The Political Thread

[Professor Bear]

He started out as a Sun journo then became editor of the News of the World and pushed it into privacy-invasion headline-grabbing, and we know where that ended up.

[Richmond Clements]

Evil? How so?

Well, I may have been being hyperbolic, but he (Morgan) is certainly a horrible excuse for a human being.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/video-from-2003-shows-piers-morgan-talking-about-phone-hacking-8364468.html

But as for Alex - well, if it is not obvious watching the videos how utterly deranged and dangerous the man is, then nothing more can I teach you! ;-)

[The Legendary Shark]

Alex Jones does get on my nerves, as does Morgan and so many other opinionists. I do, however, try to see past the "obvious" and ask myself "what is this person really trying to say?"

I wonder how many people at the time called Jesus a 'raving loon' or 'evil' for losing his rag at the money changers in the temple without even bothering to think about what he was saying and why?

Do ordinary people have the right to own guns? I say yes, people do have the right but that this powerful right carries with it equally powerful responsibilites. I'd like to think that, if I had a gun I'd be far more responsible than my government is with them. I would never shoot innocent Iraqi men, women and children using mythical WMDs as an excuse or gun down an electrician in an underground train station.

Am I evil for thinking this way?

[COMMANDO FORCES]

Please say I'm wrong. I just heard on the radio that ipsa did a survey with our beloved MPs, which was done anonymously and they want a measly 32% pay increase.

We're all in it together

[The Legendary Shark]

I'd pay them double if they'd start running the country for the people instead of the corporations. Triple, even. Quadruple.

[Professor Bear]

I hope they push through that cap on benefits alongside that pay rise for themselves.

As for the gun control debate, my main memory of the 1980s is that it was a decade where an armed gang of bank robbers traumatised by their experiences in Vietnam and convinced they were being persecuted by their own government travelled around America attacking countless people with what I presume were illegally-obtained automatic weapons, sometimes even fashioning new kinds of guns and assault vehicles from scrap with which to persecute whoever they saw as "bad guys", but they never hurt anybody and were actually viewed by the media as admirable Robin Hood types, so guns can't be that harmful if you have a bit of training under your belt - perhaps some kind of compulsory military service for all citizens?

[The Legendary Shark]

Teach people about guns in schools.

You need a test to drive a car or fly a 'plane, so why not something similar for folk who want a gun? Education, I think, is the key.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

...I say yes, people do have the right but that this powerful right carries with it equally powerful responsibilites.

For me, that's the heart of the arguement. People bang on about how they're entitled to certain rights, but ignore the responsibilities those rights entail. You've probably had your rights violated by someone claiming 'It's for your own protection' (have you ever been on an airplane?). These people are probably just covering their asses after some over-entitled eejit, abused their 'rights', in a reckless way that didn't end well.

Am I evil for thinking this way?

All Sharks are evil. Ye have a conveyor belt of teeth fer fuck sake. Evil.

[The Legendary Shark]

I think you're correct.

We seem to have transferred most of our responsibilities to government not realising that we've given away our rights as well. This process is, to my mind, very dangerous and only leads to a dumb and lazy society that believes in everything being somebody else's responsibility. The way we do things at the moment may be very easy for us but it might lead to a class of people who think they know how you should live your life better than you do...

[Stan]

The way we do things at the moment may be very easy for us but it might lead to a class of people who think they know how you should live your life better than you do...

Might?

[MercZ]

As for the gun control debate, my main memory of the 1980s is that it was a decade where an armed gang of bank robbers traumatised by their experiences in Vietnam and convinced they were being persecuted by their own government travelled around America attacking countless people with what I presume were illegally-obtained automatic weapons, sometimes even fashioning new kinds of guns and assault vehicles from scrap with which to persecute whoever they saw as "bad guys", but they never hurt anybody and were actually viewed by the media as admirable Robin Hood types, so guns can't be that harmful if you have a bit of training under your belt - perhaps some kind of compulsory military service for all citizens?

I'm not sure if they had much of an effect on the collective mood as some of the other stuff that ran rampant in the 80s in the US. We know 1980s saw a kick in crime paranoia and such, bouncing off perceptions of crime rate in the 70s. It fueled support for tough on crime politicians who weren't afraid of exploiting it. Hence the popularity of movies like Dirty Harry and Death Wish. It's this same sentiment that played a part in the formation of Judge Dredd to parody it. And that approach to begin with is in part causing the US prison population to increase year after year.

Even though current gun proponents laud their possession as simultaneously for security, hobby/hunting, and a more blunt way to keep the government accountable, the first gun laws that were passed in the US saw them usually silent. They were usually targeted at either trying to keep unions from getting into violent confrontations (such as this one) with management or prevent minority groups from becoming a cohesive force- and of course neither make up the majority of what the NRA is now. In the latter case, the first assault weapons ban were passed by the state of California, then under the governorship of Ronald Reagan, in great part due to the activities of the Black Panthers (prompting their brandishing of weapons at the state capitol). Of course none of these are usually mentioned by the NRA, because it does not fit into their world view.

Education about weapons would be good in general though, I don't think any harm comes out of educating people about it, if not requiring some form of education on them.

[Dandontdare]

the 2nd amendment is the only bit of the constitution that explicitly requires it to be "well regulated" - even the founding fathers didn't think that just anyone should be able to own a gun.

[TordelBack]

..Even the founding fathers didn't think that just anyone should be able to own a gun.

Certainly not blacks or women, and that's just for starters. 

While I'm a great admirer of the American project, why anyone should take the views of 50-odd 18thC plantation owners and rich merchants* on muzzle-loading flintlocks as the ne plus ultra determinant of 21st C law and morality is beyond me.  Although I suppose it's better than wilfully misinterpreting some Bronze Age xenophobes.


*and a handful of scientists and doctors.

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't think that dismissing the U.S. Constitution just because it's old is a valid argument. "Thou shalt not kill" is also a pretty old idea but still, I think, a valid one that probably goes back to the Stone Age.

Of course, no constitution or legislation is ever perfect and the more words and clauses they contain the more susceptible they are to interpretation and the exploitation of loopholes.

If I had to write a constitution it would be really simple, along the lines of:

Cause loss, harm or damage to no-one.
Honour your contracts.
Pay your bills.

What more is there to add? From a system as simple as this, juries would simply be asked to decide what, if any, loss harm or damage has been inflicted or suffered and pass judgement from that standpoint instead of being confused and derailed by Section 2, Sub-Section D, Paragraph 2 of the "Except Me Act, 1997".

In my opinion (and to bastardise Alestair Crowley) - And "do no harm" shall be the whole of the Law.

[Professor Bear]

My problem with "thou shalt not kill" is that it's a divine decree and not a moral directive, and what prompts these laws, however sound and sensible they may be, is just as important as what these laws demand of us.  A document written centuries ago can be the basis of the laws of today, but it cannot be the entirety of the argument for them.