|
|
#161
08-14-2011, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Actually, as a single white heterosexual male who has lived in Thailand for a decade or two, I could never withstand the scrutiny of the morality police 
|
|
#162
08-14-2011, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;323513]
Quote:
For US law (at least for constitutional law on which other law is based) it is meaningful to speak of design, since we know who the designers were, and through the texts of the laws themselves and various other writings we know much about their deliberate purpose and the intelligent way they went about constructing a system that, they hoped, would realize their goals. In contrast, in English law a multiplicity of various accretions added over the centuries, driven by the needs and whims of the moment, in accord with the procedural principles of the time. Close scrutiny of judicial decision making, or in particular of debates within the House of Commons (the legislature) will reveal few signs of intelligence or purposeful activity at all, except on those few occasions when the system as a whole is in danger, when a brief spasm of defensive adjustment can be observed. So while the US law and constitution may be compared to a motor vehicle (in which one passenger controls the steering wheel, another the "gas pedal" and a third the brakes), the UK constitution and law is better described as a termite colony, or perhaps a sponge. Speaking of purpose in complex evolved systems of this kind is fraught with difficulties, and often leads to fallacy. The argument from design is the most familiar example, but neo-darwinian evolutionists do it too on occasion. (For instance, we have probably all watched those interminable nature morality tales masquerading as documentaries in which we watch, for example, the antics of the bat eared froogle, whose large twitching ears are described as "perfectly evolved to suit the environment"). Secondly, whether the guys in the US have "got it right" is another matter: it rather depends on what "it" is. What is wrong, for instance, with "maintain[ing] the centurys old class based system and repress[ing] the majority of the population?" The events of the last few days demonstrate only too clearly what happens when this vital task is neglected. If in fact the "harsh gun laws" are, or are perceived to be "designed to maintain the centuries old class based system and repress the majority of the population", the fact that they are overwelmingly popular suggests that the vast majority of the population wants and needs to be repressed.  This is quite plausible, as the feeling of struggling against a powerful evil force is much more satisfying than facing the mundane challenges of work and family, at least for males. We both have the WOT and the WOD: for those youths too weak, cowardly or intelligent to enter the military there is the war on "the Feds" and "the establishment" as a substitute. For females, the need for a strong (calm assertive) male dominant presence is obvious, as shown in "The Dog Whisperer", or indeed in the charming american romance featured in a previous posting. In the US the dames feel safe when their man has a gun. In the UK the gals feel safe when no-one has a gun. On the class system: better just to think of it as a hugely entertaining national pastime.
|
|
#163
08-14-2011, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The right to bear arms is written into US constitution. If your country has no such right, that is what it.
If you have rights and they are written in a contract with the people of your nation you should respect those contracts with the people enough to know those rights are substantial. You should never yield up any of your rights for the so-called common good. Historically, enforcement of law was never a problem in Britain. The ultimate authority is based in the reprisal of the law, so to speak. It doesn't matter if a Bobbie had a gun, authorities for centuries have put criminals into dreadful prisons, made indentured servants out them, put them into the tower...etc. An accusation was enough to make the worst of the lot tremble. Nowadays, liberal and so-called equitable treatment of criminals with lesser punishments will require Bobbie to have a gun or he'll get wasted. When the authority and enforcement of law at the highest levels is compromised the tougher it will be for the man on the street. Fact is... you will see more Bobbie with guns. Only when criminal punishments becomes extremely severe will you see a casual policeman walking and whistling along the lane, swinging his club like a band leaders baton.
|
|
#164
08-14-2011, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
it's too bad a lot of politicians over here see guns as children's playtoys and therefore forbid people to have them.
to me it's a bad way of thinking. And the examples are getting worse and worse...
|
|
#165
08-14-2011, 04:50 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
 Quote:
|
|
#166
08-14-2011, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
at least Cameron's gang now have changed the law for self defence in your household, cos if you killed or injured an intruder before you would still be charged with assault and manslaughter, go figure!!
|
|
#167
08-14-2011, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Mountain Man: "I bet you can squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee! " Bobby: "Weee!" So we have an idea whose backholes need lubing. Well worth getting/downloading BTW: a horrible illustration of the consequences of allowing the underclass to keep and bear arms.
|
|
#168
08-14-2011, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#169
08-14-2011, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 I see, you are hinting that I am sounding like a communist! Or is it a nazi? Or a decadent Weimar republican trying vainly to prevent the spread of armed vigelanteism? Do tell.
|
|
#170
08-14-2011, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The equation "owning a firearm=being a vigilante" really shows how narrow minded you are on the subject. Last edited by Sternjaeger II; 08-14-2011 at 06:09 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
