[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Guns & the Bill of Rights

[Kathryn Cawte]

bboy_mn:
 
You say you are free (I'm not doubting that), and as long as your
government remain benevolent, you are OK. But if the tide turns
against you, what measure of assurrance do you have (Bill of Rights),
what resources are at your disposal to bring a straying government
under control?
   <snip>
This corruption of government always come with the support of the
people. People who most willingly trade away their freedoms for
security. But, sadly, the more freedom the trade away, the less secure
they become, until the have finally destroy the very thing they
thought they were preserving.
  <snip>
Let me point out an example from recent history, that so very clearly
supports the right to keep and bear arms. In the Serbia/Croatia
conflict, in it's infinite wizdom, the USA bullied the rest of the
world into enforcing a ban on the sale of arms to Croatia, which in
turn allowed the heavily armed Serbian to slaughter countless Croatian
men, women, and children while the world stood by and watched.
 
The Croatian's begged the world, not to give them, but to sell them
arms so they could defend themselves. They were more than willing to
fight their own battles, but the world, primarily at the insistence of
the US, wouldn't do it because they thought to would only inflame the
war.
   <snip>
 
Just out of curiousity, how many violations of your own charter of
rights did Umbridge commit? Quite a few I imagine.
 
 
Me -
 
Croatia is a bad example because you are talking about a civil war not a
government trying to enslave its own people. As you yourself point out the
corruption of government always comes with the support of the people so it
really doesn't matter whether those people are armed or not. I repeat that
if a government has the support of its own military then it doesn't matter
how well armed its people are - the military is always going to have the
better weaponry and training..
 
It's difficult to compare the situation in the WW to the situation in a
European democracy since as far as we can see the WW isn't particularly
democratic. But I can safely say she didn't commit any violations of our
charter of rights in the UK - because we don't have one. The closest thing
we have is the Magna Carta which was written in 1215. We also don't have any
kind of written constitution.
 
Our safeguards come in the form of a free and very independent press who
have regular opportunities to quiz our leader (how many press conferences
has Shrub given in his presidency? And I mean actual press conferences not
just statements to the press - I'll give you a clue, it's less than 10), a
judiciary that isn't elected (thank goodness, justice and popularity are
after all not always compatible) and is having its last tie to the executive
severed and a strong parliament. We also have history on our side - the last
time a ruler tried to indefinitely suspend Parliament and set up a
dictatorship we executed him.
 
K

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]