Isn’t gun crime terrorism?

I agree with much of what you say in your first pargraph individual but I think our wires may be crossed re the last one in your post. Ive no position at all of America change its Government or taking up another position on the political spectrum (eg,becoming socialist or anything else). My guess is that this started from an exchange that I was having with NoxiousGas several pages ago, to which you commented that folks should keep to the thread subject & not stray into issues of Govt' change. My response in the above post was a loosley meant comment re my similar frustrations about another thread.

 

spoton!

 

:2thumbsup:

 

I only asked the question based on your use of the term 'form of government' in your post I was responding to. I think most everyone would like to see changes made in our government, and there are a few here that I'm certain would like to see the form of government changed in the U.S.A., but changes need to be brought about with and by the consent of the governed, and NOT just by a simple or even a large majority vote acquired in an election. As I see it, House members are elected to represent their constituents from their district, Senate members are elected to represent their constituents from their State, and the Office of President should represent ALL the people of the U.S.A., and in no case simply those who funded their campaigns. And most important of all, they should each work within the confines of our Constitution and not around it.

Was there things in my first paragraph on terrorism that you disagreed with? Saying you agreed with 'much' implies not all of it, so I would be interested in knowing what it might be that you do not agree with. Are there some changes you feel would be more acceptable, that we both might agree on?

I'm not interested in engaging in a debate, or long unending argument, simply conversation accepting the fact that there will some things about which our differences will be irreconcilable.

 

No, Individual , I found the paragraph typically insightfull & well thought through. Ive no disagreement with any of your points. In the 'background' of so many threads & posts here,incuding yours & mine,covering all manner of subjects,is a rumbling discontent with the 'licence' our polititians assume they have in interpreting democracy to suit themselves.
My understanding of Democracy is that though its primary aim is to implement the wishes of the majority, it should in no way become a simple dictatorship (of popularity or the interests of powerful interest groups) but be ever open to meet the needs of minorities insofar as it can. I take the point made by you & others in the past that Americas sheer size & diversity in itself places massive stresses on both the Constitution & Democracy. Both are warped to the point of contradiction,ultimately,I fear, to no ones satisfaction.

Perhaps the most telling symptom of this is that in a highly sophisticated & civilised country, many normal,rational, peace loving citizens feel a genuine need to retain the right to bear arms & the necessity to actually own them. That their reality is that the State,their Government, will not be there to protect them.

Another manifestation of the stresses mentioned above,I suspect,is the level violence apparent in the USA that comes out during the Pro/Anti Gun Debate. Ive a notion that the two realities are linked. That the USAs Constitution and your Democracy in being unable,historically, to properly cope with the size,stresses & contrdictions,has caused inequalities & alienation and ultimately frustration & violence. Many Pro 2nd Ammendment supporters argue that it is violence that is the issue not gun ownership.

 

Following a lota thought,were I to go to live in the USA,in one of its high crime areas I too would,reluctantly, seek to own a handgun for the protection of my loved ones & myself though I remain opposed to the principle. I would expect to have my history checked thoroughly for criminal cautions & convictions as well as medical & mental health concerns. I believe that anyone , including myself, should be assessed via interview with a qualified Psychiatrist. Only after having been accepted via such screening should any civilian be given the 'right' to own a hand gun (not an assault weapon) of strictly limited fire power. I would expect a any Government,or State, that claims to be concerned for the safety of its people, to impose these restrictions at least .

 

Somehow I don't see the "Bill of Rights" in the U.S. Constitution as being an elaboration of things which government can provide or withhold from the general population except when such rights are put to misuse in ways which harm another or others.

It is the governments duty and responsibility in our Constitutional Republic to protect the rights of a free people not to assess their propensity to put to misuse the rights guaranteed in and by our Constitution providing them based on a government agencies prior approval. We are after all, a Nation of Laws not men, and the correct interpretation of that is "The people, not the politicians, are the source of the laws under which they give their consent to be governed, and the elected politicians are tasked with the application and enforcement of the laws as consented to by the people."

 

I Think I understand your point Individual . In the UK Tony Blair , upon his partys election to Government,famously promised to hold referenda on key issues to gauge public opinion (continued membership of the EU being one). The public were, in fact ignored, our involvement in the Iraq War was never put to the people, it became simply a matter for Blairs conscience it seems.

The UK removed Capital Punishment from the Statute Books many years ago. Those that have campaigned here for the return of the Death Penalty believe that were it put to a Referendum the people would vote for its return. Likewise it is believed that that given a peoples vote we would in all likelihood leave the EU! On these issues Prime Ministers,and MPs, reserve the 'right' (no written 'right' exists) to vote in the lobbies according to their conscience (eg,on the Death Penalty). The judgement as to whether it is appropriate to hold a Referendum on an issue seems largely up to the Prime Minister!

Some of the above,the MPs 'conscience' issue where it may be contrary to the will of the people, may be a part of our unwritten constitution,I don't know. Certainly Blairs tenure (he being a declared fan of Thatcher) was more 'Presidential' than any before. Its common knowledge that his Cabinet would listen in,at times, to Blairs Press briefings to find out what 'decisions they'd made'!

Our membership of the EU continues to be a contraversial issue,comparable perhaps to some degree to the tension between your State & National Government legislature. Many of us see the EU as hugely burocratic & undemocratic,with its untouchable 'Holy Cows',favouritism & wastefullness. Cameron is rightly,I believe, trying to negotiate a new relationship between the UK & EU, but the possibility that we may leave were a deal not be done is very real,especially were it put to the people!

I take your point of being a Nation of Laws and not Men. But I sense that today,more than ever before,we are encouraged to participate only at election time,untill then our opinions are unwelcome. Who is the servant to whom?

Lobbying has become an issue here of late,Mps & ex Ministers offering interested parties access to government & influence in return for money. Likewise,the funding of political parties is closely watched especially in the run-up to Elections.

Sorry, I know Ive gone way off topic here!

 

Summerhill,

Close enough.

 

'Close enough' for what?

 

To what I had written, that your response in turn began with the words "I Think I understand your point..." In other words I found nothing in your post that I cared to TRY and disagree with, especially since your examples were related to the UK and/or the EU on which I am not familiar with all the details.

But, in your sentences, "I take your point of being a Nation of Laws and not Men. But I sense that today,more than ever before,we are encouraged to participate only at election time,untill then our opinions are unwelcome. Who is the servant to whom?", I can say, you appear to understand my words exactly.

 

I think we've always understood one another,given that we are from different,maybe opposing, political backgrounds/positions and culturural value systems. When I speak casually of socialism its something Im comfortable with,for Americans it can be alien & ambiguous. Likewise our positions on gun ownership & our perceptions of threat in our respective societys.
Ive found that sharing the english language does not include with it quite the same values/meanings. But when I suggest,as I have ,that America might look to the lessons learned & the Laws & norms of Europe as a possible source of solutions it is in no way intended as any kind of 'slight'!
Though we are culturaly very similar,Americas historical development differs from that of any other country I can think of. Some of the reasons I gave in my exchange with NoxiousGas may apply. My suggestion is that America should consider looking beyond its borders to seek solutions more,the choice as to whether to partake of them is still yours.