The American Independent Party of California

[royalcello]

The problem with Muslim monarchies is that they are Muslim, not that they are monarchies.

Britain and Japan are ruled by politicians, not by their monarchs.

One of the most outspoken opponents of gun control in Britain has been the Queen's husband, Prince Philip.  His son and grandsons have made their opposition to Labour's fox-hunting ban clear.  But there's nothing they can do about it, since the modern Western world tolerates royalty only when they have no power.  That's the problem.

None of us can know for sure exactly what a contemporary traditional Catholic kingdom, in which the king had real power, would be like, because none exists.  But I'm confident that it would violate genuine liberty less than the current governments of either the US or Europe do.

[MikeSearson]

I am speaking specifically of Japan under the Emporer.  A historical case for a monarch restricting people's use of arms as your cohort said there was none.  Modern day Japan is much worse as there is not even a warrior class any more.

 

Henry VIII was a Catholic Monarch...look how well that turned out.

 

Fox hunting?  They haven't used guns in fox hunting for decades.

 

The Second Amendment in the US is not about hunting either.  Frankly speaking, it's the right of the citizenry to take back the government from corrupt tyrants by means of arms.

[royalcello]

The issues of foxhunting and gun control are related as they both involve statism and leftist elites' contempt for the traditions and liberties of ordinary rural people.  In any case, it was gun control specifically that Prince Philip opposed.

I get so sick of hearing about Henry VIII, just because he's one of the few kings most people have heard of.  OK, so there was one Catholic king who abandoned the faith.  What about the hundreds of Catholic kings who didn't?  What about the many kings and other royals who have been canonized?

To get back to the original topic of this thread, how are these Protestant political parties any better than Protestant kings?  In fact, the style of Protestantism dominant in the American "religious right," "low-church" fundamentalism influenced by Calvinism and Puritanism, is much farther from Catholicism than the Anglicanism of the British monarchy.

[MikeSearson]

RC,

Again...RKBA means more than that, nice try, though.

It's not that Henry VIII is the only king people heard of.  He was a staunch "Defender of the Faith" until he decided that the pope was invalid and created a schism and a bloodline that oppressed Catholicism for hundreds of years.  Look at the problems created in Ireland and Scotland alone because of him and the blind sheep which followed him.

Yes there have been many benevolent kings, Brian Boru, Charlemange, Ferdinand and Isabella, etc.

Our government is not a theocracy.  How is it better than the prot kings you adore so much?  Well for one thing when is the last time a Catholic Religious in America was burned on the rack or drawn and quartered for being a Catholic? Yes our government has flaws, but people are not having to hide priests, disguise rosaries, or say Mass in hedgerows, are they? 

I'm also seriously hoping your comrade is not referring to the troops of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his revisionism of the War of Northern Aggression.

[brandy]

As Royal stated, I'm a certified Gun-nut too, and definitely do not have any intention of surrendering my arms to the men in blue helmets. (It's too easy to pick them off at 600 yards with my musketoon, but that's a different story ) And yes, I am grateful for the job that the NRA is doing in keeping whackjobs like Janet Reno and John sKerry at bay. Personally, I think if the government wants to control terrorism on planes, then it should quit taking knitting needles from little old ladies and quit making 69 year old senators drop trowel in the middle of an airport to verify that they do indeed have a hip replacement, and issue each passenger a 9 milimeter Glock. If Achmed and Ahab pull any funny business (Oh my gosh, did I just sterotype members of the peace-loving religion of Islam as  Terrorists!!! ) they would be made into Pate' in short order. Same with crime in the streets. If everybody was carrying a side arm, just how many bank robberies would occur do you think? Zero. Any robber would know that if he was lucky enough to get out the door without the teller nailing him, he would be lit up once he got outside.  

 

I currently own two lever action .22 rifles, a single action .22 revolver, a .58 CSA Cavalry musketoon, and a .44 percussion pistol. My brothers all have guns as well, and we intend to get some more "heavy duty" guns as our budgets allow.

 

But as Royal stated, the idea that a monarch would restrict his citizens the ability to bear arms, is absurd. There was never an instance of this in any Monarchy that I am aware of. In fact, in Spain there was even the Santa Hermanidad, which if I understand correctly, was a government authorized band of vigilante-esque folks who pretty much kept things in line. (Much like many of the cavalry detachments that patrolled throughout Ohio and Kentucky during the War of Northern Aggression).

 

 

Bummer

 

If each passenger were to get a gun than Achmed and Ahab would get one too right? They are on the plane also...you just gave more power to the "terrorists" Bummer...!!

[Bummer]

If each passenger were to get a gun than Achmed and Ahab would get one too right? They are on the plane also...you just gave more power to the "terrorists" Bummer...!!

 

That is a very bright observation. But let me put it to you this way. You are Achmed/Ahab - dual personality ok? You got issued a Glock. You are on the plane, wanting to fly it into the Empire State building. However you know that EVERY other passenger on the plane has a Glock too. You know that the minute you move towards the cockpit door, you'll get waxed, and you will not be able to fulfill your mission. Would you get out of your seat, and make a move towards the cabin door, or would you just cuss Bin Ladin out, and continue reading Attache' magazine? Unless you have been hitting the crackpipe, you have got to agree that no terrorist in his right mind would do that. Of course you could bring up the fact that yes, the bullets might tear holes in the fuselage, so ok, arm the passengers with Tazers. You get my point don't you? I do hope so, it's a pretty easy point to get.

 

My point is that putting the deciding power in the hands of the passengers would probably make Osamamaa Bin Ladin think of other ways to terrorize the USA. I doubt airplanes would be his weapon of choice when he realized all that would happen would be a few of his best mujihadeen would get waxed.

 

 

 

 

Bummer

[Bummer]

Brian Boru

 

Three cheers for Brian Boru, as an aside, Mike!

 

I agree, I don't intend to ever sell a firearm. They're too expensive! Plus, all mine have sentimental value.

 

Bummer

[royalcello]

It's not that Henry VIII is the only king people heard of.

Well, I often get that impression.  Him and George III (who was NOT a "tyrant"!).

He was a staunch "Defender of the Faith" until he decided that the pope was invalid and created a schism and a bloodline that oppressed Catholicism for hundreds of years. 

Henry VIII did not "create a bloodline"; he had no grandchildren, and all British monarchs since 1603 have been descendants of his sister Margaret.  Of those, Charles I was married to a Catholic and inclined towards toleration of Catholics, murdered partly because he was too catholic for the Puritans; Charles II also married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism on his deathbed; James II converted much earlier and was overthrown on account of his Catholicism.  George III granted toleration to the Catholics of Quebec.  Since Catholic Emancipation in 1829, no British monarch can be fairly accused of oppressing Catholics in England, Wales, or Scotland.

Look at the problems created in Ireland and Scotland alone because of him

Not exactly.  The Irish/English problem is quite complex and actually goes back long before Henry VIII, to Henry II, who was encouraged by the pope to conquer Ireland.

As for Scotland, that had nothing to do with Henry VIII; Scotland was still an independent country during the "Reformation," becoming Protestantized largely as a result of the efforts of the Calvinist John Knox, an enemy of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots.

Well for one thing when is the last time a Catholic Religious in America was burned on the rack or drawn and quartered for being a Catholic?

Come on, that doesn't happen in the European monarchies either, and hasn't for a long time.  And there has been plenty of anti-Catholic prejudice in the U.S.  The only reason it diminished was that American Catholics were desperate to prove they could be "good Americans," and compromised the fullness of their faith in the process.

[MikeSearson]

So it's ok for you to pull ancient texts from popes out of your butt to support your point of view, and when I point out a more recent example it's "old hat"...

 

Whatever Dude!

 

Like I told you in PM and in that other thread...you are not going to convince me and apparently I am not going to convince you.  You might want to stop crapping on other people's threads as a matter of ettiquette. 

 

 

[royalcello]

It is hardly inappropriate or off-topic for me to talk about monarchy on a thread that was started by another monarchist ("warning") to question the value of American "conservative" political parties!

What is inappropriate is for a newbie who uses expressions like "out of your butt" and "crapping on other people's threads" on a Catholic forum to lecture me about "etiquette."