[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
It’s just that we’ve been ruled by a supposedly left-leaning government for twelve years, and they have turned out to be the most oppressive bunch of bastards in living memory: anulling bits of habeas corpus, removing the right to jury trials, increasing “on the spot” fines (with penalties if you go to court instead), ID cards, DNA retention DESPITE the ECHR saying it’s illegal, database upon database of information (“for child protection”), removal of the presumption of innocence (RIPA), 28 days’ retention without charge (they still want 90 days), and so on and so on.
Right- but in America, it’s often Republicans who do the same thing- i.e. the Patriot Act (which included a facet that wanted to know who checked certain books out of the library), the defense of torture, issuance of a do-not play list for the radio after 9/11…
In Germany it was the super-right wing Nazis, in Russia it was the Communist Stalin… it’s all over the map. The want of power and control is not limited to one political spectrum.
That is only because your political spectrum is “left vs right” instead of “individualist vs collectivist.”
Guess on what side “liberals” are?
Yea yea anarchy rules.
Back to the regular discussion now.
Off topic slightly but I do not consider Nazism “right wing” even though that may seem like swimming upstream against common thinking. It was a statist government with much in common with the “left wing” Soviet Union. So much in common that I refuse to grant that label.
And since modern liberalism bears no resemblance to classic liberalism I think the blame for these problems can be placed on the modern liberal’s threshold and to a slightly lesser degree on the acquiescing conservative. It is the modern liberal who is hell bent on being the boa constrictor and choking the life out of liberty. (I’m speaking in the context of what’s going on in the USA. It may or may not apply in the UK - I dunno)
Yea yea, liberals are responsible for all evil.
Next.
I wouldn’t say that liberals are responsible for all evil but Britains liberals are particularly bad. The radicalism that you will find there is more extreme and widespread than what we have here.
What makes the situation much worse is the British people have very little in the way of constitutional protections in place to limit what the liberals can do when they come into government. When this is combined with the strong British tradition of blind faith and unquestioning trust in the government it leads to what is happening now.
You Americans just love your broad sweeping generalisations about British people.
The truth hurts doesn’t it. The problem is I can remember all the way back in 1997 when the British government was pushing the firearms control act. I can remember just how passive, how spineless and unprotesting the people were in surrendering what was left of their already infringed power to control their government.
That firearms control act was the all important first step in turning Britain into the police state that it has become. What makes the British so pathetic is the historical record is full of examples of would be tyrants first disarming the people then visciously turning on the people once they were defenseless. Even Hitler did it! What better evidence of what was going to happen did they need?
If the American government tried doing that the people would be up in arms and ready to fight for their freedom. The huge difference between Americans and British is the Americans value their hard won freedoms and are willing to fight to keep it while the British unprotestingly surrendered it to their “betters” in the government.
You have just kind of proved my point. To you, irony is a property of an Iron. And for the record, I can remember quite a bit further back than 1997 and yet again I will point out to you that the UK has never had a significant gun culture. The only outcry in 97 was from sporting target shooters because they were the only people effected.[/quote]
Your efforts to play spin doctor will not work here. It wasn’t just sportmen who were affeted by the 1997 gun control act. Surely you have heard of the case of a farmer named Martin who was the victim of several home invasions until he shot two home invaders who attacked him in the kitchen of his home.
Because he used an “illegal” shotgun to defend himself the government gave him life in prison. I would say he was very much affected by that law along with the thousands of defenseless people who have been injured or murdered since 1997.
You are woefully ignorant of British and American history. The right to keep and bear arms is an ancient right that Britains have enjoyed in various forms for over a thousand years. The American second amendment is derived from British common law and is based upon the 1688 bill of rights. It’s a good thing for you that good cap’n cut and paste is here to relieve you of your ignorance. For the sake of brevity I will start with William the Conqueror’s liberation of Britain.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:U5PlXQy-JhkJ:www.bcrevolution.ca/common_law_right.htm+keep+and+bear+arms+"anglo+saxon"&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Norman conquest brought with it the feudal system in a complete form, which reached its zenith in England during the 16th Century. During this period the kings began to formulate plans called assizes to determine the amount and tenure of their subjects in the military service of the king. Standing armies were unknown and little desired by the majority of free-men.
The Assize of Arms of Henry II (1181) required every free-man to keep arms suited to his station in life, and to be prepared to fight for the common defense and the king.
Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter, the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force until the King should begin to follow the articles of the charter.[13]
Thus the right of lawful revolution was born into the constitutional law of England. This is of major import because without the right to revolt there is less reason to preserve the right to bear arms. This particular portion of the carta has been reaffirmed as were the regulations concerning the bearing of arms and tenure by serjeanty.
It was also recognized at an early date that the society had certain rights against being terrorized by those going armed. The Statute of Northampton (1328) made it illegal to ride in the darkness armed with a dangerous weapon and terrorizing the people.[15] Thus the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and revolution were not impeded, but the “police power” to limit the use of weapons was recognized.
With the ascent of the Stuarts to the throne, England underwent sudden change. James I and Charles I made fine use of the scutage and raised small standing armies. After the Commonwealth, James II and Charles II raised even larger armies until the time of William and Mary (1688). Charles II forbade the owning of arms by anyone not owning land with rents of one hundred pounds or higher.[16]
The year 1688 brought the bill of rights which provided that standing armies were a menace, and that the people should all have the right to bear arms equally:
That the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of the parliament, be against the law
That the subjects known as protestants may have arms suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by lawâ?¦[18]
These two provisions would seem to reaffirm the theory and right to revolution, for they were born in revolution. Blackstone, speaking of the evils of the standing army, said:
Our notions, indeed, of the dangers of standing armies, in time of peace are derived in a great measure from the principles and examples of our English ancestors. In England, the king possessed the power of raising standing armies in time of peace according to his own pleasure. And this perogative was justly esteemed dangerous to the public liberties. Upon the revolution of 1688 Parliament wisely insisted upon a bill of rights, which should furnish an adequate security for the future
In addition to the right of revolution is the right of personal self-defense. Without this basic right there would be no reason for man to bear arms. The right to bear arms must therefore draw its strength from the rights of man to resort to force when law fails or an adequate remedy is not immediately available to prevent the loss of human life.
The thin line between self-defense with regard to actual bodily fear and that of stopping a progressing felony is in itself a delicate modern problem. A more ancient problem is that of self-defense when faced with an aggressive deadly force.
It was only in the nineteen twenties that Britain started restricting gun ownership in response to the Russian revolution. Then as now the powers at the top of British society feared rebellion and wanted to limit the peoples ability to rebel.
During world war two and for a time after guns were widely available in Britain. Soldiers would bring them home as trophies. The entire country was awash in guns.
Gun ownership levels prior to 1997 may not have been at American levels but there must have been enough to deter criminals because there was an explosive growth in gun crime and other acts of violence after 1997.
It has cut congestion (until the City of London decided to go crazy on roadworks and replacing waterpipes - which has considerably clogged up roads again) - and road pricing basically is going to happen to many more places, whether we like it or not. I’d rather have a local, consumption based pricing system than an increased tax regime.