Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Damn ....... :S
Thank you for this useful and well-explained remark. It's fully appreciated. Now go back to your sandpit.
(I guess you didn't read or you don't want to react on what Morgan Freeman said.)
Thank you for this useful and well-explained remark. It's fully appreciated. Now go back to your sandpit.
(I guess you didn't read or you don't want to react on what Morgan Freeman said.)
I don't need to react to what he wrote, it's just another opinion. Blame the media, that's the most easy way, but not the fact that people with guns kill other people pretty easy. To do the same, kill 27 and yourself with a knife is much more difficult, not only as it is close combat but also the time it takes. Maybe another amendment, the right to own bombs to make it even easier to kill a lot of people, eventhough it's completely unnecessary to own them and can only cause a lot more innocent death???
Besides, my response was to the utter stupidness of your post about spoons! Mister 'I pretend I'm so smart' ....
Besides, my response was to the utter stupidness of your post about spoons! Mister 'I pretend I'm so smart' ....
Many of my colleagues are US citizens and so are some of my friends.
Among them this discussion had been repeated after every incident, but the discussion is more complex then "we" get to see in Europe.
It is not only based on the right of self defence, but also on the right of people to defend themselves from tyranny and from invaders.
The right of self defence is the most used argument in the public debate. But the last 2 are the ones that are more important in most of the legal cases and court rulings.
In short: weapons were deemed needed, not just to defend yourself from criminals, local wildlife and Indians. But also as a "deterence" to avoid abuse and oppression from the federal government and foreign invaders.
(At the time, most of the "US" armed forces where statebased militias, i.e. civilians who would come together if needed. As part of the constitution, the federal government had the right to raise a "fulltime" army and navy. The 2nd amendment is believed to be put in place to make sure the federal government could not use the power of this army to "control" the states or groups of people in those states, and at the same time call upon those militias to help defend against invaders (like England).)
In the last 5 years there have been 2 Supreme Court rullings that confirm the right to keep and bear arms for individuals (and not just "the militia"), and the obligation of local, state and federal governments to respect this right .
With those rullings the discussion on wether people have the constitutional right to own a gun has ended, legally speaking.
So it is not likely this event will trigger a change in a constitutional amendment, whether we think it is stupid or justified does not really matter anymore.....
There is still a lot of discussion on what kind of restrictions can be put in place around the right to own and bear arms. Examples of these are: Are people allowed to carry a gun in their workplace. Can certain type of weapons be banned (including bombs ;) ) ? Is registration and licensing of gun ownership allowed? If it is, to what extend can it be enforced?
Personally I find it very difficult to decide where to stand.
In principle I support the concept of giving the monopoly of the use of violence, and the ownership and use of arms to "the state" (= the general concept of a state, not the states in the US).
But in the US it is part of the constitution, and they have chosen a different stance on trusting "the state" . They have done so for very good reasons and I support that as well.
So should there really be a call for changing a constitutional amendment?. Wouldn't it open the door for changes to other constitutional rights, like freedom of speech?
I haven't made up my mind yet........
Among them this discussion had been repeated after every incident, but the discussion is more complex then "we" get to see in Europe.
It is not only based on the right of self defence, but also on the right of people to defend themselves from tyranny and from invaders.
The right of self defence is the most used argument in the public debate. But the last 2 are the ones that are more important in most of the legal cases and court rulings.
In short: weapons were deemed needed, not just to defend yourself from criminals, local wildlife and Indians. But also as a "deterence" to avoid abuse and oppression from the federal government and foreign invaders.
(At the time, most of the "US" armed forces where statebased militias, i.e. civilians who would come together if needed. As part of the constitution, the federal government had the right to raise a "fulltime" army and navy. The 2nd amendment is believed to be put in place to make sure the federal government could not use the power of this army to "control" the states or groups of people in those states, and at the same time call upon those militias to help defend against invaders (like England).)
In the last 5 years there have been 2 Supreme Court rullings that confirm the right to keep and bear arms for individuals (and not just "the militia"), and the obligation of local, state and federal governments to respect this right .
With those rullings the discussion on wether people have the constitutional right to own a gun has ended, legally speaking.
So it is not likely this event will trigger a change in a constitutional amendment, whether we think it is stupid or justified does not really matter anymore.....
There is still a lot of discussion on what kind of restrictions can be put in place around the right to own and bear arms. Examples of these are: Are people allowed to carry a gun in their workplace. Can certain type of weapons be banned (including bombs ;) ) ? Is registration and licensing of gun ownership allowed? If it is, to what extend can it be enforced?
Personally I find it very difficult to decide where to stand.
In principle I support the concept of giving the monopoly of the use of violence, and the ownership and use of arms to "the state" (= the general concept of a state, not the states in the US).
But in the US it is part of the constitution, and they have chosen a different stance on trusting "the state" . They have done so for very good reasons and I support that as well.
So should there really be a call for changing a constitutional amendment?. Wouldn't it open the door for changes to other constitutional rights, like freedom of speech?
I haven't made up my mind yet........
Most Europeans (including myself a few years back) don't understand the American point of view.
And given that individuals have the right to bear arms, one could ask the question if it is smart to ban weapons from schools. Children are the most vulnerable part of the population. Banning weapons on school is like an invitation to madmen. "Come here, you can create a disaster and nobody will be able to stop you until the police arrives."
And given that individuals have the right to bear arms, one could ask the question if it is smart to ban weapons from schools. Children are the most vulnerable part of the population. Banning weapons on school is like an invitation to madmen. "Come here, you can create a disaster and nobody will be able to stop you until the police arrives."
As I said: I haven't made up my mind yet.
But this argument (which I hear from some of my colleagues as well ;) ) is actually shortshighted....
Childeren are actually more likely to get hurt or die from accidental gun discharges, compared to outright killingsprees. So keeping guns away from places with childeren does make sense in one way...
Also, look at the legal consequences:
If you allow guns at school properties, it also means you cannot arrest and prosecute someone who brings a gun to school. You actually take away an option that allows you to take action before something happens. (Note: I'm not saying it prevents all incidents!).
But this argument (which I hear from some of my colleagues as well ;) ) is actually shortshighted....
Childeren are actually more likely to get hurt or die from accidental gun discharges, compared to outright killingsprees. So keeping guns away from places with childeren does make sense in one way...
Also, look at the legal consequences:
If you allow guns at school properties, it also means you cannot arrest and prosecute someone who brings a gun to school. You actually take away an option that allows you to take action before something happens. (Note: I'm not saying it prevents all incidents!).
There is something between forbidding all guns and allowing all guns. Gun control in some buildings is definately reasonable but then there is needed proper protection. Unarmed senior gatekeeper is somehow defenseless againist youngster with machete.
Laws in most states already allow for "armed" exceptions in places where guns are restricted.
But in the current debate (some) people who are supporting gun rights, are saying that allowing individuals to take their guns to school would have stopped (or prevent) a killing spree sooner.....
But in the current debate (some) people who are supporting gun rights, are saying that allowing individuals to take their guns to school would have stopped (or prevent) a killing spree sooner.....
Actually, you don't. (Following your assumption here.) Correlation doesn't say anything about causality. It is not the right to carry a gun that affects the killings. If I carry a gun (hypothetically, I'd never do that in real-life, I'm against weapons), I don't affect your right on self-determination.
Well, technically you're right, but okay, I'll rephrase. Suppose that there is scientific evidence that more guns lead to more murders, and more murders caused by gunfire.
You imposing taxes however does affect my right on self-determination :p
I know, but that's not the point of the discussion. We know our opinions on that one.
The right on self-determination (of life) is the most important right there is, let that be clear.
I was thinking, that if individuals that are innocent die as a consequence of gun proliferation (see the first paragraph) then you could argue that the right to bear arms does more good than harm. Maybe not with the first casualty (banning driving would do more harm than good, although you drastically reduce the amount of casualties in traffic), but at some point the price might become too high. Since I assume that your goal is ultimate freedom and that a minarchistic state is just a means to this end, I wonder if it would be acceptable under this condition to limit the freedom of individuals for the greater good, also bearing in mind that the situations where you are allowed to use a gun in the first place are already covered by the justice system.
No matter what you are going to do with guns and the rights to use them, after the Libertarian revolution, I am afraid that that is a political decision. Whatever decision you make on guns and the right to use them, the consequence or borne by the society as a whole (given the assumption). I do think though that it is one of the few cases in a libertarian state where that is really the case.
Well, technically you're right, but okay, I'll rephrase. Suppose that there is scientific evidence that more guns lead to more murders, and more murders caused by gunfire.
You imposing taxes however does affect my right on self-determination :p
I know, but that's not the point of the discussion. We know our opinions on that one.
The right on self-determination (of life) is the most important right there is, let that be clear.
I was thinking, that if individuals that are innocent die as a consequence of gun proliferation (see the first paragraph) then you could argue that the right to bear arms does more good than harm. Maybe not with the first casualty (banning driving would do more harm than good, although you drastically reduce the amount of casualties in traffic), but at some point the price might become too high. Since I assume that your goal is ultimate freedom and that a minarchistic state is just a means to this end, I wonder if it would be acceptable under this condition to limit the freedom of individuals for the greater good, also bearing in mind that the situations where you are allowed to use a gun in the first place are already covered by the justice system.
No matter what you are going to do with guns and the rights to use them, after the Libertarian revolution, I am afraid that that is a political decision. Whatever decision you make on guns and the right to use them, the consequence or borne by the society as a whole (given the assumption). I do think though that it is one of the few cases in a libertarian state where that is really the case.
Most Europeans (including myself a few years back) don't understand the American point of view.
And given that individuals have the right to bear arms, one could ask the question if it is smart to ban weapons from schools. Children are the most vulnerable part of the population. Banning weapons on school is like an invitation to madmen. "Come here, you can create a disaster and nobody will be able to stop you until the police arrives."
I am afraid that you have to go either way. Either banning guns completely (you could also do that from schools by checking everything that is going inside) or allow them everywhere.
And given that individuals have the right to bear arms, one could ask the question if it is smart to ban weapons from schools. Children are the most vulnerable part of the population. Banning weapons on school is like an invitation to madmen. "Come here, you can create a disaster and nobody will be able to stop you until the police arrives."
I am afraid that you have to go either way. Either banning guns completely (you could also do that from schools by checking everything that is going inside) or allow them everywhere.
In the past it was an usefull Constitution Amendment as you explained well, but times have been changed and now (in my opinion) there is no need for it anymore as the army (and police) aren't civilians anymore but professions and employees of the state. Besides, but I'm not sure if there is any info that confirms my opinion about this, the more easier it is for people to own guns and the more lightly people think of owning guns, the easier it is for people to get guns who shouldn't own them. I can use alcohol (or drugs, sigarets, etc) as an example, the more easier it is to buy it and the more lightly people think about it, the more people who shouldn't use it or not allowed to use it will do it.
We in the Netherlands can also own guns, but under strict regulations. And even with these strict regulations it sometimes goes wrong (the worst was the shooting in Alphen aan den Rijn). But without strict regulations a lot more idiots could own guns and more of these shootings could and most probably would have happen, as what happened in the US already a quite number of times.
And I don't think by changing 1 Constitutional Amendment opens the door to change others as well (like freedom of speech), as those Constitutional Amendments aren't the reason of an average of 34 death daily by gunshots. And when this argument is used not to change the Second Amendment, to me that sounds more as a NRA/gun lobby argument instead of a really strong argument based on reason and facts.
We in the Netherlands can also own guns, but under strict regulations. And even with these strict regulations it sometimes goes wrong (the worst was the shooting in Alphen aan den Rijn). But without strict regulations a lot more idiots could own guns and more of these shootings could and most probably would have happen, as what happened in the US already a quite number of times.
And I don't think by changing 1 Constitutional Amendment opens the door to change others as well (like freedom of speech), as those Constitutional Amendments aren't the reason of an average of 34 death daily by gunshots. And when this argument is used not to change the Second Amendment, to me that sounds more as a NRA/gun lobby argument instead of a really strong argument based on reason and facts.
In the past it was an usefull Constitution Amendment as you explained well, but times have been changed and now (in my opinion) there is no need for it anymore as the army (and police) aren't civilians anymore but professions and employees of the state
Actually times have not changed, or at least the argument you use here, is exactly one of the reasons the Amendment exists.
As mentioned before: partially the Amendment was approved to balance the power the federal government would get (over states or groups of individuals) from the right to create a professional army.
This Federal right and the professional Army still exists today, as you point out. From that perspective there is no proove something has changed...
And I don't think by changing 1 Constitutional Amendment opens the door to change others as well (like freedom of speech)
In a Democracy, a constitution is not something to be taken lightly. It should not be changed as an impulse or based on emotion. (It is unlikely anyway...) If you start going down that path, you do open the door for others to use the same logic to change other parts of the constitution as well....
And in this case. if you want to avoid those death, maybe there are other legislative ways to do so?
(Note: just playing devil's advocate here .;) Wanting to show that your arguments are and example of how the European perspective does not cover/counter the reasons why a substantional group of Americans feels strongly about this Amendment)
Actually times have not changed, or at least the argument you use here, is exactly one of the reasons the Amendment exists.
As mentioned before: partially the Amendment was approved to balance the power the federal government would get (over states or groups of individuals) from the right to create a professional army.
This Federal right and the professional Army still exists today, as you point out. From that perspective there is no proove something has changed...
And I don't think by changing 1 Constitutional Amendment opens the door to change others as well (like freedom of speech)
In a Democracy, a constitution is not something to be taken lightly. It should not be changed as an impulse or based on emotion. (It is unlikely anyway...) If you start going down that path, you do open the door for others to use the same logic to change other parts of the constitution as well....
And in this case. if you want to avoid those death, maybe there are other legislative ways to do so?
(Note: just playing devil's advocate here .;) Wanting to show that your arguments are and example of how the European perspective does not cover/counter the reasons why a substantional group of Americans feels strongly about this Amendment)
What do you guys think about tax system in France? For example Gerard Depardieu is moving to Belgium, because if you make 1million a year, then 75% goes for taxes. This is a robbery in a daylight imo. Lets say you have 8hour work day, then 6 hours you slave for you country and 2 for yourself.
I think Belgium should consider him a refugee ;-) Not a refugee of political or religious prosecution but a refugee of fiscal prosecution.
I really hope that France's 1% (to use a popular term these days) all move across the border. Just across the border, to laugh with Hollande. He just doesn't see that he is ruining France while France is already pretty ill. I don't know how long Merkel will tolerate him. I hope not that long.
I really hope that France's 1% (to use a popular term these days) all move across the border. Just across the border, to laugh with Hollande. He just doesn't see that he is ruining France while France is already pretty ill. I don't know how long Merkel will tolerate him. I hope not that long.
What do you guys think about tax system in France? For example Gerard Depardieu is moving to Belgium, because if you make 1million a year, then 75% goes for taxes. This is a robbery in a daylight imo. Lets say you have 8hour work day, then 6 hours you slave for you country and 2 for yourself.
taxation is a wonderful thing.
The point is what you do with that money.
taxation is a wonderful thing.
The point is what you do with that money.
During Sarkozy's government, there are also many rich french who went essentially to Swiss, GB or Belgium.... Depardieu was just too drunk and did not see anymore his "friends"...