Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
I see it right now in TV, reaction is not sick, they should give him much more, at least broke both hands. I don't think that people have to be polite when such a pig want kill you during meeting and also online.
they should give him much more, at least broke both hands
I hope that if you ever do that, they sue you for torture.
I hope that if you ever do that, they sue you for torture.
Of course those are laws against freedom. Do you deny that?
freedom is not an absolut concept, but a relative concept, unless you are the only one alive on earth.
If i take a gun and i shoot you, then with my acts ( my freedom) i kill you ,so you will not have freedom anymore. My freedom ends when your freedom starts , and viceversa, now thats freedom in a world with more than one human
with your way of thinking you would have less freedom, not more freedom: with any psichotic guy armed with..not a gun but an ak 47, and all the pedo bears free and wasting some time on the park...then freedom will be robbed to many people , some killed, some rapped and fxxed up as future adults..
If you think not allowing an assasin buying a gun is against freedom..well this are only words, i think you know what common sense tell you.
But answering your question: if thats against freedom, i prefer less freedom for psichotics in the area "buying guns" because it will mean more freedom for the 95% not psichotic people
far right wing in america, whom posture you are supporting, seems to me in some topic anarchists more than just economicly libertarian.
Some of their/your phrases would suit on a radical anarchists mouth ( not even in an anarchist-syndicalist mouth), in Europe. Some of their possitions suit with anarchism. It surprises me
(edited)
freedom is not an absolut concept, but a relative concept, unless you are the only one alive on earth.
If i take a gun and i shoot you, then with my acts ( my freedom) i kill you ,so you will not have freedom anymore. My freedom ends when your freedom starts , and viceversa, now thats freedom in a world with more than one human
with your way of thinking you would have less freedom, not more freedom: with any psichotic guy armed with..not a gun but an ak 47, and all the pedo bears free and wasting some time on the park...then freedom will be robbed to many people , some killed, some rapped and fxxed up as future adults..
If you think not allowing an assasin buying a gun is against freedom..well this are only words, i think you know what common sense tell you.
But answering your question: if thats against freedom, i prefer less freedom for psichotics in the area "buying guns" because it will mean more freedom for the 95% not psichotic people
far right wing in america, whom posture you are supporting, seems to me in some topic anarchists more than just economicly libertarian.
Some of their/your phrases would suit on a radical anarchists mouth ( not even in an anarchist-syndicalist mouth), in Europe. Some of their possitions suit with anarchism. It surprises me
(edited)
chanching topic: have you seen a video on youtube,London, in wich are seen some face covered muslims yealling people because drinking, girls to have the skirt so little...trying to impose the sharia, buaj
Im left wing , trying to be open minded even libertarian on my mind, but i dont understand the support of the left to othe religiosn which are more medieval than catholicism. At least catholithy now is out of public society ( not power to imposse laws), but these sharia? buaj
Its not my country, but it makes me feel angry to see that
http://www.youtube.com/v/dN6CHtGGo4g
(edited)
Im left wing , trying to be open minded even libertarian on my mind, but i dont understand the support of the left to othe religiosn which are more medieval than catholicism. At least catholithy now is out of public society ( not power to imposse laws), but these sharia? buaj
Its not my country, but it makes me feel angry to see that
http://www.youtube.com/v/dN6CHtGGo4g
(edited)
People are not robots. Basically they are animals with a complex brain. --> They get mad, when such thing happens. --> Their emotions and instincts take over. --> They don't think about anything. Not even about what is appropriate or justified. --> Sometimes they do stupid things.
You can say it's sick, but it's human behaviour. Libertarian ideology is based on the assumption, that people are rational, so the individuals should decide about everything. But in reality they are basically irrational. That video shows an example of this.
That's why the possession of guns shall be limited. That's not against freedom rights or democracy. The usage of cars is also quite limited. You can't just drive a car anywhere, where you want. And if you don't have a license, you can't drive at all. Everybody accepts that, and noone says, that it's the oppression of freedom rights.
Just read this, it cant be explained better. I agree with your post
(edited)
You can say it's sick, but it's human behaviour. Libertarian ideology is based on the assumption, that people are rational, so the individuals should decide about everything. But in reality they are basically irrational. That video shows an example of this.
That's why the possession of guns shall be limited. That's not against freedom rights or democracy. The usage of cars is also quite limited. You can't just drive a car anywhere, where you want. And if you don't have a license, you can't drive at all. Everybody accepts that, and noone says, that it's the oppression of freedom rights.
Just read this, it cant be explained better. I agree with your post
(edited)
That is your assumption. Not scientifically proven though.
Some assumptions are nothing more as logic thinking and simply cause and consequence. Looking at other countries like ours we can be fairly sure this assumption is the right one. Not to mention that when people simply don't have a gun, it also won't be used, but unfortunatly also the other way around.
To protect themselves against criminals (who don't follow the law)
Do all Dutch, Belgiums, etc need more guns to protect themselves against those few criminals with guns? You are reasoning the wrong way. When more people have easy access to guns, people who shouldn't will also have this easy access to guns, so more people have to own guns to 'protect' themselves against these people .... etc etc etc. This reasoning makes it somekind of an arms race.
Besides, in many cases it sounds nice to have a gun to 'protect' yourself, but when surprised by a situation there often won't be enough time to grab a gun. And another things is, knowing that someone can have a gun, as so many people does, and someone could get shot by that other person (because of criminal reasons but also just in a fight, or road rage, etc) this will make the other also shoot easier.
and against the government (who can make the law to suit themselves against the interests of the citizens).
Paranoid people use this argument :/ It's not that some murderer like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mugabe, etc, is running the country.
I wish you all the luck without touching the fundamental basis of the American society.
The fundamental basis according to some Americans (and many of them NRA nutters), but many also do like to see some changes as to many people have died for no reason at all. To ban owning fully automatic assault rifles can be seen as touching the fundamental basis, but I don't think it is. There are many military weapons people aren't allowed to own. Besides, the second amendment comes from a time people owned muskets, that's something completely different as assault rifles.
edit typo
(edited)
Some assumptions are nothing more as logic thinking and simply cause and consequence. Looking at other countries like ours we can be fairly sure this assumption is the right one. Not to mention that when people simply don't have a gun, it also won't be used, but unfortunatly also the other way around.
To protect themselves against criminals (who don't follow the law)
Do all Dutch, Belgiums, etc need more guns to protect themselves against those few criminals with guns? You are reasoning the wrong way. When more people have easy access to guns, people who shouldn't will also have this easy access to guns, so more people have to own guns to 'protect' themselves against these people .... etc etc etc. This reasoning makes it somekind of an arms race.
Besides, in many cases it sounds nice to have a gun to 'protect' yourself, but when surprised by a situation there often won't be enough time to grab a gun. And another things is, knowing that someone can have a gun, as so many people does, and someone could get shot by that other person (because of criminal reasons but also just in a fight, or road rage, etc) this will make the other also shoot easier.
and against the government (who can make the law to suit themselves against the interests of the citizens).
Paranoid people use this argument :/ It's not that some murderer like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mugabe, etc, is running the country.
I wish you all the luck without touching the fundamental basis of the American society.
The fundamental basis according to some Americans (and many of them NRA nutters), but many also do like to see some changes as to many people have died for no reason at all. To ban owning fully automatic assault rifles can be seen as touching the fundamental basis, but I don't think it is. There are many military weapons people aren't allowed to own. Besides, the second amendment comes from a time people owned muskets, that's something completely different as assault rifles.
edit typo
(edited)
It's not completely like the article said. They only give you a fine (fines that are highly controversial by the way, they are not only being given to people who throw a snowball, but also at people who are disrupting public order) if someone calls to the police (when he or someone else got hit by a snowball).
I don't know any school that closed because of the snow by the way. Although this must be the first time in my life that we have got over one week of snow now (it has only snowed twice, but it's cold enough to not melt).
I don't know any school that closed because of the snow by the way. Although this must be the first time in my life that we have got over one week of snow now (it has only snowed twice, but it's cold enough to not melt).
Not to mention that when people simply don't have a gun, it also won't be used, but unfortunatly also the other way around.
Not necessarily.
Do all Dutch, Belgiums, etc need more guns to protect themselves against those few criminals with guns?
It is not about Belgium but about the States. Different situation. Indeed, in the Low Countries, the police can be present (relatively) quickly. That's different in the States.
Besides, in many cases it sounds nice to have a gun to 'protect' yourself, but when surprised by a situation there often won't be enough time to grab a gun.
The fact that you start using this as an argument is pathetic. I won't even explain why it's ridiculous.
Paranoid people use this argument :/ It's not that some murderer like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mugabe, etc, is running the country.
Never forget history.
The fundamental basis according to some Americans (and many of them NRA nutters), but many also do like to see some changes as to many people have died for no reason at all.
No, I'm not talking to the fundamentals of some Americans. I'm talking about the fundamentals of America itself. Some Americans might not agree on this, but that doesn't make it no fundamental issue. You simply don't understand the States.
Not necessarily.
Do all Dutch, Belgiums, etc need more guns to protect themselves against those few criminals with guns?
It is not about Belgium but about the States. Different situation. Indeed, in the Low Countries, the police can be present (relatively) quickly. That's different in the States.
Besides, in many cases it sounds nice to have a gun to 'protect' yourself, but when surprised by a situation there often won't be enough time to grab a gun.
The fact that you start using this as an argument is pathetic. I won't even explain why it's ridiculous.
Paranoid people use this argument :/ It's not that some murderer like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mugabe, etc, is running the country.
Never forget history.
The fundamental basis according to some Americans (and many of them NRA nutters), but many also do like to see some changes as to many people have died for no reason at all.
No, I'm not talking to the fundamentals of some Americans. I'm talking about the fundamentals of America itself. Some Americans might not agree on this, but that doesn't make it no fundamental issue. You simply don't understand the States.
have you ever been in the states? It seems you don't know the states.
I have friends there (DC, LA, NY), been to the states 3 times. There is more police pro capita then in Belgium or the Netherlands. Just try speeding on a deserted highway ...
Police can be there quick. And they will be there quick.
Upholding the law = policework.
The need for a gun to protect yourself is just BS.
No scientific proof that gun laws work?
how come the number of people killed by guns is much higher in the states then in the UK? or then in Belgium? or then in the Netherlands?
The numbers and the facts are out there.
There is no such thing as "the states". The differences between states, between city vs rural, coast vs mid of the country = enormous.
I know this discussian and defending the right to carry guns probably fits in your whole libertarian theoritical lifeview, but get your facts straight.
I have friends there (DC, LA, NY), been to the states 3 times. There is more police pro capita then in Belgium or the Netherlands. Just try speeding on a deserted highway ...
Police can be there quick. And they will be there quick.
Upholding the law = policework.
The need for a gun to protect yourself is just BS.
No scientific proof that gun laws work?
how come the number of people killed by guns is much higher in the states then in the UK? or then in Belgium? or then in the Netherlands?
The numbers and the facts are out there.
There is no such thing as "the states". The differences between states, between city vs rural, coast vs mid of the country = enormous.
I know this discussian and defending the right to carry guns probably fits in your whole libertarian theoritical lifeview, but get your facts straight.
There is more police pro capita then in Belgium or the Netherlands.
Because that is what I'm talking about. Oh wait.
how come the number of people killed by guns is much higher in the states then in the UK? or then in Belgium? or then in the Netherlands? The numbers and the facts are out there.
Enlighten us with scientific proof that a liberal gun law leads to more deaths. I simply cannot find it. Help me.
There is no such thing as "the states". The differences between states, between city vs rural, coast vs mid of the country = enormous.
Of course. But I'm talking about the fundamentals of the American society, not what the so called 'liberals' are making of it. The fundamentals of the American society are the views of the Founding Fathers. The reason why they wanted America to be different.
I know this discussian and defending the right to carry guns probably fits in your whole libertarian theoritical lifeview, but get your facts straight.
They are.
Because that is what I'm talking about. Oh wait.
how come the number of people killed by guns is much higher in the states then in the UK? or then in Belgium? or then in the Netherlands? The numbers and the facts are out there.
Enlighten us with scientific proof that a liberal gun law leads to more deaths. I simply cannot find it. Help me.
There is no such thing as "the states". The differences between states, between city vs rural, coast vs mid of the country = enormous.
Of course. But I'm talking about the fundamentals of the American society, not what the so called 'liberals' are making of it. The fundamentals of the American society are the views of the Founding Fathers. The reason why they wanted America to be different.
I know this discussian and defending the right to carry guns probably fits in your whole libertarian theoritical lifeview, but get your facts straight.
They are.
The fundamentals of the American society are the views of the Founding Fathers.
The majority of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders.
The majority of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders.
Pro-slavery Founding Fathers were inconsistent in their ideas because it divides people into classes, on which people's rights were determined.
Yes, they were inconsistent. And I agree that the founding fathers have a fundamental role in the american mythos.
But that doesn't mean that the fundamentals of today's American society are their views. Quite a lot of things have changed since then. Even more important things, then gun laws.
For example Abe Lincoln's views are also part of the fundamentals you're talking about. And America has a Central Bank, companies can't form cartels, monopolies, etc.
History didn't stop when the USA was founded. As a matter of fact, it keeps going on. Society always keeps changing and laws shall follow it.
But that doesn't mean that the fundamentals of today's American society are their views. Quite a lot of things have changed since then. Even more important things, then gun laws.
For example Abe Lincoln's views are also part of the fundamentals you're talking about. And America has a Central Bank, companies can't form cartels, monopolies, etc.
History didn't stop when the USA was founded. As a matter of fact, it keeps going on. Society always keeps changing and laws shall follow it.