User Tag List

First 5131415

Results 141 to 150 of 150

Thread: Guns!

  1. #141
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Haha, that ain't a right-wing perspective at all - just a pragmatic one.
    Feel free to review what I wrote above vis-a-vis tyranny and problem-solving. There isn't any political ground to the right of those who believe in the divine right of kings, even if that divine right isn't invested in any one person but in "the Crown."

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Even at the time of the Revolution, most colonists recognized the sovereignty of the Crown - just as most of the Commonwealth states do to this day. This was even if they didn't like what Parliament was doing (i.e. most of them). So you had this huge propaganda war against George III and the idea of monarchy in general, which was necessary to drum up the required public support.

    When I use the term "Crown," I don't mean any one person, or any political body. It's an abstract term of political art, roughly equivalent to "sovereign authority". While kings can be overthrown, the Crown cannot, and this provides continuity to the idea of a nation-state.
    Interestingly, during the years leading up to the Revolution, the colonies also recognized the authority of the Crown, and appealed to that authority to right the wrongs done by Parliament. George, of course, sided with Parliament against the claims of the colonies. The colonists rebelled against the Crown because the Crown wouldn't even follow its own law.

    "The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten", uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1] However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as the majority of the British constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and the royal prerogatives." -from your link. So, again, which particular sections of it apply in support of your argument, that I should review?

    I think we should let this discussion go. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and my opinion of you is dropping by the minute. Feel free to have the last word.

  2. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Haha, that ain't a right-wing perspective at all - just a pragmatic one. Even at the time of the Revolution, most colonists recognized the sovereignty of the Crown - just as most of the Commonwealth states do to this day. This was even if they didn't like what Parliament was doing (i.e. most of them). So you had this huge propaganda war against George III and the idea of monarchy in general, which was necessary to drum up the required public support.

    When I use the term "Crown," I don't mean any one person, or any political body. It's an abstract term of political art, roughly equivalent to "sovereign authority". While kings can be overthrown, the Crown cannot, and this provides continuity to the idea of a nation-state.

    Oh, and Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That's right, the populist cause appealled mainly to political republicans who where a diasporia in flight from across Europe and the UK, there where also huge populations of people who had older grievances, the scottish and irish for instance or even the fact that the earliest settlers like the Puritans where dissident intellectuals who'd taken flight and not forgotten it.

    The various ideologies which where part and parcel of what people thought they where fighting for in that independence struggle where important too, I personally think that in any conflict what people are fighting against matters more than what they are fighting for (if you deconstruct some of the most enduring ethnic or culture struggles around the world you will have shocking evidence of this, particularly cultures which have a weak idea of what they are for but masses of prejudices about what they are against) but the ideologies where important too.

    The independence struggle wasnt just sold as a struggle for national independence but there would be local, regional, federal independence too, there was a huge disparity in the states, there was also the aboriginal population (which was both idealised and despised, pretty much like today),the question of how to live side by side with these others without necessarily owing them anything, because you have nothing anyway, is pretty important.

    I'm not sure why its a right wing argument to argue that the established, legitimate authority for english colonies was in England. In England some of the commentators suspected that the US colonies, if they became independent, would quickly become failed states and be quickly absorbed by the French or Russians or some other entity. More powerful rivals in the imperial contest was a bigger problem and more credible problem than an independent and long lasting US. There's still a lot of expectation elsewhere in the world that the US will implode eventually, although its probably a reflection of a lot of US right wing political thinking too.

  3. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Feel free to review what I wrote above vis-a-vis tyranny and problem-solving. There isn't any political ground to the right of those who believe in the divine right of kings, even if that divine right isn't invested in any one person but in "the Crown."
    Explain this, this is interesting to me.

  4. #144
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Feel free to review what I wrote above vis-a-vis tyranny and problem-solving. There isn't any political ground to the right of those who believe in the divine right of kings, even if that divine right isn't invested in any one person but in "the Crown."
    I'm interested that you think that I was writing in support of the divine right of kings. Nowhere did I make that proposition, and to use the British example as support for the divine right of kings would be a grievous error on my part. They did fight a few civil wars over that whole concept, and it wasn't the absolute monarchists who won, either.

    The King of Great Britain ruled at that time by the consent and mandate of the British citizenry, as made clear during the Glorious Revolution. While sovereign authority was his, and his alone, it was only because the citizens of Great Britain gave it to him, and the English Civil War clearly showed that it could be taken away.

    Interestingly, during the years leading up to the Revolution, the colonies also recognized the authority of the Crown, and appealed to that authority to right the wrongs done by Parliament. George, of course, sided with Parliament against the claims of the colonies. The colonists rebelled against the Crown because the Crown wouldn't even follow its own law.
    More that it would be the King interfering with political affairs, which at that time (and to this day) was completely taboo, given the recent history. Were the King to side with the colonies against his Parliament, this would have caused a massive constitutional crisis. The colonies were already becoming more trouble than they were worth, so the hope was that a show of unity from London would be enough to convince the colonies that this business was not worth the trouble. The strategy failed.

    "The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten", uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1] However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as the majority of the British constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and the royal prerogatives." -from your link. So, again, which particular sections of it apply in support of your argument, that I should review?
    Feel free to start with the Parliament Act of 1660, and go from there. It's long and complicated, but demonstrates the thinking of the time.

    I think we should let this discussion go. Neither of us is going to convince the other, and my opinion of you is dropping by the minute. Feel free to have the last word.
    It's a shame you feel this way.

  5. #145

    Default

    Your knowledge of UK history is very commendable and probably better than most UK citizens/subjects.

    The civil war did indeed show that if monarchy where to survive it would only be as a constitutional monarch, I'm not sure about the "Glorious Revolution", just because I'm not sure about its status as either revolution or glorious but English did kill their king and its something that their attacks on the French for regicide during the French Revolution gets fast forgotten.

  6. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It's a shame you feel this way.
    I'm sorry there's a big personality clash going on there because that was a very interesting couple of pages of thread there.

  7. #147
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Your knowledge of UK history is very commendable and probably better than most UK citizens/subjects.

    The civil war did indeed show that if monarchy where to survive it would only be as a constitutional monarch, I'm not sure about the "Glorious Revolution", just because I'm not sure about its status as either revolution or glorious but English did kill their king and its something that their attacks on the French for regicide during the French Revolution gets fast forgotten.
    Just as a point of clarification - the Glorious Revolution was the bloodless overthrow of James II in 1688, and not the start of the Civil War.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm sorry there's a big personality clash going on there because that was a very interesting couple of pages of thread there.
    Yeah, I don't know why... seems odd that he'd get so heated about the whole thing.

  8. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Just as a point of clarification - the Glorious Revolution was the bloodless overthrow of James II in 1688, and not the start of the Civil War.



    Yeah, I don't know why... seems odd that he'd get so heated about the whole thing.
    Oh right, I think I may have had the history confused.

  9. #149

    Default

    Does anyone know of any good links or books on UK fire arms ownership? I'm thinking of taking up handgun shooting if there's any ranges in my area, I'd consider rifle marksmanship but I imagine its a much more expensive option to begin with, although I think skeet shooting is the prefered sport around here.

  10. #150
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    A good start would be reading your Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (c. 5)

Similar Threads

  1. The Gun Appreciation Thread
    By Rainman in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 506
    Last Post: 12-20-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Teachers stage fake gun attack on kids
    By digesthisickness in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 04:35 PM
  3. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. "Guns Are Good" Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 06:53 PM
  4. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 10:01 AM
  5. Gun Control
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 03:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO