A written constitution. To have or not to have, that is the question.

[Bbucko]

Ooooh, I've hit a Republican's nerve.

Ok not being a colony is all well and good, but that point isn't relevant today as the likelyhood of Britain claiming America is about as likely as the moon dropping out of the sky. The other reason why everyone was given the right to bear arms was because there was lots of dangerous wild animals walking around, as well as hostile Indians coming in to kill people from time to time....do you think that's still the case now? Or do you believe that Britain might still invade in a year or two like people did back then?

In modern times it makes no sense for every single member of the American public to own a gun without any sort of special license, because the reasons the public were given that right in the first place are now largely irrelevant.

And by the way you'l find that on the whole you can't ammend the Constitution or take things back. There have been many hundreds of amendments proposed, but since 1787 only 26 have gotten through. (And the first 10 are the "Bill of Rights", so that technically doesn't count). That doesn't make it a very flexible system, does it?

You parade your strident ignorance as if it's something to be proud of: it's not.

 

[cock23]

You parade your strident ignorance as if it's something to be proud of: it's not.

And how exactly am I being ignorant?

 

[Notthe7]

Wait, dangerous wild animals?

 

[D_Cleon W Ballbreath IV]

...There have been many hundreds of amendments proposed, but since 1787 only 26 have gotten through. (And the first 10 are the "Bill of Rights", so that technically doesn't count).

Not to derail the rest of the thread, but I'm curious why the first 10 don't count? Originally there were 12 proposed amendments in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and 2 didn't make the cut.

 

[798686]

Bbucko/HG - you're entitled to your opinions, and to disagree with cock23 - but I think you could show a bit more civility to the lad.

 

[798686]

Not sure about the constitution - I didn't used to think we needed one. But now maybe we do - in order to stop any more liberties being subverted, and more power being drained from Westminster to Brussels.

Not really my area of knowledge though.

 

[Drifterwood]

To anwser the original question: not to have.

My reasons:

1) A written Constitution doesn't 100% guarantee anything. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan have written Constitutions and look how that's helped them. (Not very much).

4) Ultimately, our system works fine so it's a case of "It ain't broke, why fix it?". I feel it would be better to instead reform the current system we have in the UK while imposing radical changes like introducing a written Constitution.

I am too busy searching for fetish wear to answer all your points. Not for me :tongue:

But on these two, the first is like saying because some people can't drive then noone should have cars. Poop poop.

Our system isn't working fine, our civil liberties have been eroded in the last ten years years. It's time, IMO, to regain our self determination and freedom.

 

[dandelion]

Can all people be seen as being born equal when their traditions insist that a tiny minority is born in an elevated condition?<

BINGO!

As someone else observed, other countries have those born to positions of power. Isnt the US presidency hereditary now? Kennedys get automatic admission to the senate? Ex-presidents wives lining up to be next? Whether you give them a title or not, aristocracies exist in all countries.

In modern times it makes no sense for every single member of the American public to own a gun without any sort of special license, because the reasons the public were given that right in the first place are now largely irrelevant.

Two points arise. The first, that someone noted on the BBc (so must be true) that in states where rights for private citizens in the US to hold guns had been increased in recent times, gun crime had fallen. In other words, that legal restrictions on gun pwnership tend to be obeyed by the law abiding, not by criminals.

Second, are you sure it makes no sense in modern times that no one has or knows how to use guns? we live in happy times, but the bank collapse we just had was also impossible.....

What britain needs is not so much a written constitution but a reformed constitution. The fact that there is no written version, with built in obstacles to changing it, means that a majority of 1 in the house of commons means you can do anything. Anything. The reality is that the british unwritten constitution has been eroded over the years so that instead of a three powers stand off, which was copied into the American constitution, there is now only one left in the UK. There are no constitutional checks left. This is a bad thing.

The british constitution is not so much unwrittten as not written in one document. All sorts of bits and pieces say what can be done and how, but there are very few formal guarantees that a new government cannot do whatever it wants. Generally formal constitutions are documents binding the hands of future governments, quite deliberately, because we know damn well someone sometime is going to go too far. The history of the last 100 years or so has been one of unravelling checks and balances and concentrating power in the hands of the ministers. Ironic that once parliament fought hard to take powers away from ministers, who were the monarch's represenatives, not parliaments.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

...any old nutter can buy a gun and go on a public shooting spree

Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to purchase guns.

 

[Freddie53]

I am too busy searching for fetish wear to answer all your points. Not for me :tongue:

But on these two, the first is like saying because some people can't drive then noone should have cars. Poop poop.

Our system isn't working fine, our civil liberties have been eroded in the last ten years years. It's time, IMO, to regain our self determination and freedom.

And you think it is different across the pond? The USA has the Patriot Act which was passed right after 9/11. It makes a mockery of the individual rights and process of law here in America. Fear of terrorists have made everyone a terrorists. Laws concerning the Internet have been passed that give such huge control over the Internet. There is no such thing a privacy on the Internet including e-mails if the US government decides to take a look. No reason has to be given really.

The one thing that I was so proud of about our country was our open border with Canada. No passport needed to travel from one nation to another. That is now gone with the wind. Canadians are some kind of foreign people now. Why is that really necessary?

I understand your desire to keep Britain independent with the freedoms which have been a part of the tradition of Britain. The USA except for Louisiana, which is French, is still based on the common law of....England. It has been from the beginning and hopefully will be for yeas to come.

That now being conquered since 1066 which has such an effect on Britain has in many ways been passed on to America. The Native Americans were conquered by the Europeans. But largely American culture is still based on the British culture. In the American Revolution, there was a split into two different government systems. No one conquered anyone in that war.

I have been following the saga of the European Union to some degree. The United Kingdom is a different situation. Geography has always had a major impact on political structures. No matter what happens to the European Union, the English Channel still remains and will so at least for the foreseeable future.

I've always thought that had 19th century Britain realized how communications and travel would change the world, perhaps Canada would have been made a part of the United Kingdom rather than made a self governing dominion. I am old enough to remember Canada getting its own flag and National Anthem back in the 60s.

Perhaps New Zealand and Australia as well, but time wise they are much further away. the USA, UK and Canada would make for a quite strong economic bloc with all three economies in the top seven of the world.

The UK has much more in common with the USA and Canada than the European mainland.

In time though the European Union will become a federal republic similar to the USA or it will eventually collapse. The USA went through is this a union of many states that is one or is a a confederation of sovereign independent states. WE had to fight a Civil War over that issue before it was resolved. The economic issue was slavery, but the political issue had dogged the early American Republic as various areas of the young nation had threatened to pull out when things weren't going their way.

It is this issue. Will the United Kingdom remain a truly independent sovereign nation or will it be a part of a larger sovereign European Union?

Will the British Monarchy and British cultural and political institutions make it to 2066?

I won't live to see it. I'm betting that they will. The Queen and her descendants will become a symbol that the United Kingdom is still an independent nation. By 2166 I'm not so sure.

 

[cock23]

Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to purchase guns.

All Seung-Hui Cho had to do when purchasing the gun he used to commit the Virginia Tech Massacre was to tick "no" box after a line which said "Do you have any mental illnesses?". And the fact that it is that easy for anyone to get a gun like that doesn't worry you one little bit?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

All Seung-Hui Cho had to do when purchasing the gun he used to commit the Virginia Tech Massacre was to tick "no" box after a line which said "Do you have any mental illnesses?". And the fact that it is that easy for anyone to get a gun like that doesn't worry you one little bit?

I'm all for more state & federal regulation for gun ownership, making the stipulations for legal gun ownership more rigorous and stricter for everyone. However, using an isolated incident like this to suggest that the right to bear arms is unnecessary is ridiculous.

 

[Drifterwood]

A right to bear arms would have no relevance to a modern British constitution.

 

[dandelion]

A right to bear arms would have no relevance to a modern British constitution.

it would be quite amusing though. Politicians love to meddle with otherwise settled matters.

Laws concerning the Internet have been passed that give such huge control over the Internet.

Governments have been awaiting any excuse to do that for years

The one thing that I was so proud of about our country was our open border with Canada. No passport needed to travel from one nation to another.

Exactly what struck me about the EU, Britain excepted, of course.

That is now gone with the wind. Canadians are some kind of foreign people now. Why is that really necessary?

Cant say if it is necessary, but no doubt the reason is because the US officially distrusts Canada.

I have been following the saga of the European Union to some degree. The United Kingdom is a different situation. Geography has always had a major impact on political structures. No matter what happens to the European Union, the English Channel still remains and will so at least for the foreseeable future.

The channel/sea is a double edged sword. Yes, it is difficult to cross with an army, but it also isolates the country from foreign help. Britain came very close to starving in both world wars. The main weapons of war currently are economic ones, which might give pause to an isolated country wholly reliant on trade from far away.

I've always thought that had 19th century Britain realized how communications and travel would change the world, perhaps Canada would have been made a part of the United Kingdom rather than made a self governing dominion. I am old enough to remember Canada getting its own flag and National Anthem back in the 60s.

Perhaps New Zealand and Australia as well, but time wise they are much further away. the USA, UK and Canada would make for a quite strong economic bloc with all three economies in the top seven of the world.

distance has always been a major force breaking apart bonds of kinship. The world has shrunk in recent times, but it is not clear how things will go in the near future. Air travel is overdue for paying its fair share of taxation and fuel costs are only going one way. Then, the teeny issue of CO2 poisoning. The world may look a lot further apart in 100 years time in a post-foreign holiday world. Maybe we can overcome that with virtual travel, but the outlook is not good for world spanning trade.

The UK has much more in common with the USA and Canada than the European mainland.

The US has a perception of the 'special relationship'. The perception is that it has a special relationship with whichever country it needs support from at that time.100 years ago Britain was in a similar position of isolated supremacy. Isolated by virtue of being pre-eminent. But in reality by 100 years ago this had already changed and the new kid on the block (Germany) was challenging for the top spot. two lessons? first, the top dog has no friends and if it seeks to remain top dog, is unable to have, because that requires sharing. second, Britains proper response now is to form alliances of its own, frankly against interference from the top dog. That's what Germany did. Hopefully the coming resource war will remain primarily an economic one rather than military.

In time though the European Union will become a federal republic similar to the USA or it will eventually collapse.

you may be right, come the time we have to face a real threat we shall see whether we pull together or pull apart.

It is this issue. Will the United Kingdom remain a truly independent sovereign nation or will it be a part of a larger sovereign European Union?

There is no such thing as a truly independant sovereign nation today. The US may come close, but even she is complexly dependant on others. Probably the US would be able to become truly independant, at considerable cost in standard of living etc, if it really wanted. Britain could not. We would starve. It is foolish for anti-EU people to go round pretending Britain can escape the authority of external forces such as the EU by leaving the club. This would just make matters worse.

Will the British Monarchy and British cultural and political institutions make it to 2066?

I would say I am a monarchist, but the current abdication of authority by the monarchy is precisely what makes me question its existence. A monarchy which tries to be wholly democratic is an exercise in self destruction.

 

[cock23]

I am too busy searching for fetish wear to answer all your points. Not for me :tongue:

But on these two, the first is like saying because some people can't drive then noone should have cars. Poop poop.

Our system isn't working fine, our civil liberties have been eroded in the last ten years years. It's time, IMO, to regain our self determination and freedom.

I think Freddie53 basically told you everything I wanted to say. But just to add: this country's people are one of the most free in the world and millions of people would cut off their arms and legs to have the rights and freedoms that the people of this country have. I've always been incredibly baffled why people here don't think they have any rights and freedoms.

I'm all for more state & federal regulation for gun ownership, making the stipulations for legal gun ownership more rigorous and stricter for everyone. However, using an isolated incident like this to suggest that the right to bear arms is unnecessary is ridiculous.

It wasn't an isolated incident-shootings like that happen in the US on a fairly regular basis and the incidence of gun crime is generally high.

And would you care to explain how everybody bearing arms in the US is so vital and necessary to everyday life? What benefits does gun ownership actually bring? (Aside from giving one the ability to go out and kill).

 

[SilverTrain]

The one thing that I was so proud of about our country was our open border with Canada. No passport needed to travel from one nation to another. That is now gone with the wind. Canadians are some kind of foreign people now. Why is that really necessary?

I, too, have always enjoyed and felt prideful of the open borders between the US and Canada (and Mexico, too). But, even as someone who generally leans to the left, I have to say I understand the changes in border policy over the past decade. The world has changed. And I read, aghast, too many post 9/11 reports about our ridiculously porous borders (both land and sea).

Additional border security may slightly inconvenience the traveler, but the increase in security makes it a valid trade-off in my eyes.

It's along the same lines as not leaving children so unsupervised as parents used to do. I revelled in freedoms I had as a child. Freedoms, some of which, I don't grant to my own offspring (with much regret). The world changed.

 

[mitchymo]

I see no point in having a written constitution unless it states somewhere within it that decisions of universal importance cannot be taken by government without the concensus of the electorate upon holding a poll.

I'm so apathetic, i vote, but i don't see the point in it, i don't see the point because i don't care who is prime minister or which party rules yet that is all i get to have a say on. I want to have the right to put MY pen to paper and contribute in deciding the outcomes of questions that are going to have consequences to many.

Voter turnout is always low, its pathetic but no surprise when the question is 'which party do you want to win in the next election?' Who cares? They are gonna fuck it up for this person or that.

If the question was 'should we go to war?' or 'should we legalise prostitution?' then the turnout should be high because people are actually being asked for a contribution instead of watching idly by while the mp's debate the issues. It may be the case that we elect some to speak for many but one person's vote usurping what might actually be an opposite majority opinion is technically a shafting.

Oh hell, we should all just abandon the future and live as farmers living off the land and in rent free houses!!!!

(that last bit was for Seaside's amusement!)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It wasn't an isolated incident-shootings like that happen in the US on a fairly regular basis and the incidence of gun crime is generally high.

Now you're really overreacting.
If you haven't noticed, I live in America and in the most populated city at that. Mass shootings do not happen in our country on a regular basis. As for the rest of gun crime, you can fix that making them harder to obtain through government regulations. Your scenario could have easily be prevented if establishments that sell firearms were held more responsible to whom they sold them to.

Why should any of the responsible gun owners have to suffer for the actions of the few irresponsible ones?

And would you care to explain how everybody bearing arms in the US is so vital and necessary to everyday life? What benefits does gun ownership actually bring? (Aside from giving one the ability to go out and kill).

First off, it isn't "vital" to everyday life because the majority of people in this country do not own a firearm. There are more Nintendo Wii consoles in circulation out there than guns. For the people that do have them, I'm sure some just feel the need to be more secure at home knowing that it's there in the need of a real emergency. Instead of paying attention to the media and the sadistic way it overly-glorifies tragedy when it comes to violence, try to figure out how we can cut down the instances? If Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" taught us anything, it demonstrated that if you make something illegal more people will want it just out of curiosity.

 

[eurotop40]

Now you're really overreacting.
If you haven't noticed, I live in America and in the most populated city at that. Mass shootings do not happen in our country on a regular basis. ...

I think Europeans that do not travel much and just rely on mass media for building an opinion should not judge the US according to what is sold them by the press and TV:
- mass shooting happen in Europe as much as in the US
- a city such as New York is in fact incredibly quiet and peaceful compared to many European cities (personal experience)
- I remember when this blackout occurred in NYC in 2002 (I think?), here everybody said it could never happen on this side of the pond; a couple of weeks later all of Italy was without electricity...

 

[ubered]

I think the UK would definately benefit from having a written constitution. While the opinion expressed a number of times above that this does not fully protect against abuses (Patriot Act, etc), it certainly would make it more difficult for abuses to take place if there was a constitution to serve as a maximum level of guarantee.

A written constitution didn't really seem necessary in the past, but since the mid-late 1980s, civil liberties have taken such a beating (in many cases literally) that something is needed to keep the government in check - I simply don't trust the good faith of those in power anymore. Too many lies, too many video cameras, too many breeches of due legal process. Against the backdrop of the systematic destruction of the liberties it has taken centuries to achieve, I think only a constitution can stem the haemorrhage.

And of course you can change a constitution: that of my home country, Spain, was changed a few years ago to allow marriage between people of the same sex.