I can see that you clearly have a responsible position and a responsible attitude to constituional law, so I would not lose much sleep over having you and your armoury next door. However, to my mind, ideally the public and private sector agencies you train would not be armed. If their positions did require a fire arm then that position would be held by a policeman. You would continue to train the police, but would have to be a policeman yourself.
I can see the value of defending the US Constitution and making it difficult to change. I think you need a two-thirds majority in Congress to pass an ammendment. This seems good and sensible. In Latin America where they almost all adopted a simple majority vote to change their constitution their constitutions had no more sanctity than any other law, with disasterous consequences for national stability. So I think you are collectively right to be reluctant to change your constitution too readily. If the price of a highly restrictive gun control ammendment to the US constitution was to undermine its prestige to the serious detriment of national stability, then I would say keep the guns on the streets. However, I am not sure that this would necessarily be the case.
(In this connection, we in Britain have no written constitution. Everything has been done by accummulated precedent, consensus and convention. This is incomprehensible to most foreigners but it has proved functional in the past. However, I am beginning to reconsider the advisability of this. A few years ago, there was a referendum in Wales to see if the Welsh population wanted a Welsh parliament. Only a fraction over half the Welsh electorate voted, and of these only a marginal majority were in favour. Thus Wales got a parliament only 26% of the population actively wanted. After that I began to feel that some form of written constitution was needed to cover such issues of clear constituional importance. [Please note that I have absolutely no objection in principle to a Welsh parliament, only to the undemocratic way the one that now exists was arrived at.])
With regard to your British ex-service friends. It should be borne in mind that they are very untypical of the British population. Few Britons serve in the armed forces and are personally familiar with guns.
I would also question the Eisenhower pistol story. It may or may not be true that Eisenhower did give the pistol to your friend's grandfather, we can never know. However, it is clear that the value of the pistol was not inherent to it being in a working condition - there are millions of other working pistols that can do its job. The value lay in it having been Eisenhower's. Your friend had a number of choices. If he wanted it to remain a working weapon, he could have given it to the army's Small Arms Museum at the Small Arms School (which I think is currently at Warminster). My father was posted there twice during his services career and I remember it well as a child when it was at Hythe in Kent. Alternatively, if he wanted to keep it in his possession and retain its sentimental value, then he could have had it rendered permanenetly unserviceable but superificially intact. I have an old pistol my father was presented by the Small Arms School in 1963 in exactly this condition mounted on my wall quite legally.
Guns in the U.S.
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
J.Pole / Jamie,
Sorry, I temporarily lost use of this public terminal before I could put your name on my previous posting.
To continue, my father's pistol is cut away down one side and unusable, but its sentimental value is entirely intact.
I agree that the money paid for many of the guns was not their real market value, but your friend would appear to have only himself to blame if either a historic pistol has been completely destroyed and lost to all of us or he has not managed to retain it as a disarmed weapon for a personal sentimental keepsake.
You are absolutely right that there are parts of the UK with gun crime levels higher than the US average (although without knowing what you mean by "many" I cannot be sure I agree entirely). But in the US half of all areas must necessarily have gun crime levels above the US average. I think you will find that the gun culture in the affected areas in Britain is to a great degree imported directly by immigrant drugs gangs using the methods they are familiar with at home. The problem is that their native-born equivalents are increasingly responding in kind.
I think you illustrate my point about our assimilation of gun culture rather well. You mention that you seldom find a British policeman in favour of the gun ban when surrounded by his peers and not members of the public. A British policeman should regard the generally anti-gun British public as his peers, not as some alien group. If they regard you as a pro-gun American as their peer, then they are sliding out of touch with an existing British cultural norm and assimilating as their own an American cultural norm. A police force that is losing touch with its populace is profoundly worrying.
I know three police constables personally. Two are current local constabulary officers, neither of whom want to be armed and both of whom thought the gun ban was worth trying if it put off the day when they would have to be. The third used to be part of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Group in the late 1980s. He was then armed and enjoyed the prestige this brought him. However, even he thought the ban ought to be tried, but he was pretty convinced it would not work. This is clearly not a statistically significant sample so I cannot advance their opinions as representative of our police as a whole.
For myself, I remain to be convinced that the more restrictive gun laws over here will work, but I have always felt that it would take a long time for any demonstrable impact to show up. Nevertheless, I am absolutely in favour of their imposition because, unless they are tried, neither side of the argument will ever have any empirical evidence upon which to base what would otherwise remain only opinions. I am prepared to sacrifice what is, after all, only a minority hobby to see if it results in saving lives.
I am making no sacrifice as I have never owned a fire arm in this country. However, I would like to say thank you to all the shottists who have given up their interest in order to obey the law for what is, as yet, only an experiment. I hope they will understand if I say that I hope the loss of their hobby does save lives. However, if it does not, I would like to apologise and thank them even more warmly for making this sacrifice for the rest of us.
Thanks for the chat, Jamie.
All the best,
Sid.
Sorry, I temporarily lost use of this public terminal before I could put your name on my previous posting.
To continue, my father's pistol is cut away down one side and unusable, but its sentimental value is entirely intact.
I agree that the money paid for many of the guns was not their real market value, but your friend would appear to have only himself to blame if either a historic pistol has been completely destroyed and lost to all of us or he has not managed to retain it as a disarmed weapon for a personal sentimental keepsake.
You are absolutely right that there are parts of the UK with gun crime levels higher than the US average (although without knowing what you mean by "many" I cannot be sure I agree entirely). But in the US half of all areas must necessarily have gun crime levels above the US average. I think you will find that the gun culture in the affected areas in Britain is to a great degree imported directly by immigrant drugs gangs using the methods they are familiar with at home. The problem is that their native-born equivalents are increasingly responding in kind.
I think you illustrate my point about our assimilation of gun culture rather well. You mention that you seldom find a British policeman in favour of the gun ban when surrounded by his peers and not members of the public. A British policeman should regard the generally anti-gun British public as his peers, not as some alien group. If they regard you as a pro-gun American as their peer, then they are sliding out of touch with an existing British cultural norm and assimilating as their own an American cultural norm. A police force that is losing touch with its populace is profoundly worrying.
I know three police constables personally. Two are current local constabulary officers, neither of whom want to be armed and both of whom thought the gun ban was worth trying if it put off the day when they would have to be. The third used to be part of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Group in the late 1980s. He was then armed and enjoyed the prestige this brought him. However, even he thought the ban ought to be tried, but he was pretty convinced it would not work. This is clearly not a statistically significant sample so I cannot advance their opinions as representative of our police as a whole.
For myself, I remain to be convinced that the more restrictive gun laws over here will work, but I have always felt that it would take a long time for any demonstrable impact to show up. Nevertheless, I am absolutely in favour of their imposition because, unless they are tried, neither side of the argument will ever have any empirical evidence upon which to base what would otherwise remain only opinions. I am prepared to sacrifice what is, after all, only a minority hobby to see if it results in saving lives.
I am making no sacrifice as I have never owned a fire arm in this country. However, I would like to say thank you to all the shottists who have given up their interest in order to obey the law for what is, as yet, only an experiment. I hope they will understand if I say that I hope the loss of their hobby does save lives. However, if it does not, I would like to apologise and thank them even more warmly for making this sacrifice for the rest of us.
Thanks for the chat, Jamie.
All the best,
Sid.
Responses...
Charlie Don't Surf:
I believe that my examples were chosen strictly to demonstrate that one individual with a firearm could effect change.
I certainly don't advocate an individual assassinating the rule of a country - unless he happens to live in Iraq, that is...
Sid:
Once again, you make points that I agree with completely. I would certainly LOVE to see a society in which police and other law enforcement agencies did not need to be armed. I have a profound respect for your average, everyday British Bobbie (Bobby?) that walks his beat unarmed (actually, I taught an unarmed combat course to some Bobbies several years ago, and I have to admit that I was VERY thoroughly impressed with the skill these Bobbies illustrated - perhaps exhuded is a better word - with their nightsticks! These were not even PR-24's, but normal nightsticks! However, I would like to again point out that in private, many Bobbies express the desire to be armed. I feel that in many cases, this desire is born of the fact that these Bobbies often feel helpless - rightfully so - when confronted by a criminal with an AK-47 or MAC-10.
Then again, armed response units are also FAR more prevalent (we shoud know - we passed on a very lucrative contract to train some of them!) today, than they were even 5 years ago. It is very rare today for an armed response unit to be more than 5-10 minutes from any given location.
My overall point is this - I freely acknowledge that gun crime is rising everywhere. To deny this fact would cast a pall of illegitimacy on every other point I try to make. What I emphatically deny is that disarming the civilian, law-abiding populace would somehow decrease the amount of gun crime. Gun crime is committed by criminals, NOT by law abiding citizens. When I go to a bank, grocery store, parade, etc., the people around me do not know that I am armed. The people around me should not be afraid of the fact that I am armed. In fact, the opposite should be true - many people who choose not to arm themselves take some measure of comfort in knowing that many law abiding citizens DO choose to arm themselves.
There are many reasons for this comfort. Primarily, there have been several high-profile studies that concluded that a majority (a small majority, but still a majority) of private citizens who choose to arm themselves actually engage in more frequent training than the overwhelming majority of police officers. Personnally, I average between 20 and 30 hours of training each month. It is rare (according to several studies, including one conducted by police departments themselves) for police officers to engage in this much training on a YEARLY basis.
Like nearly everything else, it all comes down to responsibility and accountability.
Jamie
I believe that my examples were chosen strictly to demonstrate that one individual with a firearm could effect change.
I certainly don't advocate an individual assassinating the rule of a country - unless he happens to live in Iraq, that is...
Sid:
Once again, you make points that I agree with completely. I would certainly LOVE to see a society in which police and other law enforcement agencies did not need to be armed. I have a profound respect for your average, everyday British Bobbie (Bobby?) that walks his beat unarmed (actually, I taught an unarmed combat course to some Bobbies several years ago, and I have to admit that I was VERY thoroughly impressed with the skill these Bobbies illustrated - perhaps exhuded is a better word - with their nightsticks! These were not even PR-24's, but normal nightsticks! However, I would like to again point out that in private, many Bobbies express the desire to be armed. I feel that in many cases, this desire is born of the fact that these Bobbies often feel helpless - rightfully so - when confronted by a criminal with an AK-47 or MAC-10.
Then again, armed response units are also FAR more prevalent (we shoud know - we passed on a very lucrative contract to train some of them!) today, than they were even 5 years ago. It is very rare today for an armed response unit to be more than 5-10 minutes from any given location.
My overall point is this - I freely acknowledge that gun crime is rising everywhere. To deny this fact would cast a pall of illegitimacy on every other point I try to make. What I emphatically deny is that disarming the civilian, law-abiding populace would somehow decrease the amount of gun crime. Gun crime is committed by criminals, NOT by law abiding citizens. When I go to a bank, grocery store, parade, etc., the people around me do not know that I am armed. The people around me should not be afraid of the fact that I am armed. In fact, the opposite should be true - many people who choose not to arm themselves take some measure of comfort in knowing that many law abiding citizens DO choose to arm themselves.
There are many reasons for this comfort. Primarily, there have been several high-profile studies that concluded that a majority (a small majority, but still a majority) of private citizens who choose to arm themselves actually engage in more frequent training than the overwhelming majority of police officers. Personnally, I average between 20 and 30 hours of training each month. It is rare (according to several studies, including one conducted by police departments themselves) for police officers to engage in this much training on a YEARLY basis.
Like nearly everything else, it all comes down to responsibility and accountability.
Jamie
Last edited by jpole on Tue Oct 15, 2002 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jamie C. Pole
InfoSec/InfoWar/IndEsp
Commercial Intelligence
InfoSec/InfoWar/IndEsp
Commercial Intelligence
-
charlie don't surf
- Associate
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:26 am
- Location: Sweden
Maybe then, I should not care when somebody robs my house because he's the real victim, not me.Why do some people commit robbery? They need money. Why do they need money? Becuase they don't have any money. Why don't they have any money? Becuase the society can't offer work or social welfare to all who need it.
Crime is not the way out, whether your rich or poor. I don't care what words are put on it, it is still wrong and they are wrong for doing it.In the news not too long ago in my state a Pacific War veteran (who had 2 purple hearts) shot a robber in the arm who broke into his house. He shot him non-lethally on purpose to scare him. The Police did catch the criminal in question, scared out of his mind and with a bleeding arm. Guess some people never learn, WW2 veterans can still kick ass.
The matter of security is not of much concern to myself with firearms, truthfully, but I am respectful of those who do use them for this purpose. In the end, I find it troubling that any government can control what a citizen may or may not own. Why should the rights of millions be taken away over the stupidity of a few?
Firearms against oppressive government
Charlie Dont Surf poses the question... "When have Americans ever used fire arms against an oppressive government?" Aside from the fact that an armed and aware populace is a deterrent to oppressive government which is hard to measure- let me cite two examples which spring to mind immediately.
First, an example of failed use which will get some of you under the collar.
The War of Northern Aggression against the Southern States of this nation. The Southern States felt forced by economic and political oppression to leave the Union.. which sparked the War. The Southern populace then took up arms.. many of which they had at home or purchased privately at the beginning.
I dont intend to agrue the "rights and wrongs" of that War or it's aftermath, my point is that a threatened citizenry DID take up arms against government which was against their will and interest.
Second example.. in 1914, in Walsenburg, Colorado, the coal miners Union went on strike for wages and working conditions. Rockefeller, owner of the coal and iron industry at that time in Colorado, petitioned the governor of the State to send in the National Guard to quell the strike, common practice in those times. The governor of course complied. The Guard occupied Walsenburg, LaVeta, Strong and Ludlow camps, instituting
martial law and
arresting, beating, shooting and "deporting" strikers. Finally in one brutal night the Guard attacked the tent camp at Ludlow and massacred many defenceless women and children of the striking miners and burned the camp. Many died in the flames.
As a result, the mine workers procured Winchester rifles... and engineered several ambushes of the occupation troops. Finally the governor had had enough of this negative public opinion! and recalled the Guard. Tho the strike was pretty much unsuccessful AT THAT TIME, the miners made their point and refused to be oppressed by a tyrannical regime. They successfully defended themselves and took blood for blood.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
First, an example of failed use which will get some of you under the collar.
The War of Northern Aggression against the Southern States of this nation. The Southern States felt forced by economic and political oppression to leave the Union.. which sparked the War. The Southern populace then took up arms.. many of which they had at home or purchased privately at the beginning.
I dont intend to agrue the "rights and wrongs" of that War or it's aftermath, my point is that a threatened citizenry DID take up arms against government which was against their will and interest.
Second example.. in 1914, in Walsenburg, Colorado, the coal miners Union went on strike for wages and working conditions. Rockefeller, owner of the coal and iron industry at that time in Colorado, petitioned the governor of the State to send in the National Guard to quell the strike, common practice in those times. The governor of course complied. The Guard occupied Walsenburg, LaVeta, Strong and Ludlow camps, instituting
martial law and
arresting, beating, shooting and "deporting" strikers. Finally in one brutal night the Guard attacked the tent camp at Ludlow and massacred many defenceless women and children of the striking miners and burned the camp. Many died in the flames.
As a result, the mine workers procured Winchester rifles... and engineered several ambushes of the occupation troops. Finally the governor had had enough of this negative public opinion! and recalled the Guard. Tho the strike was pretty much unsuccessful AT THAT TIME, the miners made their point and refused to be oppressed by a tyrannical regime. They successfully defended themselves and took blood for blood.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
DunRanull
-
Chris Greenthaner
- New Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 9:40 pm
- Location: Australia
Guns
Well, I am not a US citizen, and I am a gal. So perhaps I don't get all of the thinking here.
On Monday, here in the city where I live, a young man walked into his economics class at a big university armed with SEVERAL handguns and began shooting his classmates. Two men dead, 5 students injured. The tutor and one other student wrestled him to the ground. otherwise it all would have been a lot worse.
You boys recognise this sort of thing of course.
The next thing we found out was that the girlfriend of one of the dead boys is a member of the church at which my husband is a minister. He has now spent 2 days ministering to a family in absolute despair. The girl sits vacant and stunned.
Perhaps I am a simpleton or something. I wish more people could see the wash-up of this sort of act - it is too difficult to even describe. What did he need a hand full of guns for??? He was a legal user, but not active in a club -- he just liked his guns.
There is always someone who suffers. I cannot give it words. Just come and see this young woman for yourselves.
Sorry if I have missed something.
Regards,
Chris
On Monday, here in the city where I live, a young man walked into his economics class at a big university armed with SEVERAL handguns and began shooting his classmates. Two men dead, 5 students injured. The tutor and one other student wrestled him to the ground. otherwise it all would have been a lot worse.
You boys recognise this sort of thing of course.
The next thing we found out was that the girlfriend of one of the dead boys is a member of the church at which my husband is a minister. He has now spent 2 days ministering to a family in absolute despair. The girl sits vacant and stunned.
Perhaps I am a simpleton or something. I wish more people could see the wash-up of this sort of act - it is too difficult to even describe. What did he need a hand full of guns for??? He was a legal user, but not active in a club -- he just liked his guns.
There is always someone who suffers. I cannot give it words. Just come and see this young woman for yourselves.
Sorry if I have missed something.
Regards,
Chris
Chris, best regards to whoever it may concern.
With all due respect, I view life and death in an unavoidable sense. I may be shot by a criminal or hit by a drunk driver someday. But I do not wish to illegalize drinking nor do I wish to recap every car in America. A combination of the 2 kills ALOT of people each year not only in America, but across the world.
I cannot simply illegalize everything for my protection, because alot of people's rights would be taken away. Freedom has sacrifices, but as a founding American once said:
"Those who wish to sacrifice essencial liberties for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I would rather die a free man than live safely unfree.
I agree that tragedies will take place because of our gun laws, but the same will happen with snowmobiles, drunk driving, drug abuse et cetera.
With all due respect, I view life and death in an unavoidable sense. I may be shot by a criminal or hit by a drunk driver someday. But I do not wish to illegalize drinking nor do I wish to recap every car in America. A combination of the 2 kills ALOT of people each year not only in America, but across the world.
I cannot simply illegalize everything for my protection, because alot of people's rights would be taken away. Freedom has sacrifices, but as a founding American once said:
"Those who wish to sacrifice essencial liberties for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I would rather die a free man than live safely unfree.
I agree that tragedies will take place because of our gun laws, but the same will happen with snowmobiles, drunk driving, drug abuse et cetera.
-
Chris Greenthaner
- New Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 9:40 pm
- Location: Australia
Gun laws
Hallo, Rob --
and thanks for your reply.
Your kind of viewpoint is not unknown to me. My husband is an American, and so we have had lots of opportunities to hear about and experience how you see the issue of 'civil liberties' over there. I think Australia has a fundamentally different culture in this regard: we have laws requiring seat belts, requiring bike helmets, requiring VOTING (--- don't die of shock!
--- it is true!!). Things like this are generally accepted here as the government perogative. We even had a quiet and non-eventful change to decimal currency in 1966 and to metric measures at some time or other -- which I cannot even remember because it just kinda happened...............The gun debate happens here too (in the news a lot the last couple days!), however I do not think the lobby is as strong as in the States. I guess ultimately I feel the govt. does have a right to legislate in areas for the protection of the majority of citizens. And also a duty to do so. In the end I am not sure of the appeal of guns. On the other hand, I have been blessed never to have felt that I have been put in some situation of great danger. So perhaps I don't even have the right to comment.
Thanks again
Cheers!
Chris
and thanks for your reply.
Your kind of viewpoint is not unknown to me. My husband is an American, and so we have had lots of opportunities to hear about and experience how you see the issue of 'civil liberties' over there. I think Australia has a fundamentally different culture in this regard: we have laws requiring seat belts, requiring bike helmets, requiring VOTING (--- don't die of shock!
--- it is true!!). Things like this are generally accepted here as the government perogative. We even had a quiet and non-eventful change to decimal currency in 1966 and to metric measures at some time or other -- which I cannot even remember because it just kinda happened...............The gun debate happens here too (in the news a lot the last couple days!), however I do not think the lobby is as strong as in the States. I guess ultimately I feel the govt. does have a right to legislate in areas for the protection of the majority of citizens. And also a duty to do so. In the end I am not sure of the appeal of guns. On the other hand, I have been blessed never to have felt that I have been put in some situation of great danger. So perhaps I don't even have the right to comment.Thanks again
Cheers!
Chris
Yeah, culture plays a huge part in laws, which is a topic I don't like to get involved in, as I respect other cultures and enjoy them sometimes.
But....
The very fact that the government did pass this bill makes me angry. I highly doubt the legislators were thinking about the people when this took place. This is why I am not a huge fan of the republic. We basically elect dictators....that we agree with, but only on a few issues. When something comes up that is brand new or different, the people are not consulted. I was not consulted about taking away warranted arrests.
Another reason why I disagree with your quote is that it allows paranoia to run free. In airports plastic toy guns are taken away from kids for safety reasons. 5 years ago at my high school, trench coats and large jackets were made forbidden because the kids at the Columbine school shootings wore them. I was asked to take off my football jacket because it went past my waist and had inside pockets. Uneducated and paranoid people will someday make America completely unfree.
But....
This I would have to fundamentally disagree with. Hitler and the Nazi party used security and safety as excuses to take away many freedoms. Such is also the same with Bush's plan passed by congress which basically temporarily allowed the American police the use of Gestapo methods (house searches without warrants, and others). I disagreed with it firmly. But it was for safety reasons after September 11th, much like after the Burning of the Reichstag building. It's a tragedy I agree, but why must our freedoms be taken away?I guess ultimately I feel the govt. does have a right to legislate in areas for the protection of the majority of citizens.
The very fact that the government did pass this bill makes me angry. I highly doubt the legislators were thinking about the people when this took place. This is why I am not a huge fan of the republic. We basically elect dictators....that we agree with, but only on a few issues. When something comes up that is brand new or different, the people are not consulted. I was not consulted about taking away warranted arrests.
Another reason why I disagree with your quote is that it allows paranoia to run free. In airports plastic toy guns are taken away from kids for safety reasons. 5 years ago at my high school, trench coats and large jackets were made forbidden because the kids at the Columbine school shootings wore them. I was asked to take off my football jacket because it went past my waist and had inside pockets. Uneducated and paranoid people will someday make America completely unfree.
-
Chris Greenthaner
- New Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 9:40 pm
- Location: Australia
I understand all of this ...
....there is a big dialectic involved. Since the Bali bombings our government is introducing a bill to allow things like holding people without charge, etc. And I agree that is dangerous. And, believe it or not, out here in OZ we do complain!!
Re. your freedoms potentially disappearing.....I know that compulsory voting may seem like the antithesis of a democracy - BUT - you know if all citizens are required to vote there is a certain engagement in the political process which occurs. I mean, if you have to do it, you might as well make it count. As a result I believe our politicians over here are somewhat more answerable. Not a perfect system, mind you. But we are not a republic - we work on the Westminster system - with the Queen of England as our titular head. The advantages of not having a president are many I feel. Our Prime Minister is head of a parlliamentary party - as such he will always retain his seat in parliament as an elected member, BUT the parliamentary party can dislodge him as leader at any time. He is fully answerable to his party(and hence to their constituencies) as well as to his constituency at all times. I wonder sometimes how it works with you, when your president's cabinet is appointed and not elected. Too many executive powers in my opinion.
Sorry, this gets further away from the point all the time. I guess somewhere there is a middle road. Perhaps I am biased ( ) but reckon maybe in this country we are as near as onto it as we can get.
Glad you responded to me!
Chris
Re. your freedoms potentially disappearing.....I know that compulsory voting may seem like the antithesis of a democracy - BUT - you know if all citizens are required to vote there is a certain engagement in the political process which occurs. I mean, if you have to do it, you might as well make it count. As a result I believe our politicians over here are somewhat more answerable. Not a perfect system, mind you. But we are not a republic - we work on the Westminster system - with the Queen of England as our titular head. The advantages of not having a president are many I feel. Our Prime Minister is head of a parlliamentary party - as such he will always retain his seat in parliament as an elected member, BUT the parliamentary party can dislodge him as leader at any time. He is fully answerable to his party(and hence to their constituencies) as well as to his constituency at all times. I wonder sometimes how it works with you, when your president's cabinet is appointed and not elected. Too many executive powers in my opinion.
Sorry, this gets further away from the point all the time. I guess somewhere there is a middle road. Perhaps I am biased (
) but reckon maybe in this country we are as near as onto it as we can get.Glad you responded to me!
Chris
Compulsory voting would have amazingly great consequences in the US! It won't ever happen though. Ignorance is unfortunately, a right that people practice all too often.
You're right in that I hate appointed leaders, whether it be a cabinet, a judge, you name it. Absolute Democracy I think would be a step above this. It may have it's problems as well, but at least I would have my say in the laws of my nation.
I believe that Socialism is the wave of the future and that every country, including the US, will eventually be completely socialist; mainly because it provides needs and security to the general public while allowing voting and capitalist desire. It will however, also mean that the government will have unsurpassed power I'm afraid. Unfortuately, privacy is not a right that is acknowledged well in the US constitution. We will sacrifice freedom for safety someday, and it will have alot to do with paranoia and ignorance.
You're right in that I hate appointed leaders, whether it be a cabinet, a judge, you name it. Absolute Democracy I think would be a step above this. It may have it's problems as well, but at least I would have my say in the laws of my nation.
I believe that Socialism is the wave of the future and that every country, including the US, will eventually be completely socialist; mainly because it provides needs and security to the general public while allowing voting and capitalist desire. It will however, also mean that the government will have unsurpassed power I'm afraid. Unfortuately, privacy is not a right that is acknowledged well in the US constitution. We will sacrifice freedom for safety someday, and it will have alot to do with paranoia and ignorance.
Col. Klink I think the gist of the 2nd Ammendment has unspoken truth. The right to bear arms goes hand in hand with ownership. In England, you may purchase and "own" arms but when not in use (hunting, target shooting) they must be in a public storage facility. This is an example of a nation which you can have guns, but you cannot privately bear them.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am