Page 3 of 3

Re: b******!

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:41 am
by Tacticool
kennyc wrote:
Tacticool wrote:Well now thanks to Gina Miller and her total disregard for democracy we now have a precedent to go to the Supreme Court to overrule anything the government comes up with regards to firearm confiscation, silver linings and all that!


Sent from my boing using "An application"
I tend not to get into political discussions on this forum, but that is pure hogwash! now if you had said, Gina Miller and her total disregard for certain parties willingness to bend the Democratic process to obtain a populist target, then I would agree with you, but to claim that upholding the rule of Law and using the tools available to enforce that law is undemocratic is wrong.
Sorry for getting political, but I think we are nearly there - just change the rather dismissive ‘populist target’, with ‘democratic mandate’ and I think we can agree. Calling it a populist target is to try and dismiss the result of the referendum.

I’m going to stop here as there is enough Brexit arguing and it will just go round and round - my point is about challenging government decisions with courts, might come in handy next time they try to confiscate your property.

Re: b******!

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:17 am
by kennyc
Tacticool wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Tacticool wrote:Well now thanks to Gina Miller and her total disregard for democracy we now have a precedent to go to the Supreme Court to overrule anything the government comes up with regards to firearm confiscation, silver linings and all that!


Sent from my boing using "An application"
I tend not to get into political discussions on this forum, but that is pure hogwash! now if you had said, Gina Miller and her total disregard for certain parties willingness to bend the Democratic process to obtain a populist target, then I would agree with you, but to claim that upholding the rule of Law and using the tools available to enforce that law is undemocratic is wrong.
Sorry for getting political, but I think we are nearly there - just change the rather dismissive ‘populist target’, with ‘democratic mandate’ and I think we can agree. Calling it a populist target is to try and dismiss the result of the referendum.

I’m going to stop here as there is enough Brexit arguing and it will just go round and round - my point is about challenging government decisions with courts, might come in handy next time they try to confiscate your property.
I agree that what she has done is reinforce the power of parliament over the government, it's a shame she had to go to law to reinforce what was already there ,it is also a shame she had to endure death threats and abuse because of it.

Re: b******!

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:54 am
by TRG-22
Alpha1 wrote:We didn't have the means to say no if we had we would have ended up in Jail.
Or dead.

Re: b******!

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:04 am
by TRG-22
Dark Skies wrote:
Mattnall wrote:
Dark Skies wrote:
The Americans look at me and say things like "but you had guns - defend your rights."
And I have no real answer beyond "Brits won't fight for their rights - they have to have permission."
...
It's really hard to explain to Americans who grew up with the 2nd Amendment (derived from our own Bill of Rights) how the government can just take our stuff.
I wonder how many of the 'molon labe' set would actually defend their (removed) right to own firearms. The police would come along to each individual one at a time and remove their firearms, unless you feel you want a shoot out with your husband/wife/kids behind you in a suburban house with no back up they will take them.
The only saving grace is those firearms that are not licensed or registered, then if you keep quiet they'll pass you by.
The preppers and groups hiding in the woods would most likely hold out for a few more days but the police would soon get their firearms too.
Easy to say "I'm not giving up my guns, come and take them" and that's great right up to the moment they knock on the door.

Many states have enacted stringent gun laws and partial bans/restrictions and the vast majority of owners complied, one way or the other, or moved away. Law abiding citizens will be just that.
It's hard to say. Americans can get pretty chippy about the Second Amendment and the concept of property rights.
Assuming (as it would have to be) any restrictive legislation had been deemed by the Supreme Court to not be unconstitutional, the 2nd would suddenly not mean what people had been taking it to mean.

It is interesting to wonder whether the USA will be bound by it's existing constitution for thousands of years (if climate change doesn't do for us all).

If I were an American politician or senior copper I'd think long and hard whether I wanted another Waco disaster.
I doubt there'd be (m)any.