Iowa FTW

[Semicolon]

You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.

One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.

I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.

There is plenty we can do about it. Protest for a start.

We have a scum-of-the-earth govt in power atm, but they will be voted out at the next election becuase people don't like what they're proposing. You get what you vote for.

Laws go thru several readings and thru both houses before they are passed. People can lobby their MPs to vote a certain way in particularly important issues

But, other than the monarchy, there's no other part of the government that can tell Parliament what it can or can't do, correct?

[Semicolon]

so before big bad government came along, everything was peaceful and perfect?

No, but the state didn't do anything better. What did the first states do better for its subjects? Nil!

I am not brainwashed by the state. I'm being fucking realistic. Just becuase someone disagrees with you dosen't mean they're brainwashed or stupid.

Stultus es, Adame! Cerebrum parvum habes! 

[TheoK]

I wouldn't like to live in the Roman society if not being a wealthy dominus though.

[conlang returns]

thank you

[Adam]

You should also look up the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments.  Essential knowledge for anyone struggling with the issue of authority. 

I know about the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments. I have read Zimbardo's book

[Adam]

But, other than the monarchy, there's no other part of the government that can tell Parliament what it can or can't do, correct?

Correct. the monarchy couldn't either really. Technically it can, but that doesn't happen anymore.

Of coiurse, that doesnt mean we shouldn't get rid of it. We shouldn't

And there are a lot of things I would change about our govt if I could

It's different here though. Our legal system and govt has evolved over many hundreds of years. If we were to start from scratch now, of course I'd say it should be different.

[RageBeoulve]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.

[RageBeoulve]

I got curious about this of course, since the guy for some reason seemed to have no motive at all. After some digging, I still don't know shit about him. I'm left with even more questions about this.

Why did he kill a dozen people?

How did he get onto a military post with a large shotgun and thirty shells?

What about that guy they said may have been helping him? That just kind of disappeared didn't it?

What the fuck was with the order to stand down?

What is his background? What kind of a guy was he? Did he have a father and mother? History of mental illness?

WHY AND HOW? I WANT TO KNOW AND THE PISS STREAM MEDIA IS NOT PROVIDING ANSWERS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO!

I understand his motivation was intrinsic.  As opposed to the mass shootings in Kenya which was motivated extrinsically.

I believe he had a military naval career which was cut short due to some disciplinary action.  That is one bone of contention.  I believe he was working within the naval base for a temp agency doing some menial task.  Adding insult to injury.  It has also been reported that he was present during 9/11 and helped with the rescue of injured victims.  Possible  PTSD ?

I can see how he might feel badly treated by the military and working in that environment doing a civilian job would only amplify these feelings.  If he had no one to talk to about this then those feelings would build up and occupy more and more of his conscious mind.  Anger, rage, disgruntled, feeling of being 'wronged', jealousy of military personnel, If it is true about 9/11 and possibly PTSD as an added ingredient then I guess he was a ticking time bomb.

Looking at trying to prevent future instances I would suggest ex military, particularly those who's career has been blocked due to misconduct or resulting in disciplinary action,  are offered some support.  Possibly even deterring them from taking civilian jobs within a military environment.

Incidentally I feel all ex military do not get nearly enough help. Not really talking about that man now, but just 'in general'.    I know in the UK there are many on the streets,  whose marriage has failed, who struggled to get a job simply because they struggled to cope on civvy street.  Struggled without the routine and structure offered by, the army,  for example.

I don't think the general public appreciate what soldiers do.  The things they endure and the price they pay, sometimes the ultimate price.  At the end of their career they are just tossed aside.  Adjusting is not always easy.  They deserve better.

Agreed. To be honest i'm still not really a "civilian", myself and I didn't even go overseas. They do indeed throw us in the trash when they're done with us. Luckily i'm too stubborn to be one of the ones that gives up though. I've managed to do alright.

[RageBeoulve]

You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.

One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.

I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.

There is plenty we can do about it. Protest for a start.

We have a scum-of-the-earth govt in power atm, but they will be voted out at the next election becuase people don't like what they're proposing. You get what you vote for.

Laws go thru several readings and thru both houses before they are passed. People can lobby their MPs to vote a certain way in particularly important issues

We have the shittiest government in the world in power right now. The American government rubs feces on the entire globe. Thing is, we're not going to be able to change things by voting over here. The system has become so rotten that it cannot be salvaged in my opinion. I blame the American people for letting things get this bad, sadly. If my parents and grandparent's generation had been paying attention, things could have been different.

[conlang returns]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.

They have guns in Syria, but they still don't have those things. 

[RageBeoulve]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.

They have guns in Syria, but they still don't have those things. 

Yeah we used guns to get rid of shit similar to what they're dealing with a long time ago. I wish I could go back in time and tell those guys: "Hey. This stuff is going to grow back."

[Semicolon]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

Because we wouldn't have those things without guns here, man. I don't think you quite appreciate how shitty its starting to get over here.

They have guns in Syria, but they still don't have those things. 

So we should invade and bring democracy?

It's : trollface : here. : troll: is ASDC.

[conlang returns]

We have the shittiest government in the world in power right now.

I dunno, man, I'm glad I don't live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. 

[odeon]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.

There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.

Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected.

Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.

In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?

I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.

In short, yes.

[odeon]

He doesn't understand the concept of natural rights. Most Europeans are still stuck in the thinking when kings and emperors ruled and rights were something that the state gave you.

Implying that I'm stuck in that way of thinking? What are you basing that supposition on?