuality? Please, that's ridiculous. That could be the case with what we're attracted to on the basis of race, or aesthetics, but not gender. No, that was directed at someone saying your environment controls who you are. Being gay or not is almost entirely excepted to be at least partly genetic(I think mostly if not all). That was more of a general statement disagreeing with the notion you become what is around you, influenced yes but not made into.

because its the law, I have no problem with them amending the constitution to remove this provision(still require some form of citizenship), but there is nothing wrong with that law and so it should stand until changed. Yes, that law is a little outdated, but that doesnt make it wrong, and if a law is in place and there is nothing wrong with it it must be obeyed. The main exception of course is if something is entirely outdated from its context such as a law banning manual labor on sunday. For instance, say you think the fine for speeding is too high, do you get to pay the rate you think it would be if you get a ticket? No, you pay what the law says, but have the full right to try and change the law.

it wouldnt be very difficult to get a warrant for that. You could very easily catch video evidence, also dont police have some right to enter private property if a crime is in progress?

it would be indecency, as mentioned because of the window situation but also because, A glass house would be a severe oddity, and building one/buying it in a busy area knowing you are a nudist shows intent to be naked in front of people.

the thing about evolution is it doesnt claim to be proof of every single generation of evolution, it claims to explain general trends. If say 500million(number made up) years ago there were a species of blue fish and a species of red fish that were close cousins, which one evolved into humanity over billions of generations isnt as important as the concept that we came from one of those species.

After a certain age you choose how to be affected by your circumstances. We are only as molded by society as we choose to be.

want to site a source? There is a difference between debate over if we came from the red fish or blue fish and a debate on the actual process of evolution.

Indeed it does, I would not at all be surprised if it wasnt the 13 year old.