If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No mention of having to own a gun there then…
Notice the missing element? You don’t seem to need a gun to have freedom, according to Princeton either
Hmmmmm, nothing about guns again.
Are you starting to notice a common thread here?
The UK has government by consent (aka elections), a free press, I am not enslaved, I have political freedom - I can chose who to vote for or even not to vote at all. There is no obligation to conform, I do not have to serve in the armed forces and even during conscription and war, I can object and still remain free from imprisonment (should I wish).
I guess this one really speaks for itself.
As I said before, I respect your right as US citizens to determine your own ‘rights’, that is what government by consent means. You cannot hide from the fact that greater proliferation of guns will inevitably lead to more gun related deaths. If you believe that freedom comes from always living in fear of your neighbour, then good luck to you, but I really don’t want that kind of freedom.
Gun control in the UK hasn’t stopped anyone from hunting, shooting at ranges or owning a gun. It has kept gun related death to a minimum though and we still retain all the 'rights' I listed above. Personally, I prefer this kind of freedom.
<freedom n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints 2: immunity from an obligation or duty [syn: exemption]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Notice the missing element? You don’t seem to need a gun to have freedom, according to Princeton either>
Actually, the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Federalist papers, and the Anti-federalist papers predate BOTH dictionaries you referenced.
Nevertheless, the right to own guns, or in any case the means of coercion is clearly implied, even in the general terms of the definitions you put forth.
"the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints "
How would one gain the power to speak, if under duress? How have people historically broken free from the restriants of bondage?
They have fought for freedom. With what? With the tools of fighting, whatever the means of coercion available at the time. ROCKS , STICKS ,KNIVES, and yes, inevitably GUNS.
Once something is invented, it can't be uninvented. You can't simply wave a magic wand and wish guns away. The only way to lessen the effect of random gun violence in any country, would be to put the population under duress, have a police state.
The Brit's are well on their way to establishing just such a country. A few years ago Bobbies didn't carry handguns. Now they have access to MP5's. Something only counter terrorist SWAT teams generally have here in the "gun crazy" US of A.
You guys have fallen down a deep dark hole, but didn't notice the change in atmosphere because of the blindfold.
Actually, you live in a Parlimentary Democracy. The Parliment rules in accordance with the Sovereigns edicts, and you recommend what policy might be popular. I believe the Queen actually still has some power too, you know. Of course you think Parliment is actually representing you.
I however live in a Representative Constitutional Republic, where, even if my government doesn't represent my wishes all the time, at least the gov't has restrictions against it, codified into the highest law in the land, that it cannot deprived me of my rights.
<in this case a MAJORITY decided that a reduction in the proliferation of a potentially life threatening weapon was a good thing, hence it became law. >
Check again. There was no operating majority, there was an extremely vocal activist minority. The Snowdrop or should I say Snowflake campaign, run by outraged anti-gun femmenazis who took advantage of the Labor party's Blairing success and the ousting of the last Thatcheresque conservatives (read Torries? ) from the 80's. Not that they were all that Conservative, most of them collapsed under Leftist media scrutiny and supported gun bans as well. You really have few if any true conservatives in your government. Very little difference between opposition party and Government. Even less so than the Republicrats and Democretins in the US.
<We don't feel the same a car related death, swimming pools accidents (the term ACCIDENT is an important difference) etc, which is why owniong a car, swimming pool etc is legal.>
Death is Death. Who cares why you're dead, YOURE DEAD. Dummy. If the way you die is more important than the loss of life to you, you should evaluate your priorities.
The Anti-gunners are always bitching about what a "cost" gun incidents (killings) are to society, in human lives...yet Accidents, which represent a substantially larger loss of human life is somehow less important of an issue ? The cost is never evaluated properly. If all lives are equal, then a life you save by weilding a gun should counter balance a life taken.
There are ways to determine who would be alive today if guns were legal, versus who is dead because they are not. But no anti-gun folks ever want to discuss that.
<You can freely give up anything, it is a matter of free will, no-one can dictate what you THINK.>
Ok Smarty pants, use your free will to give up being a human being. Can't do it can ya?
Sure, you can walk on all fours and act like a monkey, (like anyone would notice the difference), but you're still going to pay your taxes at the end of the fiscal year.
<The gun owners were forced to give up their guns because it became unlawful to keep them. They were the minority, who lost an argument to the majority - democracy working.>
I believe De Tocville might have called that the "Tyranny of the Masses" at work instead.
<You have drug control laws don't you?>
And gun control laws as well. I agree with niether. In fact, the drug laws are what causes most of the killing... the so called War on Drugs is mostly what kills the 14 out of 100,000 per annum. ( although that's not quite a lot either, regardless of your ad nauseum comparision to mainly socialist autocracies) The Federal and State Police have a 20 BILLION dollar a year business in the prevention of Drugs and maintainance of prisions. Yet if their tactics were effective, they'd wind up having to look for other jobs. So it's self perpetuating.
<Don't you have the right to snort cocaine if you want to?> I'm a Libertairian. You can snort goat piss for all I care.
<Or is this an issue if govt interferrence?> Damn Straight.
< Or is it an issue of the majority of your countrymen deciding that free drug abuse is not in your countires interest (a view I agree with)?>
Well La dee da, You finally agree with an American policy, and it's a stupid one. Go figure.
quote:
"(BTW isolated freak incidents aside, Britan has never had high gun violence rates.)"
<And I'm sure that you would argue that this has NOTHING to do with the fact that the proliferation of guns had never been very high in this country. >
No, It has to do with the Sociological demographics unique to America. Inner city violence makes up almost ALL of the gun violence in our statistics. The fact that our Drug war is a government industry helps too. If you seperate the large inner cities (Which by the way have stricter gun laws than you sappy Brits) from the suburban and rural communities, the US and England are about PAR when it comes to gun deaths.
"Your government however, threatened to use force against anyone who would not comply to the new laws they created while exploiting isolated tradgedy for political gain."
-
<The PEOPLE decided and forced the Govt to act. The Govt were actually anti the ban, but listened to the people.>
Your government was pro-status quo and that only when it's PRO-Government.
<This is also why we still have our own currency and not the Euro.>
Thanks to Maggie Thatcher. A lovely conservative, you threw out of office... People's will and all.
<It is also why the 'Poll Tax' was abolished. Not because we threatened the Govt with guns, but in each case the will of the people has prevailed.>
I don't know about your poll tax, but almost all civil rights gains were won though coersion of the established govermental powers. That means through the threat of force. Black children first went to school in Alabama because Federal troops were sent to prevent local government from segregating. I just love it when government eats itself.
"It is why most U.S. citizens are wary of such accumulated power.
We do not have to fear our government when it fears us. You Brits however, should be quaking in your European boots."
<The govt you are so afraid of is elected by your own population.>
Yes, but learned men, have long recognized that power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely. The natural realtionship of a citizen with his government is adversarial.
Read some of the German philosopers, who was it?? Hegel, Heideger? on the State. Legitimate force,as a core issue to running an efficent buracracy... well, what if you had a problem with that? That's the way it is. The government operated under assumptions, that it must control it's citizens to be effective. Not a good thing, but it's tough to divert a disciple of any German school once they've made up their minds.
<We have survived hundreds of years without the need to arm the population against each other, why should we change that?>
Um, you've had arms in England in private hands since almost as long as they've existed
AND only NOW have you "decided" to change that.
You are out of your depth here.
are many Americans under the misguided impression that countries with a monarchy alll act like they're "brainwashed?"
Confidence is the feeling you sometimes have before you fully understand the situation.
- Anon
It is a sign that when laws are passed that the majority of the people believe in, that we are not under the power of the government but the government is under the power of the people.
Your arrogance is overwhelming. I don't agree with your country's gun culture but I accept that is what the people in your country have chosen. You seem to have the notion that we are stupid because we don't conform to your views on guns. Because we choose differently dosn't mean we are wrong. Because your American dosn't mean you're right. The important thing is wether you laws represent the wish of the majority of the popuation. It seems that although the regulations on guns are different the populations of both countries have what they want. It is best I think to agree to disagree.
Forward ever
Backward never
[/B][/QUOTE]
No !!!!! The Important thing is that the MInority or the Individual is protected against the arbitrary whim of the Majority, DUh...
I've been thinking about the whole 'need for guns' thing, quite independently of the 'right to guns' thing, and here's what I've got so far:
Both gun-less and gun-holding societies are stable strategies. If no-one is armed there's little incentive to hold a gun. But, if more than a few guns are held in public hands, the gun-ownership rate will escalate (shop owners get gun to defend themselves against the robbers who have armed themselves in order to out-gun the shop keepers). The result is a stable HIGH level of gun-ownership.
The former situation is, broadly speaking, the UK. The latter, the USA.
I think we're agreed that there's no great need for guns in the UK; similarly, it would be very difficult to remove guns from the USA. Even if US citizens were to start turning in their guns the law-abiding citizens would do so first, thus laying themselves open to gun-driven crime.
Thoughts?
This is how I feel. Both countries have laws that although different seem to work and keep a reasonably stable society. We should be content with that. I don't agree that America should have gun control laws like us but then I don't thing we should be as relaxed about guns here as America is.
Doubro please stop refering to me as a subject and your rudeness is childish. We can have a reasonable discussion I think without that.
Disuss not cuss!
- The Skiver
Forward ever
Backward never
Hunting rifles, shotguns can still be legally owned. Gun ownership is conrolled, not outlawed.
Indeed we are not. There is a thread about it - entitled Fox Hunting - on this very site, and in this forum.
The hunting ban relates to hunting with dogs. No mention of guns. The issue is about humans means of hunting. Many people consider that a gunshot is more humane than letting a pack of dogs rip the fox apart.
Your arrogance is breathtaking. Especially when you haven't bothered to check some basic facts.
<typical yank>
BIGGER IS BETTER, BIGGER IS BETTER
</pillock>
enough said really. not only do you know naff all, you have the mind of a child
Playing with fire will ultimately see you burnt <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/ukliam2.gif">
The article I posted was not propaganda from MY government. It's a report from YOURS.
Hunting rifles, shotguns can still be legally owned. Gun ownership is conrolled, not outlawed.
In the cities, where most of the people are, gun bans are conclusive. With the possible exception of tiny caliber air rifles.
<The hunting ban relates to hunting with dogs. No mention of guns. The issue is about humans means of hunting. Many people consider that a gunshot is more humane than letting a pack of dogs rip the fox apart.>
There is an anti-hunting movement in England and they are behind the movement in Parliment to restrict FOX hunting as well. Just search their various websites if you don't believe me. They consider a gunshot to be just as inhumane as a dog or a baseball bat. In fact, these people believe that animals have an absolute right to live, (which justifies any protection or defense) but people do not.
quote:
<Don't believe everything your grade school told you. I can see why you come across so elementary.
Your arrogance is breathtaking. Especially when you haven't bothered to check some basic facts.>
The basics (paraphrased)
http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/parlia.htm
The Queen herself is part of the legislature (as 'The Queen in Parliament' she approves legislation)'Queen in Parliament' is the formal title of the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Commons, a majority of whom normally support the government of the day, has the dominant political power. (really...)
As constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required, on the advice of Ministers, to assent to all Bills.(OK how are you "required" to take advice? If youwere really "Required" to do something, it wouldn't be advice, it would be an order, a command, or edict )
The Royal Assent (that is, consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707. ( That's nice, but the fact that it is not beyond the realm of possiblility that she could turn around and say "No! I do not assend". IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE, albeit long ago, but their is NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION preventing it from happening!!!!)
The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal (Unless the Queen decides it's not anymore. Even as a formality, it is an affront to all those in England who believe in self determination...Oh yea, I forgot, none of you do),although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
...She has the right to be consulted? Why? if she has no power, and is mostly irrelavant anyway? the country is falling all over with vacuous formality. But the real battle over Freedom or Servitude comes out even in the form if not neccessarily the function.
Oh, the genteel gun hating class of ill informed Americans often team up with the English as well as the Japanese in the UN to concoct any number of studies to prove that guns are evil, and not simply made of metal, but are infused with bad mojo and cause people to kill one another.
You may have quoted from a Yank report, but the source of these fictitious and skewed missles is always the same. It's the international "I hate guns" community of rejects and backward ass revolutionists who believe if good people gave up guns , bad ones would just follow suit.
Doubro please stop refering to me as a subject and your rudeness is childish.
ARE YOU, OR ARE YOU NOT, AS A BRITISH CITIZEN...A "ROYAL SUBJECT"?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I DID see though, A few posts mentioning the cultural differences 'tween the US and England.
BTW, how do You guys like to be referred to? Brit's or English?
Anyway, one thing You have to keep in mind when looking at the "Gun culture" of America is Our absolutely insane "War on drugs" that generates over half of Our gun homicides here.
My country failed to learn from "prohibition" in the '20's and has tried this same, violence breeding "war" for thepast few decades. Mated to an ill-thought "War on poverty" that (in effect) "Rat-caged" African-Americans in "Projects" it's little wonder that 6% of Our population (young black males) take "Credit" for over half of the gun homicides in this country.
This has far less to do with DNA than with DNC (Democratic National commitee) Who have a vested interest in keeping this population "Needful". We have payed 14 and 15 year old girls (many of whom themselves have drug addiction problems) to "raise" (term used VERY loosly) children Who see the artificially (by nature of prohibition) lucrative "career" of drug-dealer as an "escape capsule" capeable of removing these kids from the lives they are experiencing.
IMHO, get rid of this idiocy (the "War" on drugs and the attitude that blacks are incapeable of succeeding without a social worker within spittin' distance) and, the "gun issue" fails to register.
[This message has been edited by Treadhead (edited 23-07-2001).]
I feel so simpatico... I had no idea there was another Libertarian like me on the forum. Very good post. I couldn't agree more.
DOug
Actually, this is a debate going on in this country at the moment (you know the country where we have no voice - being subjects of the monarch) - and one police force has effectively de-criminalised the possession and use of cannabis.
As for royal assent. As you stated this has not been refused since 1707 (when exactly did the US win its independence?), and the Queen is unlikely to ever refuse because she understands the she is effectively just a figurehead, rather than an active part of the legal process. This is where the cultural differences between our two countries are most apparent. Just because she can do somemthing under law doesn;t mena she will. She doesn't have a team of lawyers looking for every legal loophole for her to exploit. As for the Queen's right to be consulted, even she is allowed an opinion - doesn't mean that her opinion wins the argument.
I'm not surprised that you see being a 'subject' objectionable, given your countrys history, but it doesn't affect our freedom in the real sense of the word. My Queen cannot COMMAND me to do anything, without me being able to refuse. We do not have royal decrees in the way that medieval britain did. Effectively being a subject in this country has difference in our day to day life when compared to yours. I also suspect that you believe that we have more respect for the royal family than we actually do.
In fact there is a running joke in this country that if you want an airline or hotel upgrade in the US, all you need to do is call yourself 'Lord' something and you recieve immediate defference. NOt that that is any criticism of the US, just an ironic observation.
You also mention guns not being allowed in towns. Perhaps you can point out the area of law that covers this exemption. Of course, it could be uninformed bullshit too, but then propaganda can do that.
As for hunting, a small minority hold the views you mention. I do not deny that they exist because they exist 'over the pond' as well. The position of the majority is what counts, at the moment that relates to fox hunting, not hunting in general.
Handguns were banned by the Conservative Party, NOT Labour. John Major was PM at the time. You can't blame the 'socialists' for that one.
Just a note for threadhead, I am English. I am also a Brit, it's kinda confusing because I am also a UK citizen, which is a third identity. This is something you really don't want to get into too deeply <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
We have England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate countries, with their own history and identity. We have the United Kingdom, which encompasses ALL of these nations. Then we have Great Britain which is the island state and doesn't include Northern Ireland - when we appear at the Olympic Games we appear as 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
Bet you are glad you asked now, aren't you <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
As far as legalizing drugs? We can't even keep the stuff out of our prisons (ONE place that You'd think We'd have some success).
Prohibition grew the "mob" into the fun-lovin' bunch of homicidal maniacs we've come to know and love here faster than any other mechanism they could have dreamed up. This is the same force that's at work now with drugs here.
These folks are willin' to kill each other over market share (turf, control, ect). The fact that it's an illegal activity tends to attract those willing to risk the system for the financial rewards "success" offers in this activity (not too many MBA's here).
What We HAVE managed to do is grow a monsterous government entity that confiscates property and takes lives while tryin' to do the impossible, namely, stop the flow of drugs.
I'm not about to advocate drug use for anyone but, the way We're tryin' to solve this problem is both ineffective and dangerous.
When any 14 yr old kid can tell You where to get pot (or anything else for that matter), it kind of makes You wonder what We're spendin' all the drug "war" money on?
Actually, this is a debate going on in this country at the moment (you know the country where we have no voice - being subjects of the monarch) - and one police force has effectively de-criminalised the possession and use of cannabis.>
Right, and in this one instance I defer to a European policy.
<As for royal assent. As you stated this has not been refused since 1707 (when exactly did the US win its independence?)>
I don't see the connection. The fact is you have no guarantee that it could not happen again.
<and the Queen is unlikely to ever refuse because she understands the she is effectively just a figurehead, rather than an active part of the legal process.This is where the cultural differences between our two countries are most apparent. Just because she can do somemthing under law doesn;t mean she will.> >
I don't care what she "understands". Does she or does she not have the power? Yes, she does. Will she use it? I DONT CARE. The fact that you are vulnerable to a Monarch potentially over-ruling your civic rights is enough to make the statement that your system needs to be changed. Our government also seeks legal provisions to deprive us of our rights. In time of War for example, Abraham Lincoln during the Northern War of Agression, commonly known as the "Civil" war suspended the Constitutional priveledges of Prisoners of War keeping them in jail without recognizing their 5th amendment rights.
<She doesn't have a team of lawyers looking for every legal loophole for her to exploit. As for the Queen's right to be consulted, even she is allowed an opinion - doesn't mean that her opinion wins the argument.>
If she is just a figurehead, she should not have opinon.
<I'm not surprised that you see being a 'subject' objectionable, given your countrys history, but it doesn't affect our freedom in the real sense of the word.>
The fact is, it could it could effect you in a very real way, reguardless of the likelyhood. The Sybolism of the crown is a constant reminder who has the real power. The Upper Class, aristocratic elites.
< My Queen cannot COMMAND me to do anything, without me being able to refuse. >
And you would refuse a royal command, would you? Tend to doubt it.
<We do not have royal decrees in the way that medieval britain did. Effectively being a subject in this country has difference in our day to day life when compared to yours. I also suspect that you believe that we have more respect for the royal family than we actually do.>
I beleive you have way more respect than you should.
<In fact there is a running joke in this country that if you want an airline or hotel upgrade in the US, all you need to do is call yourself 'Lord' something and you recieve immediate defference. NOt that that is any criticism of the US, just an ironic observation.>
I think it's an excellent criticism of the Mushheaded Anglophilles in this country who are impressed with the Aristofacist pomp and circumstance.
<You also mention guns not being allowed in towns. Perhaps you can point out the area of law that covers this exemption. Of course, it could be uninformed bullshit too, but then propaganda can do that.>
First, go to
http://63.174.195.254/w45/britview.htm
and see what a fellow Brit's experience has been, then...
go to
www.NRALIVE.com and e-mail them for the streaming video of British as well as Canadian gun confiscation and destruction. There was a pretty clear video of guns being crushed and torched after the collections began.
<As for hunting, a small minority hold the views you mention. I do not deny that they exist because they exist 'over the pond' as well. The position of the majority is what counts, at the moment that relates to fox hunting, not hunting in general.>
The position of the majority is that they don't hunt and could give a shit about hunters. Hunters are a MINORITY, and NEED PROTECTION FROM APATHY OR IGNORANCE of THE GOD DAMNED MAJORITY.
<Handguns were banned by the Conservative Party, NOT Labour. John Major was PM at the time. You can't blame the 'socialists' for that one.>
To me, John Major was a weakminded "Moderate" polititian which was put in to replace Ma'am Thatcher because she was too CONSERVATIVE, so essentially he was a conservative Appeasment artist like Neville Chambermaid. Only this time he was appeasing the Socialist's who were to vote for the likes of TOny Blair ANYWAY.
He went with gun control because he saw the political winds changing. If the true Conservatives were in power, they would not have barred you from the free use and ownership of firearms.
as for the elites having the power, you obviously haven't heard of the parliament act. useful little thing that the government pull out every time the house of lords (which is stuffed full of lifetime peers created by tony blair anyway, not just aristocracy) won't pass something that's already been approved by the house of commons and forces it to become law. i've just finished studying mid-17th century politics and the gradual shift of power from the lords to the commons during that time. so the elite haven't had the "real power" for hundreds of years. get your facts straight.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/tdo13.gif">
Your Tony Blair isn't exactly a lower class schlub.
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, British Labour Party leader who became prime minister in 1997.
"The son of a barrister, Blair graduated from St. John's College, Oxford, in 1975 and was called to the bar the following year. While specializing in employment and commercial law, he became increasingly involved in Labour Party politics and in 1983 was elected to the House of Commons."
Guys like these are born to become carreer politicians. Their ideological bias colours everything they do, and they are usually completely out of touch with the real people.
Sure Tony's specialized in Labor law, but that doesn't mean he's lived the life of a Laborer. He's a Leftist Elitist who borrows his legitimacy from association with Proletarian rhetoric. IMO
Her right to an opinion, as an individual, is the same as mine.
Actually, it's the middle class who hold the power. They are the civil servants, the policymakers not the upper class.
Damn right I would. I have nothing but contempt for the family and most of what they stand for. I couldn't have cared less when Diana died, I had no time for her when she was alive so what difference should her death have made. I dread the day QEQM dies because the world will get the impression that the whole country is in mourning, even though that WON'T be the case.
They live in a world of priviledge and I am sure that they think that the world smells of fresh paint (noting that everywhere they visit is tarted up beforehand). If you want to command me then you must EARN that respect, the royals haven't and so yes I would refuse if I disagreed with it.
Personally I just think that these US 'anglophiles' do it because they think that they should. They forget that the title should mean nothing to them. Shame on them.
Visited it. Only talking about HANDGUNS. You can legally hold a shotgun/hunting rifle in this country.
Also noted was the somewhat right-wing nature and the interesting comment about the perpetrators of that heinous crime being gay. This insinuated that the reason for the attack was their sexual orientation. Nice to see homophobia rearing its ugly head again. Never mind facts, just throw mud and make excuses that way you avoid the real issue (which wasn't that they were/weren't gay)
Should I have a problem with the destruction of arms?
Also noted is the fact that the NRA aren't the most independant organisation. There is no blank and white with them is there?
Good, let's protect the paedophiles then, they are a minority.
No. It is the duty of the majority not to allow the minority to rule - isn't elitism something you object to. The elitist minority? Just becuase you agree with the minority doesn't necessarily mean they are right and the same goes with the majority, it just means that in a democracy it is the majority who make the rules.
I couldn't agree more. Except that she was dumped because she stopped listening to the public, therefore the tory party knew that they would lose the next election, so they dumped her - and won the election. She was a strong leader and although I disagreed with most of her policies, I respected her leadership qualities. Shame about the meglomania that led to her downfall. Unfortunately all we have left now are the 'wets' and therefore no effective opposition to Tony. Dangerous.
And I know what you mean about Tony being 'less than working class', but you shouldn't tar all of his party with the same brush. There are some there with integrity and more than in the tory party who only have one issue to beat each other over the head with and that's our proposed 'union' with Europe.
Ok now that that is out of the way I am a fellow libertairian as well.Fuck the "war on rights".
<If she is just a figurehead, she should not have opinon.
Her right to an opinion, as an individual, is the same as mine.>
But you don't have the right to be consulted by Parliment do you?
<The fact is, it could it could effect you in a very real way, reguardless of the likelyhood. The Sybolism of the crown is a constant reminder who has the real power. The Upper Class, aristocratic elites.
Actually, it's the middle class who hold the power. They are the civil servants, the policymakers not the upper class.>
Um, remind me... who directs all the civil service agencies? Are there not high level administrative positions, "Civil Servants" who make extremely large salarys when compared to the common man, running things?
Please excuse my mistake for calling them Aristocrats. But we are still talking about those people completely insulated from the Great unwashed.
It's not like the "People" really have the power. The Civil Service is not the People. It's NOT EVEN REPRESENTATIVES of the "People". It is a Bureacracy which feeds of the labor of the People, much in the same way that the Monarchy did.
<And you would refuse a royal command, would you? Tend to doubt it.
Damn right I would. I have nothing but contempt for the family and most of what they stand for. I couldn't have cared less when Diana died,(Good then we have something in common)
They live in a world of priviledge and I am sure that they think that the world smells of fresh paint (noting that everywhere they visit is tarted up beforehand). If you want to command me then you must EARN that respect , the royals haven't and so yes I would refuse if I disagreed with it.>
First of all, No one commands a Free man.
Like Tony Blair doesn't live in a world of Privelidge. Sure , perhaps not like all the formal nonsense of a Royal, but he is no common man. Yet the Bullshit rhetoric of the Labor advocates make him out to be some sort of a self made Messiah.
His dad was a Barrister, he went to Oxford... Not like he worked in a steel mill or built ships for a living. Did he ever wonder one day in his weasley little life, where the rent money was going to come from? Man of the People MY ASS. Just another fucking career Politician, pushing his ideological bend on the rest of his constituents, and even others across the pond , whether they want it or not.
<I think it's an excellent criticism of the Mushheaded Anglophilles in this country who are impressed with the Aristofacist pomp and circumstance.
Personally I just think that these US 'anglophiles' do it because they think that they should. They forget that the title should mean nothing to them. Shame on them.>
The Title should mean nothing to anyone who thinks for themselves.
<see what a fellow Brit's experience has been, then...
Visited it. Only talking about HANDGUNS. You can legally hold a shotgun/hunting rifle in this country.>
First of all. The mass confiscation of weapons encompassed ALL FIREARMS larger than 22's. Eventually banning them later. I don't know if small rural areas still allow you to own long arms under extreme scrutiny, but don't even try to tell me that it's no different now than it was even 5-10 years ago. Gun control is leaping and bounding in your country. If they haven't outlawed them completely yet. Just wait. And mark my words.
<Also noted was the somewhat right-wing nature and the interesting comment about the perpetrators of that heinous crime being gay. This insinuated that the reason for the attack was their sexual orientation. Nice to see homophobia rearing its ugly head again. Never mind facts, just throw mud and make excuses that way you avoid the real issue (which wasn't that they were/weren't gay)>
Well, it's actually up in the air about the facts. Indications were that they were not Gay, but the identity of the Boys girlfreinds were originally protected, and the web page may not have been updated. The diary of one of the killers has not been open to the public, and so there is only the word of the Police to confirm or deny such rumours. While I couldn't care less about sexual orientation. It was a question at the time, because of the Hate Crimes legislation that was being proposed to Congress around the same time. See... a lot of Left Wing media in this country refuses to report, or minimizes coverage of completely proven bias crimes if the perpetrators are of politically "correct" minority status. If a gay person rapes a child, or a "Black" kills a "white" person, ... the "race" or sexual status of the criminal might not be reported directly for fear of stiring racial, social tensions. Yet, EVERY case of stereotypical Right Wing bias is pushed down the American publics throat, for months at a time... becoming election platforms for Left leaning congressional/ Executive candidates.
<go to www.NRALIVE.com and e-mail them for the streaming video of British as well as Canadian gun confiscation and destruction. There was a pretty clear video of guns being crushed and torched after the collections began.
Should I have a problem with the destruction of arms?>
Absolutely you should. Why? Because it is the clear intention of the government to disarm the population, to leave them at the mercy of the government. If you are genuine and sincere in your belief that guns are dangerous, then not even Police should have access to them. There is no justification for police to carry them if their lives are no more valuable than yours. If you dare make the argument that they can protect you with them, then you should have no problem with someone wanting to protect themselves.
I'm sure there are at least a few people more competent in ALL of England than the police.
<Also noted is the fact that the NRA aren't the most independant organisation. There is no blank and white with them is there?>
Like TONY frickn BLAIR and the LABOR Socialists have an "independant" thought between them? They are about as Biased as you can get in a quasi-capitalist country before simply calling for the confiscation of all private property.
The NRA, on the other hand, is a grassroots organization with people from every shade and background who simply agree on the principles of SELF GOVERNMENT, and also agree that the Government should not have a monopoly over the means of coercion.
<The position of the majority is that they don't hunt and could give a shit about hunters. Hunters are a MINORITY, and NEED PROTECTION FROM APATHY OR IGNORANCE of THE GOD DAMNED MAJORITY.>
--
Good, let's protect the paedophiles then, they are a minority.>
I see, so your argument is that Hunters. People who hold up the tradition for sport or for puting meat on the table the old fashioned way, should now be equated with pedophiles?
Well, let me see...
Pedophiles hurt innocent PEOPLE.
And you want to equate the value of people with animals.
<It is the duty of the majority not to allow the minority to rule - isn't elitism something you object to. The elitist minority? Just becuase you agree with the minority doesn't necessarily mean they are right and the same goes with the majority, it just means that in a democracy it is the majority who make the rules.>
It is the DUTY of the GOVERNMENT to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE, MAJORITY OR MINORITY. When an ELITIST minority attempts to destroy the HUMAN right to defend ones HOME and Family,by propagandizing the public Majority, lying to promote their adgenda, it's the Governments JOB to refuse to be a willing accomplice.
You act as if the entire English public rose up and demanded Gun confiscation. This was certainly not the case. It was a MINORITY of activists who exploited a public tradgedy and whipped up sentiment against gun owners. NONE of whom had anything to do with DunBlame.
<To me, John Major was a weakminded "Moderate" polititian which was put in to replace Ma'am Thatcher because she was too CONSERVATIVE, so essentially he was a conservative Appeasment artist like Neville Chambermaid. Only this time he was appeasing the Socialist's who were to vote for the likes of TOny Blair ANYWAY.>
I couldn't agree more. Except that she was dumped because she stopped listening to the public,>
In your opinon. I think the Politics of personal destruction was at work. I remember all the "Iron Maiden" rhetoric and nonsense, constantly bashing the PM cause she was conservative. It was a fluke that she one in the first place, and it was a testament to her talent and grace that she lasted as long as she did. The Brits, like any other country looks for a change in leadership, and they happened to buy the Labor party's platform. They were SOLD on it. The Leftists had better political advisers and operatives.
<therefore the tory party knew that they would lose the next election, so they dumped her - and won the election.>
They made the error by not maintaining their conservative platform. By being wishy washy and sending in JM, they LOST THE PARLIMENT AND HAVE'NT GAINED IT BACK YET.
<She was a strong leader and although I disagreed with most of her policies, I respected her leadership qualities. Shame about the meglomania that led to her downfall. Unfortunately all we have left now are the 'wets' and therefore no effective opposition to Tony. Dangerous.>
And I know what you mean about Tony being 'less than working class', but you shouldn't tar all of his party with the same brush. There are some there with integrity and more than in the tory party who only have one issue to beat each other over the head with and that's our proposed 'union' with Europe.>
TONY runs the party.
Nice how you tar the Tory's with the same brush. ALthough, like you said, I don't believe you have ANYONE in your government that has any real or significant position of opposition since Maggs. And EVEN she was probably anti-gun. But at least she would have prevented the Euro-Socialization you guys are about to experience.
The more things change...the more the stay the same.
I'm just worried that we're going to wind up having to go to war again with the HUN to help bail your asses out in a few years.
"I hear VOOTSHTEPS"
Heh heh heh
Technically the class system has been non-existent since the start of WW2 in 1939, and that's how I hope everyone sees it. Aristocrats such as Lord and Lady X of Chavesham Heights (or wherever!) do their own shopping, watch TV and change channels themselves, cook their own meals, and send their children to the local school. If they have servants that's because they can afford them - there are many around who would be called "nouveau riche" who are not "upper-class" but have a big house and several "home helps" because they can afford them. Lucky them. That's what this mercenary world of ours is all about.
"Aristocrats" do not think of everyone else as "the Great Unwashed." That's so ridiculous I'm roflmao <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif"> Just because Tony Blair went to Oxford and was admitted to the bar (a great achievement, don't slate him for it) doesn't mean that he's a toffee-nosed bugger who believes everyone else is below him. He's PM so people respect him (most of them!). He's got a big salary so he can afford holidays in Tuscany. Good on him. He has no "ideological bias."
MOK, usually I agree with you but I think the Royals deserve our respect. They live their lives in the public eye and have so little privacy. All of them are involved with charities, none more so than Princess Diana, who did some marvellous work in Africa. Admittedly Princess Di's character could be called into question; there are accounts of shouting matches with Prince Charles and faintly crazy behaviour. But take Prince William - he's always surrounded by media which must be really hard, and on his gap year trip to South America he was by no means smelling fresh paint!
No, we don't have the right to be consulted by Parliament. The idea is that once Parliament has an idea, they don't need to consult the public because we gave it to them.
Yes, civil servants earn lots of money. Again, good on them. Not everyone can have the same salary and civil servants do a damn good job.
Nobody commands a free man. That's perfectly true.
My point is that discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against a homeless person or the Duke of Devonshire. What's wrong with having a upper-middle-class man as PM? Where's the problem? He's worked very hard for it and the country doesn't appear to have broken down. Same goes for the Queen - okay, so she came to her position by birth, but she's stil worth having. MOK is right in what he said about our position as "subjects" (I've never thought of myself as one) a few posts up.
end of rant <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Confidence is the feeling you sometimes have before you fully understand the situation.
- Anon