Congratulations to the UK voters for finally forcing a reversal of the kafkaesque European experiment in anti-democratic Little Shop of Horrors faceless, unelected centralized government. Truly a historic, world changing event.
TallMike - you might want to hold off on your crowing for 6 months or a year. It may not turn out the way you foresee.
I don't foresee anything in particular, but I am celebrating one of those rare moments when people recognize and fight back against outrageously extreme deviations from democratic principles.
I expect that Scotland will vote for independence from the UK
As an ex Pom, I think the world should look at the UK as a shining example of democratic process. I mean, please excuse my ignorance but surely the constitution in the US was relevant in 1789, but common sense would suggest the world has moved on and Muskets at dawn is not now the way we think democracy should be exercised. I think the UK has demonstrated admirably how you discuss and let the people decide. Its a shame the US republicans don't think the American people could understand the implication and exercise their minds to the task. It's far simpler than the debate on leaving Europe. Cross party lines, let true public debate occur. And accept the verdict with good grace as David Cameron did. Maybe Mr Trump could learn a little from him too.
Didn't they just do the Scottish independence vote? I think that would well be worth voting for again in maybe 10 years when the dust has settled in EU, assuming its still going by then,
Now it's our turn to vote next Saturday. Should also be a close call, we've had informed debates and without the vile personal attacks you have had in the US. I'm amazed the public is not bringing them to order. It seems to be the mob mentality of a one sided football crowd that get all wound up. Is there not room in the US for public debate? Where have all the great speakers gone? Why can't a passionate argument be put forward without insults?
Phil - from one ex Pom to another, I think you are going too far in your praise of the UK's efforts at democracy. Yesterday's vote to leave the EU was so long in coming that I had almost given up hope of seeing it in my lifetime. Watching the process from afar it looked like water polo being played in treacle.
Maybe you do not realize how seriously the entire EU has been crippled over the years by vast amounts of unnecessary regulation imposed by the central government in Brussels. I think it will take a few years for the UK to recover from the effects of all that.
DrWho I miss your point. The original amendment is not what is in our constitution today. The federalist papers are not our constitution. We do not assemble the armed people together twice a year. It does say a well regulated militia, so if we accept that you mean the militia to mean the body of the people than you should be for a "well regulated" body of the people concerning their right to bear arms.
Phil - As for the US presidential election process, I find it helpful to look at it as the most extravagant combination of TV game show and reality TV show ever devised. The skills required to win are far different from what you might expect, considering the political power that will eventually be bestowed on the winner. And winning is everything. Get it now?
Phil: I think you are wrong to think we have moved on and become so much smarter than people were 200 years ago. But, suppose you are right. The Constitution is the law of the land. If you think that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be infringed by gun control legislation, then you must first amend the Constitution.
Tuco: the original proposal was debated and modified by the House of Representative and the Senate in 1897. I believe they eliminated the specification that the militia was composed of the body of the people because it was redundant. That was the generally accepted definitions of militia.
Difficulty score 12. No green.
Tuco: I suggest you read Federalist Paper #29. It is all about the militia. The thesis is that a militia is primarily desired to make a standing army unnecessary. A secondary purpose is to "oppose" an army raised by the Federal government.
The militia was to be first under the regulation of the states, but available for the Federal government's use when necessary.
I believe the Bill of Rights only limits what the Federal government can do. I reject the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment. But if you accept it, then the 2nd amendment limits what government bodies at all levels can do with respect to gun control. My view is that reasonable regulations on guns are permissible if enacted by state or local governments.
No brain cells were strained in solving this puzzle. 8.
nice 'n' easy. what I needed today.
The Federalist Papers are not law. They were written to convince the populace to ratify the constitution. They are not the constitution. We do not have to amend the constitution to regulate gun ownership. We just have to pass a law. See Assault Rifle Ban. Making it temporary was a concession to the gun lobby.