Could these be the "most" Interesting Times so far?

[Lost Sheep]

No. Brits are still subjects. They don't have a Republic. They still live under a monarchy. They bow to a queen who "allows" them some rights. They haven't fought for their rights, so they don't deserve any.
Big difference between us and our British cousins.
We used to be British subjects. We fought for our rights. We're not giving them up.
The sky is not falling. We are not giving up our rights.

I take exception to the fact of that statement, "haven't fought".

The Brits HAVE fought for their rights. One of the biggest victories was in 1215-1216 (Magna Carta). The common citizen in the United Kingdom has been fighting for rights ever since. Some wins, some losses, never ceasing, always uphill.

The U.S. took a different course. Winning all our rights in 1775–1783 and reasserting them in 1812-1815.

And we have been giving our rights back to the Federal government ever since.

"Big difference between us and our British cousins." Yes, big difference. In the long view, they are still fighting uphill. We are sliding down.

Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in or agree with restrictions on our rights and would see it as a step forward if all gun control laws since 1964 were repealed or re-written.

Respectfully, I think you have the wrong opinion on the British. I also believe the sky is at risk of falling, every day.

The only thing keeping the sky from falling is the efforts (as in 1776) of you and me and patriots similar to those men who pledged "our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to secure our inalienable rights.

Lost Sheep

 

[joeschmoe]

I take exception to the fact of that statement, "haven't fought".
The Brits HAVE fought for their rights. One of the biggest victories was in 1215-1216 (Magna Carta). The common citizen in the United Kingdom has been fighting for rights ever since. Some wins, some losses, never ceasing, always uphill.
The U.S. took a different course. Winning all our rights in 1775–1783 and reasserting them in 1812-1815.
And we have been giving our rights back to the Federal government ever since.
"Big difference between us and our British cousins." Yes, big difference. In the long view, they are still fighting uphill. We are sliding down.
Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in or agree with restrictions on our rights and would see it as a step forward if all gun control laws since 1964 were repealed or re-written.
Respectfully, I think you have the wrong opinion on the British. I also believe the sky is at risk of falling, every day.
The only thing keeping the sky from falling is the efforts (as in 1776) of you and me and patriots similar to those men who pledged "our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to secure our inalienable rights.
Lost Sheep

The Magna Carta was already ignored by the king when the colonists rebelled.
Do British "subjects" still bow to the monarch under penalty of law? Yes. Do you? No.
Go to England and write these words in big letters on paper and pass them out on a street corner: "Overthrow the Monarchy". If you did that there, you would go to jail for treason. If you do that here, you are protected by law.

See the difference? Citizen versus Subject (of the Crown). It's a fundamentally opposite view of rights. Here the people retain all the rights and the power. We grant some of that power to government. In England the queen officially has the all the power, some of which she grants to the government who then grants some rights to the people.

The people of England have no power to remove a monarch or over ride her veto. They bow and beg in obedience. We do not.

 

[Millwright]

The progressive enclaves, (which comprise a very small segment of the nation, BTW), are "feeling their oats" right now. The Democratic Party - which once had a strong power base across heartland america - has morphed into the demoncratic party, dominated by right and left coast elites that denigrate all those between as residing in "flyover country". In true "prog fashion" they have assumed a mantle of moral, intellectual and economic superiority to us "plebes". In their view we cannot exist without their paternal stewardship. Exacting the "costs" of this stewardship - including support of our governors in the style they deem suitable - from us "plebes" is just the "cost of government".

Doubtless why VP "Regular Joe", (aka Shotgun Joe), Biden enjoyed two overnight stays in Europe to the tune of a million dollars of taxpayer money. At a time when the economy is tanking, major tax increases are destroying the middle class and small businesses are in peril our VP and President are on a "Grand Tour" ! >MW

 

[george shaffer]

"haven't fought "

I don't want to get off subject but sometimes when Im having a really bad day I will goggle Winston Churchill's "greatest hour speech'' It always make me feel better.Think we got it tough in our struggle? Take a listen.

 

[kwguy]

The fact is that most of the world does not live under freedom. Not in the way we know it. As far as the right to keep and bear arms is concerned, that is really just an expression of freedom. It is also an expression of the trust that the government has in it's citizens. We are the ONLY ones who enjoy that right. I don't care what the gun laws are in other countries, NONE of them come close to what we have here, and the reason is because, despite what some politicians would have us believe, the grass is NOT greener on the other side in places like Europe or whatever.

Our 2nd amendment rights are being eaten away at. This has been going on for a long period of time. What we enjoy here in the U.S. is not the natural state of the way things are, it has to be fought for and maintained by us. If we do not, we WILL lose that freedom.

I think at the core, we all know this. That is why when politicians say things like 'banning these weapons deserve a vote' or 'common sense' gun laws EVERYONE can agree to, or, 'let's not politicize' gun control, we know it's deeper than politics. It's the deepest topic there is, because it's the truest form of freedom a citizen can have, the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[gym]

We need to keep it simple when explaining to people who don't have an opinion on who to vote for or why.
If you start hitting them with too many facts and statistics, it can be a turn off. We need to just make them realize they are flushing their rights down the toilet.
We don't even have to be over the top about the gun issue, just the fact that these folks are intent on taking away all of their rights, including their right to defend themselves, and point out how in this day an age, you need to have protection in your home for you and your loved ones.
And you are entitled to have the best type of protection available. Just point out that giving up a right Is the beginning of the end, everyone is familiar with give them a inch and they will take a yard, so that kind of analogy when dealing with people who are on the fence about guns, is a good way to explain it. For those who lean towards being armed explaining things in more detail would of course be easier.
Making the issue of "rights" is key, few people wish to give up any more of them.
They have seen or heard about what this administration has done as far as taking things from people. Obama care, Social security, etc., it's not a hard or dishonest sell.

 

[joeschmoe]

I don't want to get off subject but sometimes when Im having a really bad day I will goggle Winston Churchill's "greatest hour speech'' It always make me feel better.Think we got it tough in our struggle? Take a listen.

They fought the nazi's. Not the monarchy. Listen harder next time and read the whole quote. They "haven't fought for their rights". Here's some more Churchill for you:

..."Then came the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940. As the German war machine advanced, the British Expeditionary Force evacuated back across the English Channel. The retreat was costly. In their haste British troops abandoned most of their equipment. The massive loss of military arms, combined with the fact that the English people had been mostly disarmed, left the British people almost helpless before the advance of the Third Reich.
Luckily, they had gun-owning friends across the Atlantic. In 1940 a group of Americans, headed by C. Suydam Cutting, moved quickly to help rearm England’s citizens. They established the “American Committee for Defense of British Homes” and ran an ad in the November 1940 issue of American Rifleman that read in part: “British Civilians, undergoing nightly air raids, are in desperate need of Firearms – Binoculars – Steel Helmets – Stop-Watches – Ammunition.” The ad then said, “If you possess any of these articles you can aid in the battle of Britain by sending these materials to American Committee for Defense of British Homes.”
...
Winston Churchill was appreciative. He wrote in Their Finest Hour: “When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them ... . By the end of July we were an armed nation ... . Anyhow, if we had to go down fighting … a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands … .”

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-hession-rifles-story/

 

[george shaffer]

rifles-story

Read your post with intrest seems to me to be a narrow minded view of the brits.

 

[kwguy]

The Brits, and Europe in general, is a region in which 'citizen sovereignty' is a foreign concept. They are subject to the state. Even Britain, despite not using the Euro, is now subject ot EU treaties, laws, etc. The state has power over the individual. We say you can't have guns, no guns. Same for health care, etc. There is no 'Constitutional Republic' as we know it. Simply parliaments and courts and common law that can get changed at will.

 

[kwguy]

And, I believe the point of bringing up the WWII 'gun bailout' by the U.S. is that since the British subject were not trusted, nor deemed worthy to have arms of their own, as deemed by the Crown, or whatever, that when Germany decided to just roll over Europe, that cost the brits, because they had no weapons.

 

[SabbathWolf]

No. They still bow to the queen who is the head of the government and still has significant legal/political power, including veto. Just not absolute as it used to be. In their system all rights and powers come from the queen that she grants to the parliament or the people. In our Republic it's the opposite. All rights and powers are held by the people, and we grant the government certain limited powers.

It's a fundamentally different system, that we rebelled against and turned it around. They are still upside down.

That was interesting. Thank you.

 

[BigG]

And, I believe the point of bringing up the WWII 'gun bailout' by the U.S. is that since the British subject were not trusted, nor deemed worthy to have arms of their own, as deemed by the Crown, or whatever, that when Germany decided to just roll over Europe, that cost the brits, because they had no weapons.

Absolutely right. The Brits begged for guns and the US citizens sent their rifles and pistols over willingly. Those guns were destroyed by the British government after the war. Never returned or paid for. The Americans accepted the slight but never will we forget it.

 

[jamesbeat]

The reason that we Brits lost our guns has nothing to do with most of the above.
We lost our guns because of registration.
Registration led to licensing.
Licensing led to may-issue laws requiring 'good reason'.
Self defense was taken off the list of 'good reasons'.
'Sporting use' was not considered important vs. mass shootings.
By the time the ban came, there were very few gun owners to speak out against it, because it was so difficult to legally own one.

Registration is the key.

 

[OilyPablo]

Registration is the key.

Quoted for truth.

 

[jamesbeat]

Thanks.
I'm not leaping to the defense of 'Great' Britain, there's a reason I had no qualms about leaving the miserable little island, but not all Brits fit the stereotype.
The problem is that the courts have lost control of the parliament.
We actually used to have a pretty decent bill of rights, and it was that bill of rights that was the model for the United States version.

Take heed, see it as a lesson from history, and keep up the fight.

 

[CmdrSlander]

British people are not considered subjects and have not been since 1947 when the Commonwealth Act declared them to Citizens of the Commonwealth and their respective nations and not subjects of the Monarchy.

 

[joeschmoe]

British people are not considered subjects and have not been since 1947 when the Commonwealth Act declared them to Citizens of the Commonwealth and their respective nations and not subjects of the Monarchy.

That had nothing to do with the monarchy. It was about nationality and the status of "citizens" of other nations like Canada and Hong Kong. It did not change the role of the monarchy one bit.

She still has veto power, and is officially the head of the government and can dissolve parliament at any time.

 

[rdhood]

Yep, it only takes botching one election and you'll find yourself fighting an uphill battle.

And that is why any Republican or Democrat that even hints at ANY form of gun control in a pro-gun state MUST be removed from office at the earliest possible primary/election. Otherwise, they are just time bombs waiting for a convenient gun violence incident in order to "change their position" and vote for "sensible gun laws".


A "promise" that they will vote against gun control is not enough. Just ask CO.

 

[jamesbeat]

Another point is that in Britain, the politics against guns were so strong that there was literally nobody to vote for.
It's easy to blame the voting public, but when all parties are totally against guns, who do you vote for?

That's actually not 100% true. There was one party that was for guns for home protection.
Sadly, that party was the BNP, the british national party, essentially the British version of the Nazi party.
If I had voted for them, I would also have been voting for a racist party that wanted to deport certain groups of British citizens, including my best friend's grandmother.

That's why the NRA and the gun culture are so important; they enable politicians to be openly pro gun without fear of losing their jobs.

 

[BigG]

And that is why any Republican or Democrat that even hints at ANY form of gun control in a pro-gun state MUST be removed from office at the earliest possible primary/election. Otherwise, they are just time bombs waiting for a convenient gun violence incident in order to "change their position" and vote for "sensible gun laws".


A "promise" that they will vote against gun control is not enough. Just ask CO.

Amen to that!

 

[tipoc]

From Joeschmoe:

She still has veto power, and is officially the head of the government and can dissolve parliament at any time.

When was the last time that happened?

It is a mistake of large proportions to believe that the British monarchy has the same status or power today that it had 3 centuries ago. Or to believe that the landed gentry dominate the politics and economy of England. Or to believe that the Queen could order the mass arrest of people who favor the removal of the monarchy.

Might as well posit that Prince Charles will soon storm Buckingham Palace, do in the Queen Mum and place Camilla Parker Bowles on the throne.

England has a very different history than the U.S. a very different course of development. To believe that the monarchy will arrest any naysayers kinda means a fella don't watch any news and is unaware of the many discussions in Parliament, in public debates and demonstrations calling for the firing of the Queen, Princes etc. and kicking them off the dole.

It also shows a deep lack of respect and knowledge for the actual battles the people of England waged to defend their rights both against the old monarchy and the current English ruling classes over time.

To believe that the Queen and Prince Harry run the government of the UK in their spare time behind the backs of the world is on par with believing they are in turn a part of the Illuminati. Goofy.

It also detracts from the actual discussion here that is worthwhile.

tipoc

 

[Cosmoline]

The average voter is a moron.

The average voter stays home during the mid-terms. WE MUST NOT! Remember that. Vote early, vote on time, but vote. Get a tape of R. Lee screaming it in your ear to remind you.

To believe that the monarchy will arrest any naysayers kinda means a fella don't watch any news and is unaware of the many discussions in Parliament, in public debates and demonstrations calling for the firing of the Queen, Princes etc. and kicking them off the dole.

The Queen herself has little power. But the Crown remains all-powerful. There is no written constitution, and a very weak system of protecting civil rights. Parliament, acting on behalf of the Crown and with the Crown's endorsement, can do almost anything. That's how the UK got its sweeping gun control in the first place. Successive governments have created an almost Orwellian state at this point. Every corner monitored by video surveillance, every subject controlled and coddled from cradle to grave. Gun control is a piece of that system.

But we still have a chance. And that chance is coming up next year, when those dolts are in bed sleeping. VOTE!

declared them to Citizens of the Commonwealth

It's a change of name, not a real difference. The "citizens" are still subjects of the Crown legally, and supreme authority rests with the Crown, not with the people.

 

[joeschmoe]

When was the last time that happened?
It is a mistake of large proportions to believe that the British monarchy has the same status or power today that it had 3 centuries ago. Or to believe that the landed gentry dominate the politics and economy of England. Or to believe that the Queen could order the mass arrest of people who favor the removal of the monarchy.
Might as well posit that Prince Charles will soon storm Buckingham Palace, do in the Queen Mum and place Camilla Parker Bowles on the throne.
England has a very different history than the U.S. a very different course of development. To believe that the monarchy will arrest any naysayers kinda means a fella don't watch any news and is unaware of the many discussions in Parliament, in public debates and demonstrations calling for the firing of the Queen, Princes etc. and kicking them off the dole.
It also shows a deep lack of respect and knowledge for the actual battles the people of England waged to defend their rights both against the old monarchy and the current English ruling classes over time.
To believe that the Queen and Prince Harry run the government of the UK in their spare time behind the backs of the world is on par with believing they are in turn a part of the Illuminati. Goofy.
It also detracts from the actual discussion here that is worthwhile.
tipoc

Veto's at least last year, that we know of. I posted the story above. At least 39 times in recent memory including if England would go to war. Does that count for wielding power?

Here it is again;

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

Court order reveals how approval of Queen and Prince Charles is sought on range of bills
The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.
"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

 

[tipoc]

Let's see...

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.

According to the article Parliament consented to some laws directly affecting the royals to be reviewed by them before being passed or voted on. And that on some occasions their consent had been asked for on matters outside this rather narrow view. This is a matter for concern because it is an erosion of the democratic rights of the people and places undue power in the hands of the bureaucracy of civil servants who brought these matters to the royals for review when they did not need to. However it does not make the England a despotism.

Significant democratic rights have been under attack in England over a number of years, as they have been here. And yes England has a Queen and they are the head of state. But that is not the source of their problems. It's best to face these head on rather than to resort to odd conspiracy theories.

In this country the use of Executive power by Republican and Democratic Presidents, with general support by both parties for it, has been eroding our rights and the separation of powers of the constitution for some time. This along with a number of other degradation of constitutional rights. That happens here, where we have no monarchy. It occurs in England as well but it is an error to place the monarchy there as the sole purveyor of those attacks. They are a part of the problem for the people of England but not the whole source of it.

tipoc

 

[joeschmoe]

tipoc,

They are not elected and can never be removed. I can't understand how anyone can compare Americans to people who still bow in submission to a queen and accept hereditary power. These are significant fundamental differences between us and Brits.
A partial list of bills vetoed by the monarchy. Not 3 centuries ago, or tin foil conspiracy theories.



Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales.

-The Queen
Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962
Housing Act 1996
Rating (Valuation Act) 1999
Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified
Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)
High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03
European Union bill 2004
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Higher Education Act 2004
National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004
Identity cards bill 2004-06
Work and families bill 2005-06
Commons bill 2006
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Charities Act 2006
Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)
Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007
Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

-Prince Charles
Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970
Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979
Pilotage bill 1987
Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997
House of Lords Act 1999
Gambling bill 2004-05
Road Safety bill 2004-05
Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06
London Olympics bill 2005-06
Commons bill 2006
Charities Act 2006
Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08
Energy bill 2007-08
Planning bill 2007-08
Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09
Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09
Coroners and justice bill 2008-09
Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010
Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12