Guns,guns, and more Guns

[D_W]

Surely it has to be crazy to imagine that the American public needs guns just in case the government has to be overthrown.

America is not some tin pot banana republic….even though Trump pushed it that direction.

If the people really think democracy is that fragile, they should get on and change the political system.

My point is we're in the fantasy realm talking about that kind of thing in general - first that some group is going to stage some kind of rebellion, and second that it would follow into wide spread bombing of citizens. Neither is going to happen, and both in the row, even less likely.

This isn't China where most folks will fall in line - this is kind of fantasy stuff. The democracy isn't remotely close to as fragile as the news likes to make it out to be, and most of the nonsense in the news is drummed up by the news itself and then stirred further to sell advertisements. I just spent 5 days with people of varying political beliefs and the only thing that came up was one nutty person who kept insisting that "we don't know yet if Omicron makes people less sick, and this could cause a crisis". I tried to explain data sets and most likely estimates to them - view outcomes, not politics, not supposition - no luck.

I'm not sure, though, why everyone loves to imagine that there's a militia that will rise up and there will be some kind of government reaction that involves bunker busters or something. It's weird. As to the viability of just bombing people and coming to control, in terms of reviewing real outcomes, what have we found in Afghanistan? it's not a path anyone will take - the government's track, and that of the private sector is to maintain economic stability, which helps keep social and political stability, regardless of the news. The likelihood is greatest that the news will continue to highlight the five percent of nuts on each end and pretend it's the norm, but day to day life on the ground won't change.

 

[D_W]

Personally I prefer the monarchy, anachronistic though it is, to a presidential system. I see no point in having a prime minister if a president takes all the power. Although the Royal family do perpetuate privilege in the UK, which is holding us back.

You guys should have a separate thread where the automatic response isn't "the queen doesn't cost us much, the RF has their own assets and generates their own money", but rather - is it time for those assets to be the property of the public and used for social good.

 

[Fergie 307]

Yes we do tend to hang onto surplus history, the monachy is a relic from the days of when we enjoyed war with France and Spain and needed some figure head to fight for, a bit like the church of England helped justify the crusades convincing the people it was gods will.

The church of England justified the crusades? Did you do any history atall?
The crusades took place hundreds of years before the Church Of England was established. The Crusades were called for by a variety of Popes, all of whom seemed oblivious to the commendably unambiguous commandment "thou shalt not kill", a blindness which sadly has afflicted the clergy ever since, hence the blessing of bombs about to be dropped on people and other similar nonsense.

 

[Spectric]

The crusades took place hundreds of years before the Church Of England was established.

Yes but they were still under the same pretence, forgot old Henry was not that old.

 

[Fergie 307]

America is a libertarian, free market capitalist society.

When free markets are free, society works to benefit the rich.
That creates huge social inequality….and crime is always linked to poverty……but wealthy republicans push the agenda that harsher prison sentences equals less crime.


America the land of the free that incarcerates 1% of its population…..a bit ironic really.

So what's the alternative? A socialist command economy perhaps? Has anyone tried that? How did it go? Did everyone live happily ever after?

 

[artie]

is it time for those assets to be the property of the public and used for social good.

Isn't that a sort of communist idea?
A quick google search turns up a value of $600,000 dollars for Her Majesty. I personally think that's grossly understated.

Of course it all depends how it's counted and and the terminology. What is the Queen, the Monarchy and the Crown?

 

[artie]

Well, regardless of what it is, if the majority of the UK likes the whole queen thing, I think it's your business and not mine.

It's not a matter of liking it.

She rules by divine right

 

[John Brown]

I mean, unless you want us to start telling you how dumb we think it is that you pay any attention to the queen and fund a make believe monarchy lifestyle.

It seems to me that you started the "low wit" thing, D_W.
I was just expressing my opinion that your comparison was nonsensical.

 

[Cabinetman]

Someone asked earlier if World War I and II had wiped out the French peoples violent tendencies, don’t know but ever since the Napoleonic wars the French have been on average shorter than they were before, Napoleon was well known for having the tallest men he could find for his army and despite what people on here have said about inefficient muskets an awful lot were killed by them.

 

[doctor Bob]

I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, but the last time I checked, they weren't implicated in any school massacres.

one of them would take on a girls school given the opportunity..

 

[Cabinetman]

There have been times that the US media has depicted Britain as the land of tabloids and people sitting and watching the queen and all of the royal family bits all day. I doubt that there isn't a little more than that going on there.

Funnily though when I’m stood in the queue in American supermarkets and they have all those tempters including magazines for people, it never fails to amaze me that the Royal family is on at least half of the front covers.
And although a fairly low percentage of Americans have a passport the ones that do, love coming here and the Royal family is one of the big draws. Ian

 

[D_W]

Funnily though when I’m stood in the queue in American supermarkets and they have all those tempters including magazines for people, it never fails to amaze me that the Royal family is on at least half of the front covers.
And although a fairly low percentage of Americans have a passport the ones that do, love coming here and the Royal family is one of the big draws. Ian

That's pretty much what most of us see about the royal family; the tabloids at the supermarket. Not sure how many of them sell.

 

[doctor Bob]

I do like the queen but it seems mental that in the modern world royalty exists.
I think it's well past it's sell by date.
I wouldn't miss it.

 

[D_W]

Isn't that a sort of communist idea?
A quick google search turns up a value of $600,000 dollars for Her Majesty. I personally think that's grossly understated.

Of course it all depends how it's counted and and the terminology. What is the Queen, the Monarchy and the Crown?

I think it's communist if it's private business seized. I guess a claim could be made that the queens money is private enterprise, but who made the initial investment? And any supplemental investment needed along the way?

 

[Fergie 307]

So what's the alternative? A socialist command economy perhaps? Has anyone tried that? How did it go? Did everyone live happily ever after?

"Crime is always linked to poverty" This sort of stereotypical nonsense really annoys me, it is so condescending. You are but a hairs breadth from concluding that poor person equals potential criminal. The overwhelming majority of people who are socially disadvantaged, or living in poverty, do not commit crime, and would no more think of doing so than I would hope you or I would. Are social disadvantage and poverty factors, yes, but there are many others. To suggest that one necessarily leads to the other is a gross over simplification.

 

[doctor Bob]

"Crime is always linked to poverty" This sort of stereotypical nonsense really annoys me, it is so condescending. You are but a hairs breadth from concluding that poor person equals potential criminal. The overwhelming majority of people who are socially disadvantaged, or living in poverty, do not commit crime, and would no more think of doing so than I would hope you or I would. Are social disadvantage and poverty factors, yes, but there are many others. To suggest that one necessarily leads to the other is a gross over simplification.

Absolutely, but the real truth is most people, rich or poor are nice honest people.

 

[Fergie 307]

I think it's communist if it's private business seized. I guess a claim could be made that the queens money is private enterprise, but who made the initial investment? And any supplemental investment needed along the way?

As I recall is boils down to a bunch of Frenchmen coming over here some years ago and bashing the locals on the head, then taking everything the locals had and distributing it amongst themselves. Their descendants then passed it on and so on. You could argue that since the locals had probably acquired the stuff in the same way in the first place, they had little cause for complaint. Throughout human history is has ever been thus, and some would say continues to this day. Sadly we are a quarrelsome species.

As an amusing aside, when I type quarrelsome my auto correct thinks I mean Australians ??

 

[D_W]

Maybe autocomplete was seeded from an older dictionary.

 

[Fergie 307]

Absolutely, but the real truth is most people, rich or poor are nice honest people.

Indeed, and the one thing all criminals have in common is a degree of contempt for their fellow citizens, and indeed society in general.

 

[Fergie 307]

Maybe autocomplete was seeded from an older dictionary.

Ah, so Australians were more quarrelsome in times past? There may be something in that. From their performance in two world wars I can only say thank goodness they were on our side !
Wish they weren't so damn good at cricket though.