1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Control, firearms

Discussion in 'Serious' started by BA_13, 30 Apr 2015.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Well I know some Scottish and Northern Ireland laws don't apply to England, I don't know if the reverse is true though.
     
  2. megamale

    megamale Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2011
    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    3
    The US freedoms are generally set in the constitution. The UK ones are usually just implied. I would argue that the US is free-er regarding stuff like free speech which is absolute there. In UK this is tone down with libel, blasphemy, hate speech restrictions and such.

    One thing I never understand is why is everyone arguing what the second amendment meant. Who cares? it's obviously too ambiguous for a legal text and needs to be replaced. The US should be debating what gun laws it actually wants, and amend the amendment with that, rather than arguing about the intentions of founding fathers.
     
  3. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit No longer the other Brett.

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,279
    Likes Received:
    177
    The UK has a National Parliament, a Devolved Parliament for Scotland and 2 Assemblies (1 for Wales and 1 for Northern Ireland).
    Each have varying powers and can bring about certain legislation specific to their respective countries within the UK.

    Law is similar across the UK, however there are 3 different systems:

    • English Law covering England and Wales
    • Scots Law covering Scotland
    • Northern Ireland Law covering Northern Ireland.
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2015
  4. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    112
    Just to clear things up, since none of you seem to have read the 9th and 10th amendments: All rights not specifically laid out in the constitution are assumed to belong to the citizen. In no way was it written that only the ones mentioned are the granted, in fact the idea is that rights aren't granted, only enumerated.

    The amendments in the bill of rights, and the supporting letters and history clearly state that rights are not granted by the government. The are inherent. The right to privacy, as an example, was brought to the supreme court and upheld, yet was never added in an amendment; the 4th amendment being used to support it, not define it.

    So the second amendment isn't a granting of the right, it's just mentioning it. Hence, it can not and will not be revoked. And why the laws that attempt to limit that right will be fought, with each state having varying results.

    Take New Hampshire and Vermont. That have what is called constitutional carry. Any adult allowed to legally own a gun can carry it with no permit or special licence, because those states feel it's an inherent right that shouldn't be limited. Maine is about to pass it as well, although oddly enough Texas doesn't have it...yet. More states are looking to add it the legislative agendas.

    Basically, we are set up from beginning with underlying principle that the government can only limit what the government granted in the first place. And we made sure that almost everything was a right, not a privilege as to limit government's scope and reach. It's why it's such an historically powerful document. For the first time it wasn't "you're allowed to do this" it was just assumed you could until it impacted someone else's life. And it's also what stumps most of you. You just can't make that mental switch.

    Y'all might not like it, but you don't have to live here.
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2015
  5. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    There really isn't freedom of speech in England, what you have is a lefty governed euphemism of freedom of speech, which is called "politically correct speech" and / or censorship. It's like "racist" and "hate speech", it's a status that self declared victims hand out like candy. It is a destructive fad, especially in England (from what I can tell), to not take responsibility for your own feelings, so wannabee victims and other bandwagoners can claim foul at every turn. IMO it is the most dysfunctional period that humanity has ever been through, in that sense. It is an attempt to abolish freedom of speech to generate a generation of cry babies. Freedom of speech also means the right to offend.

    The United States, as you pointed out, has a history and tradition of freedom of speech that you English don't have. England and Canada (Canada is included here) should be ashamed for the tact they have chosen (the left is responsible, they are behind it) All they are doing is generating a codependent people. It's destructive.

    Maybe the only ones who get a pass are comedians? Maybe they have the power to exercise freedom of speech and perhaps many of them are using it well? But truth be told, I haven't seen any comedians exercising that power let alone do social commentary for a long time. Mostly it's juvenile and vaginal jokes these days.
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    You had my attention until you mentioned "the left". It is as obvious as the nose on your face that right-wing governments love to interfere with people's freedoms just as much. It really isn't a political orientation thing; it's a government thing.
     
  7. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    112
    This. Not to mention the whole left/right view in inherently flawed.
     
  8. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Leaving the political bias aside as it's already been pointed out that this isn't the reserve of any particular political view, you do raise some interesting points (imho).

    Yes the freedom of speech comes with the right to offend but that doesn't mean you have a duty to offend, I have the right to fart in a lift but I don’t because it's offensive, see the difference?

    Personally I believe laws shouldn't be passed that prevent people from saying or doing things that may cause offence, laws are slow to change and often very rigid, they aren't nuanced enough to adapt to how society views certain behaviour.

    Freedom of speech only works when there are no restriction but those placed on it by society IMHO.
     
  9. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    I think that what you will find is that what you perceive to be to the right actually is to the left, there is no difference between the parties, they are very much the same. They want to give the impression of being different but at the end of the day they are very much the same. They work towards a common goal.

    The left has always focused on controlling language, education, and media. That's where the real influence lies, and it's been concocted by intellectuals on the left. The right, as you perceive it, have historically focused more on brute force and physical control. That's easier to spot and defend against and eventually becomes unsustainable and crumbles..

    However, when your language is attacked your thoughts are attacked by extension and that's a completely different animal all together. How do you defend against that? How do you defend against the language being attacked? It's not that easy. "Hate speech" "phobia this phobia that" "racism" etc etc all of this stuff is very much a leftist idea. It's meant to control the way people think and to have them police themselves at the same time. Next up will be thought crime, that would be the logical progression of our direction of travel.

    In any case.

    Those who truly are to the right want as little government as possible, as little government interference as possible, as little government influence as possible.
     
  10. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    OK so I tried to read what you said with a straight face, this is the serious section after all, but when you descended into describing the opposite ends of the political spectrum like some kind of 1950's political thriller I just couldn't stop laughing, sorry.

    I think you'll find that your perception of other peoples political views says more about yourself than people you know nothing about.
     
  11. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    You have an interesting take on our current political climate I think. You see differences between two parties that really aren't there. You're not alone. I try to look at the whole picture and not get stuck in details though, details that might very well give the perception of differences yet at the end of the day be of no real importance what so ever.

    When it comes to the important stuff both parties share the same views and the same goal, which is more centralization of power and decision making. That has been the direction of travel for a very long time.

    My post was a response to Jumeira_Johnny.

    Ninja edit.
    I've been talking about the political parties, not about peoples political views.

    You are free to challenge what I've said but then please do so instead of giving me a knee-jerk response, OK.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2015
  12. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Again you seem to attributing how you view the current political climate to someone that has made no mention of how they see things, I think they call it projection.

    IIRC I haven't once said how I view the current political climate but you seem to be saying you know exactly how I perceive things. :confused:

    If your reply was indeed to Jumeira_Johnny then perhaps you should have quoted him instead saying You.

    If you are indeed talking about political parties and not about peoples political views then perhaps you should stop using the word "You" as that word is generaly accepted to mean your addressing a person, normally the person you quoted or the post directly above, and not an organisation or political view.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2015
  13. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    112
    First, it's not a one axis thing, so it's not that simple. The political spectrum consists of people, and therefore is way more complex they you make it out to be. It's easier to look at it with 2 axis, conservative, liberal, statism and libertarian. You can be liberal and libertarian at the same time. Just as you can be a large government conservative.

    [​IMG]

    Perhaps you have heard of Stalin? yeah, that's actually not true. Communism long held control through brute force, just as the right wing governments did in South America did in the late 50s and 60s.
     
  14. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    No, it was a response to this.....

    You have an interesting take on our current political climate I think....inferring to the 1950's thriller part.
     
  15. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    @Jumeira_Johnny

    When it comes to the important stuff both parties share the same views and the same goal, which is more centralization of power and decision making. This has been the direction of travel for a very long time. We're not seeing less of it.

    That's the point, hence there are no difference between the two. Not really.

    We can always get stuck and bogged down in details. We do that all the time, but many times those details are noise. Viewed to the increase of centralization of power and decision making.

    Because when it comes to that they are one and the same. I mean where's the difference?!
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2015
  16. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    That reply wasn't inferring anything or describing what my take on the current political climate is, that post was saying that your description here read more like a 1950's political thriller.
     
  17. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    In that case, what 1950's political thriller would that be?

    I'm more focused on the current political climate, not to say that history is unimportant in anyway.
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Hmyeahkay. So if the "Right" is actually Left as much as the "Left" is, then why are we even talking about "the Left"? As opposed to what?

    Frankly you are making no sense. The "Right" tries to control through language, education, and media as much as the "Left" tries to control by brute force and physical control. Governments all use the same bag o' tricks. And now you're dissembling by saying "Details, details!" and arguing that there must be something wrong with Corky42's point of view for pointing out the flaws in yours.

    I mean, dude. Can we just agree that you may have to go back to the drawing board on this one?
     
  19. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    The one that you describe here.

    And here.

    As for the 1950's political thriller you base your current political view only you can tell us that.
    But then you seem to be back-tracking on those stereotypical views of days gone by saying there all the same, so forgive me for being at a loss to what the point your trying to make is.
     
  20. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,723
    Likes Received:
    55
    @Nexxo

    The left has always focused on controlling language, education, and media. That's where the real influence lies, and it's been concocted by intellectuals on the left. The right, as most people perceive it, have historically focused more on brute force and physical control. The right could be presented by National Socialism for instance, they are usually labeled as right. In this case the opposite of Stalin, which is left. But, at the end of the day they were very much the same. Hence not different but very much the same.

    Fast forward to present day...

    Which brings me back to the two parties not being different in key important areas, such as centralization of power and decision making, you can also include surveillance. They are one and the same. Which was my main point.

    I wasn't talking about the noise, example; one party want's to paint the local school red the other wants to paint it yellow, yes that is a different view, but a rather superficial one, yet one which people most certainly would be happy to argue about.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2015

Share This Page