New knife law hits london

[ThePeacent]

well I'm sure they took their time to think that before writing it down, as it's a solid block of text that says all it needs to, and nothing it doesn't, in a succinct and direct way that leaves tiny room for personal interpretation :cool:

no wonder it took only 2 centuries for the US to become the most powerful country in the world :D

[Sjucaveman]

Obviously I'm biased as I'm a US citizen but I feel that the constitution and bill of rights are the things that set America apart and the reason I'd rather live here than anywhere else. Not that I don't think other countries have their own merits. The USA sure has its share of issues as well. I just think the USA is pretty unique in just the way I like.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Here is some good news at least for this man and others: This Bag Piper in Montreal had his knife confiscated and he was ticketed, which is disgusting that he even had to go through it, but, he is getting his knife back:

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... se-dropped


I read that in Scotland there was a controversy related to this: The anti knife government was telling Bag Pipers to wear fake plastic dirks and they protested and pushed about their cultural way of life, and from what I read the government relented and told them they can wear the dirks.

[ZrowsN1s]

I heard it actually suggested that people should turn in their kitchen knives to have the tips all rounded like butter knives. It wasn't a joke.

[The Mastiff]

The founding fathers liked democracy but wanted to insure that it didn't become mob rule as pure democracies tend to become. Alternately they created the checks and balances system in the government to keep any one group from getting too comfortable and taking over completely. For outsiders it seems like chaos and nothing seems to get done ( gun control for instance) but that is exactly the reason this was set up like that. When I see nothing happening in congress I say "genius!". The true beauty of our design. It's too important to leave it to impulse or whim of the party that won the last two election cycles ( two year cycles). They also knew it takes constant care and watchfulness as there will always be those who long for unchecked power.

joe

[The Meat man]

The founding fathers liked democracy but wanted to insure that it didn't become mob rule as pure democracies tend to become. Alternately they created the checks and balances system in the government to keep any one group from getting too comfortable and taking over completely. For outsiders it seems like chaos and nothing seems to get done ( gun control for instance) but that is exactly the reason this was set up like that. When I see nothing happening in congress I say "genius!". The true beauty of our design. It's too important to leave it to impulse or whim of the party that won the last two election cycles ( two year cycles). They also knew it takes constant care and watchfulness as there will always be those who long for unchecked power.

joe

I had never looked at it like that before. That's very insightful, and it shows the wisdom and foresight of the Founders.

[The Mastiff]

They had wisdom and foresight to spare along with their obvious faults. They studied history and all kinds of governments and what their strengths and weaknesses were. What made them fail and succeed, strengths and weaknesses. Pure democracy is completely unsuitable yet it is something to strive for . So, what is needed to protect the system? What we still see and complain about. That's what.

People often complain about the Electoral college also because it can have the effect of keeping the presidential race from being decided by the 3 or 4 most populated areas which would have long ago fractured our country but to those seeking power that is a chance they are willing to take.

As long as the solid majority believe in the system things will continue to work. To get around that one would have to split us up into not Americans but different groups or 'tribes". Each group not American but X/American. We'll see how that turns out in the long run. The system itself has been resilient so far.

Joe

[ChrisinHove]

The founding fathers liked democracy but wanted to insure that it didn't become mob rule as pure democracies tend to become. Alternately they created the checks and balances system in the government to keep any one group from getting too comfortable and taking over completely. For outsiders it seems like chaos and nothing seems to get done ( gun control for instance) but that is exactly the reason this was set up like that. When I see nothing happening in congress I say "genius!". The true beauty of our design. It's too important to leave it to impulse or whim of the party that won the last two election cycles ( two year cycles). They also knew it takes constant care and watchfulness as there will always be those who long for unchecked power.

joe

You’re spot on.

The “tyranny of the majority”, Parliamentary democracy, and fairly low voter turn-outs here means a relatively small number of voters end up with disproportionate influence.

[tvenuto]

well I'm sure they took their time to think that before writing it down, as it's a solid block of text that says all it needs to, and nothing it doesn't, in a succinct and direct way that leaves tiny room for personal interpretation :cool:

no wonder it took only 2 centuries for the US to become the most powerful country in the world :D

Indeed. It was that and a new country chockablock full of natural resources and the means and market to exploit them.

[The Mastiff]

The “tyranny of the majority”, Parliamentary democracy, and fairly low voter turn-outs here means a relatively small number of voters end up with disproportionate influence.

You describe things better in less words than I can. :)

We have our share of that especially in local elections. Most people don't even vote except in years the President runs. That allows local areas to get way out of balance with the people they are supposed to serve and the laws they are supposed to follow. We have the judiciary branch to step in and keep things at least constitutional but certain areas have had decades to pack the benches with the right kind of judges. Our federal courts on the west coast have gotten away from trying to keep things legal and instead rule from the bench . Hence the wacky rulings they make that get thrown out later. The Supreme court keeps slapping them down. If the "right" judges get put on the court there is a problem. That is where the balance is truly important. As long as the supreme court stays balanced and honest they are the foundation everything else builds on. They say what is an what isn't constitutional. No one can over rule their decisions.

Joe