Guns.

[Epona]

Moiraine, what a WONDERFUL post! Thank you!

I have been wracking my brains trying to think of a way to explain it to non-Europeans, and you have done a top class job.

I would just like to add something - every time the far-right in Britain makes gains and touts their filth about the holocaust (or lack of it, as they would say), it leads to an almost immediate increase in the desecration of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries.

If the loss of a small part of freedom of speech in any way prevents this from happening, then IMO it is a small price to pay. It doesn't infringe my freedoms in the slightest, because it is not something I would ever dream of saying.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: I also think that perhaps the Neo-Nazi movement is a bigger problem for you all over there, here they are just considered the lunatic fringe and are reletively harmless.....so far.

Wasn't McVie (the Oklahoma Bomber) part of the far right?

[quote]Originally posted by Ar-Cunin:

Wasn't McVie (the Oklahoma Bomber) part of the far right?

You are attempting to lump dissimilar groups together. Mcvie and his ilk are not Neo-Nazi's nor are they associated with what is commonly called the Right wing when refering to politics. Mcvei and his ilk are radical nutcase groups (a term of my own devising), like the skin heads, the militia and the conspiracy theorists and all you do by publicly associating him with Right wing political followers is get people pissed off and detract from the substance of the debate.

As for which groups McVei actually belonged to, that was never really made clear in the media, they associated him with a small group of his friends who had no clear manifesto or creed. There were at times suspicions linking him to some funding groups in the middle east...who or what he REALLY was will probably never be known.

All in all I would say that I am still not 100% sure he actually did the bombing (at least not the planning and funding), but I don't want to go into my motives on that...too deep a discussion. I still think he was a scum bag and the world is not poorer without him.

[img]smile.gif[/img] hope that was clear enough [img]smile.gif[/img]

OOPS! I should have read Moiraines and Epona's posts before responding to Ar-Cunin.....Apparently I suffered another translation error on my part, Ar-Cunin, I apologize for thinking you were associating McVei with the Right Wing political groups...apparently from the context....what you in europe call the far right, we here in the US call radical extremists. We sort of label conservative and liberal political groups here as Right and left and those nut jobs are not usually associated with either. So I do apologize for misunderstanding you.

Moiraine! Lovely post and it helped me understand a bit. I do know what was eventually done for the Jewish people after the war [img]smile.gif[/img] right now we are trying to make sure they get to keep the Land that The UK gave to them for their home. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think that was a really good thing to do by the way, Im just sad to see the muslims whning about the Jewish homeland since Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon all slaughtered their fair share of palistinians to get them out of their own countries. any hooooo I see what you are saying, but my basic philosophy tends toward smaller government and less government interference in my life, The US constitution is the document we live by here and what many people forget is that it does not tell the people what they can and cannot do...the US constitution is a document LIMITING Government. It places strict limits on the kinds of laws that government can pass...and to a degree our own government has subverted that document to a large degree.

After all that rambeling...Im not sure what I would do about a major Neo-Nazi movement..as long as they are not actually comitting violence or inciting riots, I would allow them to say what they will unless it was libelous or slander, talk is cheap. On the other hand if they were to gain enough power to actually change laws of equality and anti-discrimination....it is scary to think about. Sorry your electorate forced such a choice on you Moiraine....makes you kind of wonder where some peoples heads are

Originally posted by Epona: Moiraine, what a WONDERFUL post! Thank you! I have been wracking my brains trying to think of a way to explain it to non-Europeans, and you have done a top class job. I would just like to add something - every time the far-right in Britain makes gains and touts their filth about the holocaust (or lack of it, as they would say), it leads to an almost immediate increase in the desecration of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. If the loss of a small part of freedom of speech in any way prevents this from happening, then IMO it is a small price to pay. It doesn't infringe my freedoms in the slightest, because it is not something I would ever dream of saying.

But...and this is purely hypothetical here....once they managed to stop this one part of free speech..they decided that they should monitor all speech? then you would have to get government permission before saying anything in public or print....and then take it a step farther, having succeed in gaining oversight authority ..they decided to start editing things....this is exactly the kind of thing the US founding fathers wanted to avoid. [img]smile.gif[/img] I know it seems like a ludicrous idea..but stranger things have happened (Hitler gaining power was highly unlikely).

Originally posted by Yorick: Times change. America is now vastly larger than Britain, both in land area and population. Technology has meant arms are way more destructive than they were. Democracy is also more prevalent throughout the world. Everything has grown, changed and moved except an this outdated law. MagiK, no steam lost at all. To find the truth in a situation , the situation needs to be taken to it's logical extreme. If it sounds ridiculous, it's becaue the generalised declaration is ridiculous. I don't agree with the statement. That's all.

Times change, basic tennants and truths do not. Note it is said to be a RIGHT to bear arms, RIGHTS are something no man or government should be able to take away, our right to free speech, right of assembly, right to be free from religious persecution and the right to bear ARMS, wether firearms (as intended by the constitution) or swords or knives. Rights are something that DO NOT change day to day, or else they would be called, priveledges or wants or nice to have's. The old fuddy duddies that made the constitution did it well and they intended the population to be armed, they intended to limit government intrusion into our personal lives. You just cannot dispute these facts, without ignoring all the published documentation by the founders.

[Moiraine]

Magik, one of the governments' major roles is to protect the citizens that cannot protect themselves, from physical or financial or mental/emotional threats. Words said by people adept at manipulation, like sects, or our neo-nazi party leader Le Pen, are such threats. He did say once that the holocaust never happened, BTW. Therefore, governments have to implement a way to counteract such threats, thus make laws. How these laws are framed is another matter. But such laws have to be set, and I hope they will be set on an international level some day soon, because, as we all have discovered on September 11th, there are some major threats that transcend national boundaries.

You are basically abiding by the eons-old "law of the strongest", while I dare to hope that the evolution of man and civilization, just like it has allowed us to change our physical environment, must also lead to new and more civilized mental attitudes. Increasing power cannot thrive without increasing wisdom.

[ 05-25-2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Times change. America is now vastly larger than Britain, both in land area and population. Technology has meant arms are way more destructive than they were. Democracy is also more prevalent throughout the world. Everything has grown, changed and moved except an this outdated law. MagiK, no steam lost at all. To find the truth in a situation , the situation needs to be taken to it's logical extreme. If it sounds ridiculous, it's becaue the generalised declaration is ridiculous. I don't agree with the statement. That's all.

Times change, basic tennants and truths do not. Note it is said to be a RIGHT to bear arms, RIGHTS are something no man or government should be able to take away, our right to free speech, right of assembly, right to be free from religious persecution and the right to bear ARMS, wether firearms (as intended by the constitution) or swords or knives. Rights are something that DO NOT change day to day, or else they would be called, priveledges or wants or nice to have's. The old fuddy duddies that made the constitution did it well and they intended the population to be armed, they intended to limit government intrusion into our personal lives. You just cannot dispute these facts, without ignoring all the published documentation by the founders.[/QUOTE]MagiK, a right doesn't change, but arms do. Can you not see this simple truth?

The current definition of Arms are not what the forefatherers allowed. Why should one thing change and the other not?

It's unbalanced. Going by the constitutions context, the only thing that an American can 'rightfully' own, is a musket and a sword.

Not the guns we have today.

[ 05-25-2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Magik, one of the governments' major roles is to protect the citizens that cannot protect themselves, from physical or financial or mental/emotional threats. Words said by people adept at manipulation, like sects, or our neo-nazi party leader Le Pen, are such threats. He did say once that the holocaust never happened, BTW. Therefore, governments have to implement a way to counteract such threats, thus make laws. How these laws are framed is another matter. But such laws have to be set, and I hope they will be set on an international level some day soon, because, as we all have discovered on September 11th, there are some major threats that transcend national boundaries. You are basically abiding by the eons-old "law of the strongest", while I dare to hope that the evolution of man and civilization, just like it has allowed us to change our physical environment, must also lead to new and more civilized mental attitudes. Increasing power cannot thrive without increasing wisdom.

The idea of a single world government will never come to pass untill human beings have evolved beyond being human Im afraid. As it is, the members of the EU can barely keep things together, individual nations want to split off...Untill all humans agree on just aobut every issue it just wont happen It would be an idylic place, one set of common laws....if you observe the various view points on any issue just here on IW you will see that no one system would be palatable for everyone. What you describe is the "Star Trek Future" one big happy human family, everyone has their needs met and behaves rationally and sanely....you would also have to abolish every single religion known to man....well not every one, just anyone that puts men and women into different roles or levels, and every one that disallows association wiht others...You would have to get rid of all the muslims, and jews and christians and any religion that has a code of conduct that is not exactly like every other one. I have thought a lot about the idea of one "world Government" and the only way that I believe you could have that is by military force, where any disenters were squashed by the military...not a pleasent thought to me.

I did want to mention that France has a far differnt form of government than we do apparently. Federal government in the US is not responsible for individual safety, that is something held at the lower state and local levels. The feds do come into play if things cross state lines however...this is the jusidiction of the FBI, anything that doesnt cross state lines ( with a few exceptions ) is handled by the states..or is supposed to be.....

Anyway, like I said, I think the idea of one set of governing rules would be wonderful....if I get to pick the rules [img]smile.gif[/img] and most of the rest of the world would say the same i would wager. Ohhh and I never even thought of the asian perspective, the whole mental process in asia is waaaaaaay different that in Europe and the USA.....hard to imagine a United Federation of Planets or a Star Fleet coming from this mish mash.

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Times change. America is now vastly larger than Britain, both in land area and population. Technology has meant arms are way more destructive than they were. Democracy is also more prevalent throughout the world. Everything has grown, changed and moved except an this outdated law. MagiK, no steam lost at all. To find the truth in a situation , the situation needs to be taken to it's logical extreme. If it sounds ridiculous, it's becaue the generalised declaration is ridiculous. I don't agree with the statement. That's all.

Times change, basic tennants and truths do not. Note it is said to be a RIGHT to bear arms, RIGHTS are something no man or government should be able to take away, our right to free speech, right of assembly, right to be free from religious persecution and the right to bear ARMS, wether firearms (as intended by the constitution) or swords or knives. Rights are something that DO NOT change day to day, or else they would be called, priveledges or wants or nice to have's. The old fuddy duddies that made the constitution did it well and they intended the population to be armed, they intended to limit government intrusion into our personal lives. You just cannot dispute these facts, without ignoring all the published documentation by the founders.[/QUOTE]MagiK, a right doesn't change, but arms do. Can you not see this simple truth?

The current definition of Arms are not what the forefatherers allowed. Why should one thing change and the other not?

It's unbalanced. Going by the constitutions context, the only thing that an American can 'rightfully' own, is a musket and a sword.

Not the guns we have today.[/QUOTE]The arm doesnt matter, a person kille dwith a musket ball is just as dead as when killed with an A-bomb. The problem is not the guns, it is people. A gun doesnt hop off the shelf and decide to kill someone..that takes a person with a mind and will.

Your fear of more efficient tools is irrational (to me, not intrinsicly) and makes no sense to me. You are for some reason just not willing to admit, that the gun is not the cause of murder or crime. You want to blame the tool for the use and it doesnt work that way....We just have different views and apparently there is no middle ground here so we will have to be content to differ on the opinion [img]smile.gif[/img]

We have the right to bear arms, arms are what they are, and unless you manage to get enough people to agree to ammend the constituion we are going to remain an armed society. All I and the 50 or 60 million law abiding gun owners ask is that you leave us alone and observe our constitutional rights, in exactly the same way we ask that you observe our freedom of religion and our other basic freedoms.

Hmm If I could I would make the deal with you that I'll give up guns if you give up the right to practice, teach, or learn about any religion except for the one I choose, you would also have to worship according to my decree as well [img]smile.gif[/img] ......but I can't [img]smile.gif[/img] and I wouldnt want to live in a place like that anyway.

Oh and lest you think that ludicrous, Religion is a far more dangerous thing than a gun, religion is responsible for more deaths historicly than guns are...but then I htink you know this.

[ 05-25-2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]