79% Say No
Last edited by veritas; 12-28-2012 at 07:30 PM.
Anyone who has read 'WW2 for Dummies' would know that,
A; It started in 1939 (not 1942) and...
B; The Brits saved themselves in a little known battle called The battle of Britain in 1940, before the US even entered the shindig.
So I take it world peace is not an option
According to the English Act of Settlement Roman Catholics, and those who marry a Roman Catholic, are forever barred from ascending to the throne of England.
That act became English law in 1701. It was intended to prevent the return of rule by Stuart Catholics.
300 years plus years later the fiance of Princess Anne's son still had to convert from Catholicism so his marriage wouldn't cost him his place in line.
The Act of Settlement decreed that no Roman Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic could hold the English crown. This is now to be amended so that an heir to the throne can still be monarch even if they marry a Catholic.
What isn't changing?
The British sovereign is also head of the Church of England -- part of the Anglican church -- and retains the title Defender of the Faith. David Cameron said at the 2011 meeting that "the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that church." This would currently bar a Catholic holding the crown.
No. There is no reason to repeal it. A better move would be to get rid of the NRA. There is no reason why legal citizens shouldn't be allowed a handgun as long as they go through a background check. And banning assault weapons is not an attack on the 2nd amendment.
The NRA would rather blame autistic kids rather than face reality. Only time will really eradicate them unfortunately.Originally Posted by Rael
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278