RE: So I was sitting here wondering

RE: So I was sitting here wondering (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 10:49:24 AM)
And I've often wondered who runs England (Great Britain) when "the govt" can tell "the people" that they cannot own firearms. Does "the govt" dictate to "the people" over there? Do "the people" not have any say in how their govt is run? (Unfortunately in the U.S. big business seems to be running things now with the aquiessance of "King George" Bush and these rediculous "trade" deals and an out of control illegal alien situation which of course big business loves!.)

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 11:43:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And I've often wondered who runs England (Great Britain) when "the govt" can tell "the people" that they cannot own firearms. It's a different situation here. The majority of people have no wish to own guns so the Government are not dictating on this particular issue. This is an area where the Government are in tune with the people. If it was public knowledge that phone-bugging was taking place then it would be a different kettle of fish. Does "the govt" dictate to "the people" over there? In theory, no, because we elect them on their manifesto. Thus, in theory, their policies are voted for by the electorate. In practice, on some issues, they do dictate to the people. For example, I've just been reading a Mori Poll suggesting that in May 2003 only 24% of Britons supported the unconditional invasion of Iraq (i.e. 76% were only for it if it was proven that Iraq held WMDs and was UN backed). In this case, the Government have blatantly acted against the wishes of the people. Do "the people" not have any say in how their govt is run? See above. (Unfortunately in the U.S. big business seems to be running things now with the aquiessance of "King George" Bush and these rediculous "trade" deals and an out of control illegal alien situation which of course big business loves!.) 1920s US President Calvin Coolidge: "the business of America is business" - this suggests at the very least that the importance of business in the US is not a new phenomenon. As philosophy pointed out, it is healthy to critically analyse the powers that be in order to understand the role, importance and legitimacy of Government and their actions. This analysis will help us/you understand if us/you have the Governments we want. Furthermore, far better to be a shepherd than a sheep.

popeye1250 -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 12:18:27 PM)
Gent, that explains it somewhat. But it does sound like somewhat of a "Benevolent Dictatorship" when the govt. "tells" The People what they can or cannot do. As to firearms I think the difference in the U.S. is that it is a "right" to keep and bare arms while you in Britain have no such "right." Am I close?

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 12:30:17 PM)
Popeye, Genuinely, we're not comparing like with like here when it comes to guns. The reason being, as a people, we're not interested in owning them whereas in the US you obviously are. Hence, you'll fight for the right to keep them whereas by and large gun ownership means nothing to us - we don't consider it our right because we just don't want them. In terms of rights we value, I used phone bugging as an example. Now, I know we would be off our arses and fighting for our right to keep the Government and establishment out of our private lives if they ever made such an intrusion. So, it comes down to what we/you value as a people. If push came to shove we'd stand up and be counted but only if it were something that we considered worth fighting for and that something is not guns. On the benevolent dictatorship point, well that's not quite the case. We operate a parliamentary democracy/constitutional monarchy - take your pick. By and large, we vote for their policies and so in effect they are acting on behalf of us. There are obvious dangerous exceptions such as Iraq and the royal prerogative. In truth, serious political analysts could argue until they were blue in the face on whether the US or Britain operates a more democratic society. There are pros and cons to both. The real point is, both of our societies are operating dangerous neo-liberal economic policies that have placed business and their media allies well above the people. It doesn't matter how it is dressed up, the fact is that neither the US or Britain are countries ran by the people for the people.

popeye1250 -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 12:36:35 PM)
Gent, I agree with you on that last point. Our govt. now only seems to pass laws and trade deals which benefit big business and hurt The People. The last two presidents have been a disaster for the middle class in this country! (Bush & Clinton) Then, there is the matter of Americans being "Citizens" and you British being "Subjects". What's the difference there?

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 12:44:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Gent, I agree with you on that last point. Our govt. now only seems to pass laws and trade deals which benefit big business and hurt The People. The last two presidents have been a disaster for the middle class in this country! (Bush & Clinton) Then, there is the matter of Americans being "Citizens" and you British being "Subjects". What's the difference there? You will not find a person on this board who will agree with you as vehemently as I will on this point. As you rightly point out, in theory we are subjects. It's not something that I consider to be appropriate in a modern society. In theory you are citizens. Which sounds great and I'm all for it. In practice, as said, we live in two countries ran by some of the people at the expense of the rest of the people.

KenDckey -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 12:46:16 PM)
Doesn't subjec of the crown mean that you have no rights? All rights are vested in the royals

Arpig -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 3:44:33 PM)
No Ken that is NOT what it means. What it means is that as a subject of the british crown, a person is a citizen of a country where the head of state is the British monarch, and as such they are subject to the laws, and constitutional customs and practices of a Westminister-style parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. It also means that they are entitled to the protection (what little there is of it) and assistance of the government of any of the aforementioned countries (for example, if I were in Indonesia and all Hell breaks loose I could, as a Canadian citizen (and therefore a subject of the British crown) get to the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Trindadian, etc. embassy and expect the same assistance at any of them. You will notice that you do not become a subject of the british crown until you become a citizen of one of the Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is the head of state.

popeye1250 -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 5:07:42 PM)
Arpig, I'm more confused than ever. What does Canada have to do with being a British subject? I thought Canada was a seperate country. You guys do have your own govt. in Ottawa right?

Arpig -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 6:15:37 PM)
Yes we have our own Govt. in Ottawa, our own Constitution, and our own Bill of Rights (actually ours is called the Charter of Rights And Freedoms...but I think that is just to make sure it doesn't sound like the US version in conversation [;)]). However, Queen Elizabeth is also the Queen of Canada, and as such all Canadian citizens are subjects of the British Crown, the wording difference is rather important, as there is no such thing as a British subject per se, just subjects of the British Crown, and it includes all those in the UK, Canada, Australia, new Zealand, Jamaica, Trindad & Tobago, and a whole bunch more little ex british colonies as well. The term mostly denotes the unique fact of many 100% independant nations with the same head of state, so despite the fact that each government and country is completely independant, all are linked...think of it sort of like an extended family, If a Brit gets in trouble anywhere in the world, they can turn to "Uncle Canada" and they will get some help (not a hell of a lot, but some). The theoretical rationale is that since a Canadian diplomat represents the Crown, any subject of that Crown can request aid. So, effectively being a Subject of the Crown is sort of like a supra-national citizenship, much like the way that a French citizen is also an EU citizen (or whatever the term they use in the EU).

KenDckey -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 9:31:00 PM)
So what happens when on country disagrees with another? How do you decide who will win? Go ask the Queen?

Sinergy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 9:55:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig No Ken that is NOT what it means. What it means is that as a subject of the british crown, a person is a citizen of a country where the head of state is the British monarch, and as such they are subject to the laws, and constitutional customs and practices of a Westminister-style parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. It also means that they are entitled to the protection (what little there is of it) and assistance of the government of any of the aforementioned countries (for example, if I were in Indonesia and all Hell breaks loose I could, as a Canadian citizen (and therefore a subject of the British crown) get to the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Trindadian, etc. embassy and expect the same assistance at any of them. You will notice that you do not become a subject of the british crown until you become a citizen of one of the Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is the head of state. Despite the fact that the royal family is considered the head of state of the British Empire, King John signed away most (or all) of the royal family's power of governance when he was forced to sign the Magna Carta. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc., all consider themselves part of the British Empire, but all of them operate under their own government. Even if Queen Liz is on Canadian money, it does not mean she can force them to invade Iraq. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 9:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig If a Brit gets in trouble anywhere in the world, they can turn to "Uncle Canada" and they will get some help (not a hell of a lot, but some). This is not entirely true. Canada and the United States share strategic missile defense for our nuclear arsenal. What this means is that if the Commander In Chief of Canada can convince the Commander In Chief PAC (or whoever) to push the second big red button, those nasty Canada hating people in Jamaica will be a radioactive glaze. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Arpig -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 10:08:42 PM)
quote: Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sorry Sinergy, but you most assuredly are wrong in this case. 1. the Magna Carta most certainly did NOT affect the monarchs power of governance...read it and see. 2. Very few people in Canada consider themselves part of the British Empire. We used to be, but we have not been for a good many years. We are a 100% independant country, we just happen to share a constitutional head of State with several other countries with whom we have an extensive shared history. 3. Of course she couldn't force Canada to war, that power is vested in Parliament. 4. Yes of course Canada could go to war with jamaica, the US, the UK, or even lower slobovia if we chose to do so. That in no way enters into what I stated, that is like saying that apple juice is not made from apples because you can make juice from oranges....utterly unrelated facts. 5. It is not the Commader-in-Chief (the Queen) who has the power to go to war in Canada, it is the elected representatives of the people who have that power.

Sinergy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 10:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sorry Sinergy, but you most assuredly are wrong in this case. 1. the Magna Carta most certainly did NOT affect the monarchs power of governance...read it and see. 2. Very few people in Canada consider themselves part of the British Empire. We used to be, but we have not been for a good many years. We are a 100% independant country, we just happen to share a constitutional head of State with several other countries with whom we have an extensive shared history. 3. Of course she couldn't force Canada to war, that power is vested in Parliament. 4. Yes of course Canada could go to war with jamaica, the US, the UK, or even lower slobovia if we chose to do so. That in no way enters into what I stated, that is like saying that apple juice is not made from apples because you can make juice from oranges....utterly unrelated facts. 5. It is not the Commader-in-Chief (the Queen) who has the power to go to war in Canada, it is the elected representatives of the people who have that power. While I will admit that I have not read the Magna Carta in 22 years, my understanding of it when I did read it was that King John vested the power of governance, for the most part, in Parlaiment. At the time, this was a government agency made up of all the noblemen he relied on to support his throne. I never said anything about declaring war on Jamaica. I stated that CINC Canada and somebody else could nuke Jamaica into the Stone Age. The ability to nuke something tends to be, in my mind, a rather more potent method of dealing with it than you described it, "protection, such as it is," or something like that. Parliaments and Congresses are there to do the declaring of war. A declaration of war, for example, if Okinawa declared war on the Haiti, doesnt actually mean anything tangible unless the fighting countries do anything about it. I thought you stated a Canadian citizen could go in to a Trinidad embassy and gain protection from them because of some intangible connection with the British Empire. Perhaps I misread your post. Sinergy

UtopianRanger -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 10:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Arpig, I'm more confused than ever. What does Canada have to do with being a British subject? I thought Canada was a seperate country. You guys do have your own govt. in Ottawa right? Popeye... Canada is an extremely fascinating place. Imagine with only 33 million people and a fairly liberal justice system, a genuinely legitimate separatist movement in the Eastern part of the country has been able to evolve. But hey....even if they eventually win out and bar all ''Yankee speak'' I'm stilling going to buy a place in BC in the next few years. There's nothing like summertime in one of BC's pristine river valleys. If we're conned into a electing another Neocon in the distant future I wanna get some of that dual citizenship before its too late - R

Sinergy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 10:42:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Arpig, I'm more confused than ever. What does Canada have to do with being a British subject? I thought Canada was a seperate country. You guys do have your own govt. in Ottawa right? Popeye... Canada is an extremely fascinating place. Imagining with only 33 million people and a fairly liberal justice system, a genuinely legitimate separatist movement in the Eastern part of the country has been able to evolve. But hey....even if they eventually win out and bar all ''Yankee speak'' I'm stilling going to buy a place in BC in the next few years. There's nothing like summertime in one of BC's pristine river valleys. - R I love Canada. A place of insanely polite people and streets clean enough to eat off of. I have issues with the comment that there is a legitimate seperatist movement in Eastern Canada. These people seem to me to be delusional. They have no real industry. They have no real agriculture. If they were to blow up the bridges and declare themselves Montrealistan, they would immediately go from being a 1st world country to a 3rd world country. Although I understand from some BC people that they are more than happy with the idea of trading Trinidad and Tobego for Quebec any day. Sandy beaches and fruity drinks made with rum on the one hand, Rude Quebequois speaking bastardized French on the other... . Just me, probably wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

UtopianRanger -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 10:58:00 PM)
quote: I love Canada. A place of insanely polite people and streets clean enough to eat off of. So do I. Skied in Whistler and on numerous occasions have run whitewater in both the coast and inland river valleys - BC is as pristine as it gets. quote: I have issues with the comment that there is a legitimate seperatist movement in Eastern Canada. These people seem to me to be delusional. They have no real industry. They have no real agriculture. If they were to blow up the bridges and declare themselves Montrealistan, they would immediately go from being a 1st world country to a 3rd world country. HAR! The good folks in Quebec City { I believe home of the revolution} will never believe you if you tell them that - R

adommeforu -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 11:12:57 PM)
1. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about Americans being armed with personal weapons? A: Because they cannot control the crime they have and to add the extra "wepons" stat to the mix [and this is the desire, to be as free to bear arms as the USA] would throw the UK into chaos. 2. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about American politics? A: Because it distracts them from their own woes. 3. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about thier own problems? A: Because it is easier to shake a finger at others than to pay attention to their own problems [and lets face it, there are enough of them]. 4. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about the loss of power of their Queen? A: The Monarchy have not had any power for centuries, so there is no need to consider this point. Anyone got any ideas?

OeldeWolf -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/20/2006 11:47:40 PM)
I think that the reason the Brits (and half of the people out there trying to muck up our country like the aussies) are worried abiout our having an armed populace, is that we are setting an example of independence that threatens their power bases. Let's face it, a subject is the property of the government he is subject to. Yes, property. Look up subject, and study it. The king (or government) owns and controls the subjects. I know some very scholarly people, even brits, and they all agree. The illusion of citizenship in gb and au is just that. According to our founding fathers (and they waxed rather eloquently and at some length on the subject on many occasions) one of the principal reasons for an armed populace was as a check on the ambition of government and politicians. Having just forcibly thrown one government out on its ears, they wished to preserve that right to their descendents. This is the main reason that other governments do not want armed populations or even american examples to exist. Another reason was independence. An armed man could (and still can if necessary) go out and feed himself and his family with his firearms. Again, look at the european models of governments, and you will see thatt he governments have fostered a dependence in their populations. Third was the right of self defense. Remember Chirac's response to the french populace trying to protect themselves against the muslim terrorists/protesters earlier this year? He told them that they were not allowed to defend themselves, they had to let their government protect them. So they had 13 days of firebombs, and the government ineffectually doing nothing but try to think of ways to appease the terrorists. Admittedly, they were french, but even the french have seldom been quite this ineffectual. They used to be quite good at putting down riots by main force. Finally, remember some of the signs carried by the moslem demonstrators in london earlier this year? Death to all who mock islam? To hell with freedom? Behead all who slander islam? The last reason that so many countries want to disarm america is that they think they can paralyze american politicians, which may be right, so that they can make "progress against the americans." But they know that they can not paralyze the whole of the american populace, and that this makes us a much tougher target. If they tried that mass riot/firebomb thing here, some citizens would shoot them before they got very far, and in a couple of days there would be very few terrorisats left. This upsets them. Therefore they must disarm us so they can terrorize us. I, personally, do not like being either helpless or terrorized. And I have no reason to feel so, for I am neither. OeldeWolf

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875