I've been wondering what I would be if I was an American. In Blighty I'm a pretty straight down the line Tory. And what with the US being the superpower it is I'm exposed to quiet a lot of US political stuff. I know that my views translate pretty neatly into the republican party, since I agree with them about 100% on foreign policy, economic policy and largely on domestic policy. There are however a few differences.I while I agree on Nuclear, I don't agree just pumping more oil without diverting substantial resources from the tax on that petrol (gas) to renewable production, and I certainly believe in setting emission standards for vehicles and businesses. I read the 2nd amendment, including the first line. I think it has been grossly misused in modern America. While I think its too late to ban all weapons, I would ban quite a lot and place a lot more restrictions on sales of the rest.I am pro-choice.I don't really care about gay-marriage, but would not attempt to stop it.I don't believe in God. Or even if there was one, I have my own moral code and would not be beholden to that child abusing mass murdering genocidalist of the old testament. And Jesus seems nice enough as hippies go, but then I don't do what hippies tell me to do either. I figure that I would be practically unelectable on any one of those points if I say, tried to run for office as a republican in the states. But I'm definitely not a Democrat either, I used to sit swearing at the screen watching The Left Wing ...... Sorry, The West Wing I wonder if genuine Americans might figure out what I would be on your political spectrum?
Not a surprising view from a Tory (historically having been the party of monarchists), but it's kinda important to us given that having weapons is what allowed us to throw off the monarchy in the first place.
I understand at the time it was a good idea, you chaps can't have the British keep turning up and burning the Whitehouse down after all. But that was a long time ago.
These day your country allows any nutter who wants them, as many automatic weapons as they can carry. Over here someone looses their marbels and they run around with a cricket bat until some copper pepper sprays them in the face. In the US they walk into their place of work/school and massacre dozens of innocents.
It might be my own mixed up thinking, but I'm not seeing that as a good thing.
Er, no. Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated for more than 70 years, and almost completely banned for nearly 20. Semiauto assault weapons are likewise very heavily regulated. For the most part, only single-fire semiauto rifles/handguns, manuals (revolvers, etc), and shotguns are "easily" available to the general public (even these are subject to background checks, etc).
Generally speaking, law-abiding citizens are going to respect the laws in regards to firearm usage and safety, so stripping them of that is moot at best; for those rare mentally distrurbed people who slip through, there are probably as many cases of self-defense saving lives. Additionally, arms used in crimes are quite often stolen, blackmarket, or otherwise illegally obtained, and criminals by definition don't particularly care much about what the law says, so banning them would do little to stop that.
Those outside the country may get the impression of a "wild west" situation where any and everyone can get all the guns they like and tote them around with impunity, but that's hardly the case at all.
Except for the Second Amendment deal, you'd make a pretty good Libertarian, I expect. Maybe the fuel taxes, too.
Kyro: I admit I am not familiar with your gun laws. Yet self evidently with the frequent office and school massacres stories we receive your legislation is deeply flawed.
I know that an outright ban is impossible, as you point out in your nation criminals would still get their hands on weapons, your southern boarder allows in plenty of drugs, its not hard to imagine weapons as well in the effect of prohibition.
Perhaps in lieu of knowing more I would be for 'effective' regulation. I can't not believe your current checks are remotely effective from the evidence of my own eyes.
Furthermore, weapon effectiveness steadily increases. Imagine powerful gun controls had been in place in the 1970's, today you would still have access to revolvers for self defence and rifles for hunting, but many of the efficient powerful weapons with a high rate of fire could have been prevented from taking widespread circulation. I have to wonder how much lethality your be able to buy with a student loan in the 2050's.
Legerdemain: I am indeed described as a libertarian over here. I would argue my position is entirely consistent including my thoughts on the 2nd amendment. Firstly given what the first line actually says. Secondly libertarianism stems from the work of John Stewart Mill. Self regarding and other regrading spheres. The access to arms clearly falls within the other regarding aspects of liberties and thus at least under what I understand (and what JSM the father of libertarianism would understand) to be liberty, the modern use of the 2nd amendment is wrong.
If I return to my original question, could I be compatible with the Republicans or at least a part of it, or would I be left in limbo outside the politics of both parties?
My guess is that you would be part of a dying breed in the US- a true conservative, though I think Libertarianism would be a bit too far Right for your tastes. The Republican Party calls themselves "conservative" but for the main party platform that is social/moral conservatism at best, and most definitely not a political conservatism. Both major parties are very liberal when it comes to government control- the main point being which aspect of life do you want controlled? The Democrats govermentize (control) the economic and international aspects of a nation; while Republicans seek to control the moral/social code. Personally, I find swallowing the control by the Democrats slightly easier to go down, but that's only because I feel that the Republicans have turned their back on true conservatism, I just really despise someone regulating behavior in the "name of God" or some such just so they can win some votes and more power, besides the fact, that within reason, I generally feel people should be allowed to do what they want {I'm really big on "Your Freedom Ends where the Next Person's Begins"}.
As an Imigrant to the United states. I have found the American People wich I take pride of considering my self: I migth add to very kind, generous people, and way to trusting of others and we Always get burn, by trying to help others. Hence the Current Democratic Bank mess. Don't take my word (I am Republican) go to google and find out for your self. The 2nd amendment very core is to protect our selfs from for Foreign and Domestic enemies. Yes there is always going to be that DumA&& but if you look at it by the #'s you will see the incidents don't happen that ofthen. ( Thank God ) SO do haven to agree with your out look to some degree. And welcome to republican party
Quite, and well put. I suppose I agree. As an economist I find the economic control (or mismanagment as I would see it) that the Democrates favour an anathema. Where as the moral stuff favoured by the ruling christian right that dominates the republicans is largely un-enforcable.
As I said, that's simply not true. Aside from historical pieces owned by collectors, automatic weapons are not available to the general public, and that's been the case for 20 years.
In many of the school shootings, the perpetrators gained unpermitted access to their parents' weapons; they did not own them themselves. And short of an outright ban, which would never be accepted by the public, you can't really do much about incompetent parents who don't keep dangerous items locked up (be it guns, bladed weapons, prescription drugs, etc).
In any case, it isn't exactly an everyday occurence--in a country of 300 million, there may be two or three such shootings in a year of late, excepting copycat homicides. Certainly a tragedy, but in almost all cases it could have been completely avoidable if the parents had properly secured their legally owned weapons and paid attention to their kids before they had complete mental breakdowns.
Kyro, I could point out that their are 176 death from firearms every day, so absoultly yes, more than a daily occurance. I'm using the New York times here as my source.
However, we could go round in circles on this one which would'nt be particularly productive.
Instead I would be interest on your take, specifically:
Do you feel the 2nd admendment is correctly applied?
Do you feel gun legislation is too soft or too hard?
Are you a gun owner yourself and whats your general attuide towards weapons in public hands?
I'm interested to know because I'm guessing here, your a 30 something well paid middle class guy working in an office enviroment, living in an average surban part of the country. i.e . not a redneck, drug dealer or farmer and your exposure is from choice, if any.
I think what you might be missing is that compared to the UK, we have a dysfunctional party system. Our national constitution, and by emulation all our state constitutions, enforces single-member, winner-take-all legislative districts. This has led us to an essentially personality-driven political system, where party identification says nothing about ideological consistency or chains of accountability. So, rather than being able to choose a party because it closely matches your policy preferences, here in the US, you're generally forced to choose a "lesser of two evils" or just get sloppy about it and pick the side whose cheap slogans you like best.
Mind you, I'm not telling my fellow citizens to quit voting or run quickly to their favority minor party. We don't have ideological consistency over the long haul, or even over individual political careers, but we do have empirical differences in policy outcomes when power shifts between the two sides of our duopoly (e.g. GOP social values legislation vs. Dem environmental regulations). It's just awfully hard to guess in advance what those differences might be in detail b/c our laws are built in a messy game where large chunks of either party can and will defect to the other side simply because the week's headlines scare them into it.
As I understand the UK system, there is significant pressure to toe the party line because you have no hope of advancement if you buck leadership too often. The fact that your chief exec is also head of party in the legislature also makes things really different. If a pol's goal is a cabinet portfolio, his or her only hope is to help the party pick and maintain legislative leadership that can win a majority, or at least dominate a coalition gov't.
I was referring to the school shootings which you'd said were so frequent in #5. Standard homicides are a different case; in a country of this size, people are going to find some way to kill others if that's what they really want to do, legal guns or no. Rather than more laws, what we need is proper enforcement of the existing ones to discourage unlawful acts in the first place, not more taking of law-abiding citizens' rights.
You'll need to be more specific there.
I think it's "okayish" at present. The major issues are not a need for additional legistlation, but rather for better enforcement, and for those who do lawfully own firearms to keep and handle them safely and responsibly (and to instill such knowledge and values in their children, if any). I'd probably not complain much if safety courses and testing were required along with the existing background checks; such tests are already required of hunting licensees in many states.
I am, yes. As above, I feel that firearm ownership is a right, but that it must be exercised responsibly. Sadly, responsibility is something sorely lacking in modern society, in many more areas than just this one.
My loose understanding of US politics is that moderates are often squesed out, and that the extremist tend to be better surviviors.
Sort of. Some people are happy to be backbenchers and say whatever they please, they were never after a ministerial job anyway. Also it only applies during the rein of the leader and normally leaders don't last too long. I can think of dozens of politicans who have had huge public rows with their bosses, only to re-emerge into a top job when the leadship changes.
I would say within our 3 main parties exists a huge range of political belifes. In Torys the liberians and the authorians, the sound and the wet.
In the Labour party the modernist (those that loosely understand socialism does';nt work) and those who are just socialist.
That wasn't really the situation when I was born (1964), but as we became a TV nation under our dysfunctional party duopoly, it has pretty much ended up that way. I forget their names, but a few poli sci scholars have done very well by mapping and analyzing the steady increase of "polarized" votes in our Congress. Some big-deal things like last Friday's Wall Street bill can get a strong bipartisan vote, but the number of votes with few or no crossovers has been getting higher every year for a while now. I want a real multi-party system here, but I'm not so sure I want to go through the complete meltdown that is probably a necessary precursor to putting parties in the Constitution.
Re the backbenchers and whatnot, I guess I should break down and actually read some real comparative textbook stuff. I focused on theory, policy, and US institutions when I was in grad school, and this thread has made me wonder if too much of what I think of UK politics was shaped by scraps from the US civics textbooks I had to use for my students. I might even, sigh, be a victim of visual argument. One of those texts, in a chapter on our party system, had a pair of photos comparing "US politics" with "British politics" that showed public corners with campaign signs stacked up. The US photo was a bunch of individual's names and the UK photo was a bunch of party logos. An election sign with a party label is definitely an endangered species here, but I have no idea if the UK is starting to see fewer signs like that or not.
Small islands never figure this out despite being unable to do it themselves. If, by banning them, guns are hard to get, how did the IRA kill so many people with them?
I can, by virtue of having a lathe and other basic machining tools, build a firearm at home. Those tools are here to work on machinery. To actually prevent domestic production alone, you'd have to ban modern industry and go back to the dark ages. Then you'd just have people using arrows and knives to kill.
You have hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms in your small island. Outlawing something has never made it go away. We outlaw drugs, their illegitimate supply and use increases. I prefer to be even.
The next time you hear about some massecre by a guy with a gun, an addition for your consideration of causes. Is the locale a gun free zone?
The great thing about the American two party system is that no two Americans, even if they are in the same party, agree on everything...or even most things come to think of it. All the party affiliation indicates is that the political positions you value most match up with the party you chose.
Assuming the political positions you lead with were the ones you feel strongest about, you'd probably be a Republican now. Now I try to vote my economic positions, and to a lesser extent foreign policy. That's why typically I vote Democrat for president.
Most Americans are totally unelectable. I'm a hard-core pro-lifer, pro-gun, and occassionally catch myself asking, "why can't we just bomb the SOBs?". I'm unelectable as a Democrat on a national level. I think those positions actually might help as a Democrat in my state, but YMMV. Don't feel like electability matters. If more Americans were electable, we wouldn't have the current crop of candidates.
it looks like you have not gone to the east side of SA yet there are a lot of gangs the Mkings the Mexican moffie and several mobs and minor gangs there are out here... you want to carry a gun but let alone of living in the city i live in the open planes of texas and there are a lot of bobcats wolfs and cyotes out here. the cattle have to be safe so my 22 is important to me.
Education on gun usage and saftey is the key issue. As Kryo mentioned "Sadly, responsibility is something sorely lacking in modern society." We learned a few thing from prohibition, ban it and someone else will supply it. Better to have some form of control than no control.
US politicians just love to take the easy way out. Passing laws that are unenforcable, impractical and some just plain stupid. Can't see them getting us out of this mess either. They still haven't figured it out. Outsourced jobs mean no work, no pay, no buying and NO TAXES!!! Just say no to bailing out failing BIG Business!!!
I think there is a fundamental flaw with the argument that people would find other ways to kill each other. It assumes that the killing is premeditated, with the killer having acquired a firearm with the intent to murder. This completely ignores crimes of passion. The thing is, guns are very effective at what they do and make it very easy for anyone to kill anyone else without trying particularly hard. It takes a much stronger intent to go up to someone and stick a knife in them.
Which is not to say that I think guns should be banned (I don't like to stomp on people's hobbies), just that this particular argument is on shaky grounds. My feeling is that all gun owners should be licensed, and that gun ownership should probably be heavily restricted in cities.
On a side note, I'd like to take issue with the 'true conservative' comment. Conservatives espousing free market capitalism and small government is something relatively recent (at least in Europe, my US history is shaky), and I would argue probably not the key issue for the bulk of conservatives. By contrast, the right wing has always been about tradition, respectability, stability, family values, law & order, social cohesion.
@Nights Edge: In response to you taking issue to my "true conservative" comment. You have to understand that American political ideology is in many ways opposite of European; a 'Conservative' in Europe would be a 'Liberal' here. Also, at least in American political thought, the whole Right/Left argument stemmed originally from the thought of 1) Why? do we need government 2) What? is its purpose and 3) How? should it operate. The earliest American political parties: the Federalists (Conservvative-capitalists, strong central gov't, support of the Elite) vs the Democratic-Republicans (Liberal-agriculturalists, weak central gov't, support of the Masses). As time went on, the parties learned that certain groups of people aligned more closely, and to expand on that power, they pushed into those agendas.
Remember before the late 18th century there was no school of political thought- there was the Monarchy and that was it. Rome and Ancient Greece, the most 'republican' forms of government until the modern age, had limited in the way of differing ideology- it was still mostly a conflict of class, power, wealth, and might is right. Rhetoric may have been espoused to win over the public, but there was generally little follow through. Now, obviously some monarchies/systems were developed different than others, some even had "democratic" institutions, but any form of Right/Left didn't appear on the world stage until much later (19th century, especially with the formations of Nationalism, Progressivism, and Moral Conservatism)
And thats your political science lesson for the day (much condensed obviously lol)
On right-left politics: the terminology was born in the French Revolution, specifically the 1791 legislature where monarchists sat on the right side of the room and the radicals sat on the left. Since then, IMO, the use of the terms has steadily declined in value because big flashy labels do not help conversation the way calm specifics can.
Re early US "parties," if you are talking about the founding period and not the post-Washington republic, it is an anchronism, IMO, to use the word "party" to describe the groups vying for power. Even though they were laying the groundwork for our modern excuse for a party system, by endorsing the Constitution, they rejected the notion of "faction"quite explicitly (it's the only major gap in our original Constitutuion, IMO). You're also on slippery labeling ground when you try to call the Jeffersonians "liberal." Jefferson was perhaps the premier American exceptionalist, which is a stance that modern US self-described conservatives tend to claim as their exclusive point of honor.
Aristotle, anyone? Hamilton certainly valued his Aristotle, and most certainly understood that political theory was ancient and complex. If you're in the camp who believe Plato's Republic is serious and not a satire, and you put it beside Aristotle's Politics, then you've got a fascinating basic argument between healthy democracy and benign dictatorship. Heck, it works even if you laugh a lot when you read the Republic. And, if you're US-born, there's a strong chance you'll come out thinking that Aristotle would endorse our form of government as a very good compromise between the tremendous difficulty of mastering "good" democracy and the terrible risks of "bad" monarchy. Well, the formal form anyhow. We're effectively an oligarchy, which was the mediocre middle ground of gov't types in my reading of the book.
I should note that I sort of agree with SB about it being hard for us moderns to use our words like "republic" and "democratic" when we talk about history. But the real rub there is not about formal rules for assigning and using state power (for centuries, Venice was most certainly a republic in its own eyes--they elected their chief executive). It's the concept of citizenship that has changed most radically in recent centuries. For example, when the US was founded, most white men could not vote because they did not own sufficient property, and most of their wives were closer to the status of indentured servants than they were to citizenship--unable to own property or sign contracts, and often unable to protest a beating by their husbands.
I didnt read all the posts but I did read the first. You would be under the catagory of a moderate Republican. You would be a Rudi Guilani Republican he fits your views almost exactly.
Interesting. Of course I know who he is but never really got into his politics in any detail because just as he was becoming interesting he dissappeared from the race.
I have been watching the presidential race. Although I started off as a hard-core McCain supporter I am drifting into 'don't care' territory. Some of the economic proposals McCain has adovcated look iffy at best to me. but at least he is still a free-trader. Obama has said some really backwards things on economics, but in fairness he did have a primary to win and from what I understand you have to swing to the left (the right in McCains case) to win your nomination then back to the center again after. So I hope they are both just being populist with their earlier dafter comments.
Also getting to know a little more about Obama's past is off putting. Espcially the underhand approach to winning his Senate nomination by having all the other candidates thrown off the list. That said, he presents a very capiable image, and his econmic plans look pretty coherent.
On the other hand McCain choice of running mate looks weak. While I tried to warm to her I have completely failed to do so.
I shall be watching the results come in, but I can't say I will be particular emotional about it either way now.
You have a standing army that's probably the largest and most effective in the entire world. You have currently the biggest economy, the most influence, and you are currently best buddies with said monarchy, who also commits militarily with you. I somehow don't think every civilian needs guns.
Compare the fatality rates from gun crime in the UK to that in the US. That's why you should ban them.
As a nationalist Welshmen, who despises the British state, yet has no choice but to be a part of it if he wants to remain in his own country, I am generally against the tories ( being monarchist and Imperialist in the past ). I Could only wish that the availability of weapons was more open to my people in the past, and that we had been able to follow in Americas footsteps.
However, i'm also not a labour supporter, and only support Plaid Cymru as their end goals reflect my own. I've always thought that I would be a Libertarian under the American system. I however, am tired of the stupid level of cover the US elections are getting in the UK. While the course of US elections affect the world, they don't have a great deal of effect on the internal issues of the UK, and it's our natioanl issues that I feel need to be focused on.
Personally, I don't like Obama, he comes across as too socialist, and I don't think that is going to sit well in the US. He seems to be going for a European style government, and it's caused more damage than good. Yet Mcain seems somehow shifty, and so I really don't envy Americans the choices they have...... despite my dislike, I think that Clinton was the better option.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
