[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One other question, YD-92.
Do the parties vary in how they view this Motley Crue?
IN GENERAL…it seems like in the U.S…the general Public Loves the Monarchy, and seems to follow their every move, wedding, birth and mishap. (Heck…little George could probably win a Political Office if he was a citizen and old enough!)
But seriously…how to the parties view the Monarchy?
Mufasa[/quote]
Lots of people love them, elderly people get very angry if you even question the morality of forking out 300 million a year to keep in power the descendants of the people who terrorised and oppressed our ancestors.
More and more young people are questioning it but people either support them or see it as not a big issue in the grand scheme of things. People are also told the monarchy generates more money than it costs the taxpayer to pay for them, but this is because the figure the government gives out does not include taxpayer costs for their security, transport etc.
It comes to around 300 million a year.
I personally find the whole idea of monarchy archaic and disgusting but republicanism and constitutionalist sentiment are not as popular as i would like.
There is a section of the new athiest crowd inspired by the likes of Chris Hitchens who would like to see us create a constitution and a republic. I would imagine it would be somewhat different to the yours. It would be tricky convincing British people that we should have the right to bare arms. I have never met a single person who thinks guns should be legal to own. I do and I am sure some republicans here do but it is hard to argue that our society is not much safer since we introduced gun control.
I would argue our freedom and rights to be armed in case of tyrannical government may outweigh the violence but the vast majority would say no. The main position would be I am more scared of some nutter killing my kids in a school than the non looming thread of a dictatorship. Plus because of gun criminalisation guns on the black market are extremely expensive. A semi automatic rifle on the black market here is tens of thousands of pounds. Which means even our gang members mostly don’t have access to guns and even the ones who do have pistols and the like and armed police have mp5’s.
It is the old security v liberty debate and honestly most British people are firmly on the security side.
[/quote]
It’s a big money maker with the tourists is one argument in favor but there are other reasons why getting rid of the monarchy is a non starter. The number one reason is it is a huge distraction from the operation of the government. ie Is it really just a coincidence that there was a new Royal born just a week before the general election?
Next problem in getting rid of them is there is a whole power structure over there that has evolved over centuries based upon the system of honours, titles and being brought into that system. So even though the monarchy has no authority it still wields a lot of power through that system.
For example if you are a business supplying a product to Buckingham palace you can qualify for what is known as a Royal Warrant of Appointment. ie Cadburys chocolate and Twinings tea have warrants so they are allowed to print the royal warrant on their product label. It’s like the Anglican equivalent of a Kosher stamp. This is very prestigious and good for business if you can get one.
Royal Warrant of Appointment (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia
If you have a title or honour of some sort it is the Kingdom’s E ticket into the Old Boy network. So it is very beneficial to be in that system and those who are in that system have a lot invested in getting into it and a lot to lose if it is abolished.
The right to keep and bear arms is the most important of all the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Without that right the Bill of Rights is just a meaningless piece of parchment. But the people over there have been brain washed to believe that they can’t be trusted.
The British are so brainwashed they think Britain is safer than the US because less people are shot every year. But if you ever consider the overall total of violent crime, Britain is far more dangerous dangerous than the US. Compared to Americans the British are much more willing to resort to violence and their willingness to escalate the level of violence is much higher.
A good example of the brain washing is the mistaken belief that one is more likely to die in a school shooting than they are ever going to have the need to defend themselves. The reality in the US is law abiding citizens use firearms to defend themselves every day in multiple incidents, many of which never even get reported.
The threat of dictatorship is very real. Just across the English channel in France they are now living under martial law and the same conditions and circumstances are in play in Britain.
It isn’t that difficult to get ahold of an illegal gun in Britain. One common source is to travel to Prague, buy them there and bring them back.
â??They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.â??
Ben Franklin[/quote]
Britain is not more violent than the U.S. This is pure fantasy. I will agree those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither, but you are pretending gun control limits safety and security. There is a reason most are pro gun control and that is the massive drop in crime in all nations that have established strict gun control.
There is a reason that since gun control in the UK and Australia we have seen no mass shootings in either, where as we had prominent ones right before the new legislation was brought in. Lying about the fact gun control reduces danger is deceitful. If it didn’t people wouldn’t support it and the crime rate wouldn’t of magically dropped right afterwards.
