Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[germanguy]

"...a professional army makes more sense to defend the country than a militia..."

What army would that be?

Would that be the one fielded by the United States of America?

The European Union began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.


Wahr, order nicht wahr?

BTW, historically, the term militia means all menfolk.

"The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.
Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 andmembers of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)

Well , unwahr !

You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is.

To define the character of the EU is quite difficult.
It is like the old joke about Hungary in the 1920s, when the US Ambassador makes a toast at a dinner:
"Long live the Republic of Hungary"
"Err - sorry, we are no Republic, we are a Kingdom"
"So, long live your king then"
"We have no king either"
"Sorry again, who is governing then ?"
"Imperial Regent Admiral Horthy"
"An Admiral, do you have a fleet ?"
"No, we do not have any coasts"
"What you call this mess ?"
"Hungary"

To define what the EU is can only be done by describing is, as there is no historical model or any other organization like it.

By definition, the EU actually consists of sovereign nation states, who have agreed by several treaties to cooperate for a better common future.
Then there are specifically defined fields where common institutions are installed to regulate specific fields of common interest (Fisheries, Environment i.e.) or fields where common standards are set by the European Commission.
The EU therefore has only the authority and tasks, it´s members have agreed upon by treaty. So therefore the European Court has only ´precedence in those cases, where it is interpreting the different European Treaties. This may overrule national rule, but only if national rule is contrary to the treaties.

Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states (Austria, Ireland), NATO members and non - NATO members, the question of defense is answered by EU member states differently and within their own resonsability.
Same is police or justice. The cooperation between the member states is regulated by treaties. So there us a European Warrant of Arrest, coordinated exchange of information between the national police forces etc. But no European Police.

regards
ze germanguy

Es tut mir leid, mein freund, aber du bist nicht recht.

First, "Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states ..."

Certainly!

The army that defends EU is the American army.

And almost all of the NATO troops have orders not to shoot back in Afghanistan.

Seems that only English speaking troops can shoot back.

"...sovereign nation ..." means you have borders, and you are serious about protecting them.

And, I know what you are going to say about contemporary American...Quel dommage...


"You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is."

No, I'm implying that the EU has given up both the concept of defense, and of sovereignty.

But I'm not predicting that it will remain so, as Germany is the engine that drives the EU and once it determines how to deal with the energy problem vis-a-vis Russia, things may change.

And it seems that elections are moving the EU to the right, in goose-step, er, in lock-step.


"Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the Left’s fanciful picture even further: Western European voters’ widespread reaction against social democracy.

…in Germany, where Angela Merkel became chancellor in 2005, and in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy took over the presidency in 2007. Those developments, as well as the third term that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi won in 2008, were grounded largely in public recognition of the need for economic liberalization….And in Sweden, perhaps the ultimate symbol of social democracy, voters motivated largely by concerns over unemployment and other economic issues unseated the long-powerful Social Democratic Party in 2006. In its place they installed a center-right coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderates, who promised to help businesses and lower taxes."

Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2009

Just to put some points right:

1. Every member state in the EU is sovereign. They organize and regulate their defense as it suits them. Some are neutral, some are in NATO, some are neither. Defense is no task of the EU, as it is neither a national state, nor a confederation, nor a federal state.
Some states, like France and Germany or Germany and the Netherlands have formed multinational units on corps level. Also, there is now a EU-Mission called "Mission Atalante" to control the shipping lines around Somalia. But this does not qualify as a common defense.
2. The US Army did defend Europe only in the sense, that without US troops, the USSR would have outweighed all Western European countries. Still - West Germany alone was able to mobilize up to 1,2 mio men under arms in case of war (which is nearly the peacetime strength of the US Army). So you might have had a little help.

In 2010 the US will have about 24 000 men in Europe, which is a little bit more than a Bundeswehr Panzer Division.

Also, if there will be in the future an Army of the EU, it might easily outclass any other army on this planet. The EU consists of 500 million citizens, with the highest BIP of this planet. But as aforesaid is valid, the military structure is not there. So do not worry.

3.The cited article stresses only the negative factors, but not the successes.
That there are waiting lists causing deaths is the same half-truth as if I would say, that the US let people die, because they do not get any medical insurance or are unable to afford it.
For Germany, France and the Netherlands (because I have lived there I can assure you, that this is BS. Everybody is insured and gets every medical treatment necessary. In Britain you might have to wait for certain procedures, but still THESE COST YOU NIL.

That the social democrats are having a hard time is, according to most analysts, not because people see the truth in neo-liberalism, but because right or center parties have moved more or less to the left. Therefore there is rather a common interest to preservre the so - called welfare state, than to abolish it.

4. Ever been to Sweden ? Or Norway ?
They are the richest countries I know (except the Swiss or the Gulf states).
I would like to see on what factors the comparision between Sweden and the US-States was drawn. In Sweden the very rich pay a lot more taxes than everywhere in the world, but still the Swedish have a highly sophisticated welfare system. So you get a lot of things for it, which can not be measured in money.

It needs adjustments as ours does, but I doubt they are willing to get rid of it.

5.
Immigration and crime is also an issue where there are some myths.
Yes there are areas in Europe, which are ghettoized. But this is neither a strict european problem, but one any country with high numbers of immigrants has.
The german government has finally started to meet this problems with integration programs, so will see the outcome in the future.
Will this work ? Dunno, but I personally find the alternatives offered by some not very nice.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Emma]

Had the federal thugs allowed airline passengers to bear arms those planes would have never crashed against the WTC. They would have been stopped way before that.

.

True. They may have crashed en route.

But if the passengers would have been allowed to carry guns on the planes, the hijackers would have had them too. They would have had the element of surprise, and I suspect the other passengers would have hesitated before firing on hijackers holding a gun to the heads of the flight crew. I also suspect that everyone on board would still have considered it a "typical" hijacking, rather than a suicide flight, and the planes still would have managed to hit their intended targets. Even if the other passengers fired knowing they would kill the crew as well, the hijackers wouldn't have cared; they certainly didn't fear dying. They WANTED to die.

Now if armed Federal Marshalls were on board, and if the cockpit door was reinforced/bullet-proof and locked, perhaps things would have turned out differently.

As pro-2nd as I am (and even some on the right think I'm too pro-2nd), I don't think it's wise to have a shoot-out at an altitude of 35,000 feet in an aluminum tube. Besides that, even if the Feds didn't have the ban, if the airlines did it would NOT be an infringement of your right to bear arms. They are private entities, not the government.

Prior to 1965 we were allowed to carry firearms on board airplanes. There was never an incident.

But federal thugs are always looking for pretexts to disarm us. Would-be hijackers would know that their death would be swift and effective.

.

If a hijacker was holding a flight attendant (or anyone for that matter) as a shield, how would "their death be swift and effective"?

And again. They don't care about dying. They WANT to die.

 

[germanguy]

Thanks for your explanations.I still do not get some points.
I rather doubt that the availability and bravery of using arms only made you free.

The bottom line is, without them, we would not be free.

The American Revolution was successful, aside from other factors, IMHO because the Americans formed an army able to beat the redcoats (with some help from the French and an Prussian officer called von Steuben). So strictly spoken, only arming people does not help, but to arm and organize them in an army.

Arming them comes first. Hard to arm millions of people fast, AND organize them, when firearms are illegal.



It is silly to say that a rouge group of men who brought over a bunch of plainclothed people to the New World were only "Sometimes" successful. We won, remember??



According to what reliable statistics??? Our statistics compared with those of a shitload of third world countries?
Anyways, who cares if there is more violence here? What does some criminal's safety have to do with protecting the victim 's own life, anyways? The only ones that WOULD be scared are the criminally oppressive.



Duh.. Ya think?? Maybe that is because in a smaller town, the cops and judges and all that, already know who is most likely to be at fault for something. Plus, "gun crime" usually means some kind of illegal possession, which is a technicality, NOT a violent crime, in and of itself.




Do you have any idea how many people are in our military? Well, our military is WELL outnumbered by civilians, but even military members want civilians to keep their gun rights. Then, calculate in EX military folks, who are veterans, but still considered civilians. You think anyone not in the military should not have a gun, right? Well I say that is a bunch of bullshit rhetoric, from some fraidy-cat who is more supportive of a big brother system of babysitting, than anyone with the balls enough to take a stand for himself, even if that is only needed to have happen once.

So, it pretty much runs down to the question of how many trust you put in your police, your government and your society in general.

Nope. It has nothing to do with trust at all. We live in a country that is based on the principle of anti-trust in government, based on a continual loop of history, repeating itself over and over and over again, because countries full of citizens choose to put blind faith into their government and lose EVERYTHING as a result- their arms first, then property, choice- and last but not least, their life.

But, as said before, I do not see every American to give up his firearm. You really are the best-armed people in the world. Still, the idea to have the same here in Germany gives me creeps.

regards
ze germanguy

You do realize that this same idea of "no guns for citizens, full trust in government keeping us safe", did happen in Germany, with a not so good turnout, do you not?? You do realize that MILLIONS of people were murdered right there on your country's soil, as a result.. Do you deny this??

Nope, I do not deny it.
And believe me, even if everybody would have kept several firearms, the result would have been the same. What makes a gun powerful is not the caliber or whatever, but the one who uses it. I agree with that. Still, if you were fighting it out with the guys from the SS on your own, you still would be dead. Perhaps taking some of the guys with you, but still dead.

So organizing on a larger scale would be then the better idea, but this proved difficult, because you were never sure whom to trust and wh o might inform the Gestapo. So you keep a low profile.

So, as an individual, even heavily armed, you might scare off some burglars, but not a platoon of SS, if they were after you. And they knew their job.

The point is organisation: An armed individual is a nuisance in the eyes of a dictatorship. An underground cell of armed people is a danger and on a larger scale you then will have either a revolution or a civil war. And this is still not decided by the question who has how many weapons as an individual.

Second, as I know from personal experience, a firearm brought into a situation, is pretty much the best way to make out of simple street robbery a matter of life or death.
If everybody would know what to do then and act cool, it would work perhaps.
But you normally do not take fear, confusion or anger into the equasion.
Also, someone trying to steal your purse might be scared away by the sight of your gun.
Or he thinks he still might risk it and shoot you first, or he is plain stupid and still give it a try.

But, keep you all your guns, as long as I do not have to get one as well.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Contumacious]

True. They may have crashed en route.

But if the passengers would have been allowed to carry guns on the planes, the hijackers would have had them too. They would have had the element of surprise, and I suspect the other passengers would have hesitated before firing on hijackers holding a gun to the heads of the flight crew. I also suspect that everyone on board would still have considered it a "typical" hijacking, rather than a suicide flight, and the planes still would have managed to hit their intended targets. Even if the other passengers fired knowing they would kill the crew as well, the hijackers wouldn't have cared; they certainly didn't fear dying. They WANTED to die.

Now if armed Federal Marshalls were on board, and if the cockpit door was reinforced/bullet-proof and locked, perhaps things would have turned out differently.

As pro-2nd as I am (and even some on the right think I'm too pro-2nd), I don't think it's wise to have a shoot-out at an altitude of 35,000 feet in an aluminum tube. Besides that, even if the Feds didn't have the ban, if the airlines did it would NOT be an infringement of your right to bear arms. They are private entities, not the government.

Prior to 1965 we were allowed to carry firearms on board airplanes. There was never an incident.

But federal thugs are always looking for pretexts to disarm us. Would-be hijackers would know that their death would be swift and effective.

.

If a hijacker was holding a flight attendant (or anyone for that matter) as a shield, how would "their death be swift and effective"?

And again. They don't care about dying. They WANT to die.

You are missing the point.

Their modus operandi and mission is to cause MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DAMAGE AND CASUALTIES. Destroying an airplane, all the passengers and a building is the payoff they seek. They don't want to die in a shoot out with the passengers.

And BTW , tests have shown that a bullet hole in the fuselage is not going to bring down a plane.

Really truly this is purely selfish , but I am allergic to crashing against buildings..

.

 

[Father Time]

I knew there were Libertarians lurking around here somewhere.

You could've just asked. I'm a libertarian.

I'm not too keen on the idea of open carry mostly because it might scare the fuck out of most civilians whereas concealed carry won't until it's drawn.

I personally like the intimidation factor that carrying openly would present. I disagree that it would scare the fuck out of anyone- after all, cops and guards open carry, and while we might be intimidated by that, it certainly doesn't scare us.

The whole point of my proposal to open carry (legalizing this of course) is the simple fact that some armed criminal might be considering taking out a bank or convenience store, and see someone carrying, and uhhhhh think twice before risking life and limb for a lousy few grand, or 50 dollars, whichever the case may be. It is not just prevention of robberies that open carry would effect, either. Women on dates who open carry would be less likely to be raped, killed, etc.. People seeing some armed guy getting out of his car would be far less likely to consider even attempting to jack his Alpine stereo.. etc..

Intimidation is not always a bad thing, I say.

Most banks have guards so if they're not afraid of those I doubt a civilian will phase them, they'll just treat them like the other guards.

As for muggings and the like I think that if someone wanted to do that and saw a gun they'd just wait and find someone who isn't open carry.

I just don't see that much benefit for open carry vs. concealed carry (and I'm all for concealed carry permits).

 

[SFC Ollie]

I prefer open carry. Concealed carry is a pain sometimes.

 

[JD_2B]

Nope, I do not deny it.
And believe me, even if everybody would have kept several firearms, the result would have been the same. What makes a gun powerful is not the caliber or whatever, but the one who uses it. I agree with that. Still, if you were fighting it out with the guys from the SS on your own, you still would be dead. Perhaps taking some of the guys with you, but still dead.

Again, I disagree that the end result would be the same. The whole army really doesn't show up at anyone's door, trying to "get you", even in the days of Nazi Germany. Maybe a team of two or three will, but it is just so incredibly rare and unlikely that more than a handful of people would ever show up. Even in riot situations, there are rarely more than a couple dozen cops handling it. Honestly, most riots become that way (riots) because of police intervention. You have hundreds of law abiding, unarmed citizens usually protesting something, peacefully, even if it is loudly, and suddenly there is tear gas and men in armor carrying shields, tasering and billy-clubbing everyone involved.
Try to tell me that the cops would really get this involved with already angry protesters, if all of those protesters were legally armed, and their guns were in full sight, hanging from their belt holsters.. I wouldn't bet on it either.

So organizing on a larger scale would be then the better idea, but this proved difficult, because you were never sure whom to trust and wh o might inform the Gestapo. So you keep a low profile.

Even in dealing with the Gestapo, again, there were few camps or even troupe divisions having more than a dozen or two doz. men. When Gestapo Soldiers pulled up at the door of Anne Frank's hideout, there were absolutely NOT EVEN a HALF dozen of them. A few, but not a half dozen. Anne's family outnumbered their enemy Gestapo, and could fairly easily have taken them out, and disposed of the remains elsewhere.

So, as an individual, even heavily armed, you might scare off some burglars, but not a platoon of SS, if they were after you. And they knew their job.

Sure, if a whole platoon was all at once coming after you.. but that is never how war works, domestic terrorism included.

The point is organisation: An armed individual is a nuisance in the eyes of a dictatorship. An underground cell of armed people is a danger and on a larger scale you then will have either a revolution or a civil war. And this is still not decided by the question who has how many weapons as an individual.

Until a bunch of individuals hold a peaceful protest, and the two dozen cops get involved, or the platoon of soldiers, lol, as you prefer it.. Then you have what is currently known as a "riot", but in reality, is the people taking a stand as best as they can, being unarmed, and all. The cops have a hard enough time against us unarmed civilians.. they would absolutely EPIC FAIL against us, if we were all armed. It would still be called a riot, of course. That is the media hard at work, twisting our current police state into a crime of the people.. Nobody ever blames cops for riots.. Even though they tend to, or at least SEEM to be responsible, at least half of the time.

Second, as I know from personal experience, a firearm brought into a situation, is pretty much the best way to make out of simple street robbery a matter of life or death.

And I know from experience that when one person is armed and the other is not, then the unarmed person is at the armed person's mercy. It becomes a slave-master situation, very quickly.

Look at it this way: If you had to deal with a cop, and the cop was an asshole, and you let him know what a jerk he was being, and how unreasonable and unfair he was being, and you rattled off the law to him, and he ignored it.. Would you REALLY actually call that cop ignorant or a jerk, if he was armed, or would you be more likely to say what was really on your mind to him, if he is unarmed?

Another perfect example:
If your neighbor was fucking your wife, and he was unarmed what would you do? You would most likely walk over to your neighbors house, fists flying, ready to fuck HIM up.
But if he was armed, what would you do? You sure as hell wouldn't be hitting him, or calling him a dickhead, and pushing his buttons, at least not as long as YOU are unarmed, yourself.

If everybody would know what to do then and act cool, it would work perhaps.
But you normally do not take fear, confusion or anger into the equasion.
Also, someone trying to steal your purse might be scared away by the sight of your gun.
Or he thinks he still might risk it and shoot you first, or he is plain stupid and still give it a try.

That is a risk I am willing to take.. because I also understand that the other person, even if he is armed, might be just as scared, confused, and angry as I am. If he is ALREADY scared, confused and angry, then I say to hell with what kind of statistics might be involved there, I would pull my fucking gun out and shoot the little shit, for scaring the piss out of me. That is just me, though. I am a little bit of a crazy bee-otch, of course. lol- But I also do not think that being a bitch or a little bit crazy makes anyone's life any less worth defending against cretins with guns who want to steal my brand new lipstick, credit cards, and my carefully-clipped coupons that I was on my way to go shopping with. If a person has a gun, then it can be ASSUMED that he means business, and that my life or peace of mind means absolutely nothing compared to his need for another crack rock. Fuck that, man!!! Bang bang!! Down he goes!!!

But, keep you all your guns, as long as I do not have to get one as well.

regards
ze germanguy

Suit yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well , unwahr !

You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is.

To define the character of the EU is quite difficult.
It is like the old joke about Hungary in the 1920s, when the US Ambassador makes a toast at a dinner:
"Long live the Republic of Hungary"
"Err - sorry, we are no Republic, we are a Kingdom"
"So, long live your king then"
"We have no king either"
"Sorry again, who is governing then ?"
"Imperial Regent Admiral Horthy"
"An Admiral, do you have a fleet ?"
"No, we do not have any coasts"
"What you call this mess ?"
"Hungary"

To define what the EU is can only be done by describing is, as there is no historical model or any other organization like it.

By definition, the EU actually consists of sovereign nation states, who have agreed by several treaties to cooperate for a better common future.
Then there are specifically defined fields where common institutions are installed to regulate specific fields of common interest (Fisheries, Environment i.e.) or fields where common standards are set by the European Commission.
The EU therefore has only the authority and tasks, it´s members have agreed upon by treaty. So therefore the European Court has only ´precedence in those cases, where it is interpreting the different European Treaties. This may overrule national rule, but only if national rule is contrary to the treaties.

Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states (Austria, Ireland), NATO members and non - NATO members, the question of defense is answered by EU member states differently and within their own resonsability.
Same is police or justice. The cooperation between the member states is regulated by treaties. So there us a European Warrant of Arrest, coordinated exchange of information between the national police forces etc. But no European Police.

regards
ze germanguy

Es tut mir leid, mein freund, aber du bist nicht recht.

First, "Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states ..."

Certainly!

The army that defends EU is the American army.

And almost all of the NATO troops have orders not to shoot back in Afghanistan.

Seems that only English speaking troops can shoot back.

"...sovereign nation ..." means you have borders, and you are serious about protecting them.

And, I know what you are going to say about contemporary American...Quel dommage...


"You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is."

No, I'm implying that the EU has given up both the concept of defense, and of sovereignty.

But I'm not predicting that it will remain so, as Germany is the engine that drives the EU and once it determines how to deal with the energy problem vis-a-vis Russia, things may change.

And it seems that elections are moving the EU to the right, in goose-step, er, in lock-step.


"Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the Left’s fanciful picture even further: Western European voters’ widespread reaction against social democracy.

…in Germany, where Angela Merkel became chancellor in 2005, and in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy took over the presidency in 2007. Those developments, as well as the third term that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi won in 2008, were grounded largely in public recognition of the need for economic liberalization….And in Sweden, perhaps the ultimate symbol of social democracy, voters motivated largely by concerns over unemployment and other economic issues unseated the long-powerful Social Democratic Party in 2006. In its place they installed a center-right coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderates, who promised to help businesses and lower taxes."

Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2009

Just to put some points right:

1. Every member state in the EU is sovereign. They organize and regulate their defense as it suits them. Some are neutral, some are in NATO, some are neither. Defense is no task of the EU, as it is neither a national state, nor a confederation, nor a federal state.
Some states, like France and Germany or Germany and the Netherlands have formed multinational units on corps level. Also, there is now a EU-Mission called "Mission Atalante" to control the shipping lines around Somalia. But this does not qualify as a common defense.
2. The US Army did defend Europe only in the sense, that without US troops, the USSR would have outweighed all Western European countries. Still - West Germany alone was able to mobilize up to 1,2 mio men under arms in case of war (which is nearly the peacetime strength of the US Army). So you might have had a little help.

In 2010 the US will have about 24 000 men in Europe, which is a little bit more than a Bundeswehr Panzer Division.

Also, if there will be in the future an Army of the EU, it might easily outclass any other army on this planet. The EU consists of 500 million citizens, with the highest BIP of this planet. But as aforesaid is valid, the military structure is not there. So do not worry.

3.The cited article stresses only the negative factors, but not the successes.
That there are waiting lists causing deaths is the same half-truth as if I would say, that the US let people die, because they do not get any medical insurance or are unable to afford it.
For Germany, France and the Netherlands (because I have lived there I can assure you, that this is BS. Everybody is insured and gets every medical treatment necessary. In Britain you might have to wait for certain procedures, but still THESE COST YOU NIL.

That the social democrats are having a hard time is, according to most analysts, not because people see the truth in neo-liberalism, but because right or center parties have moved more or less to the left. Therefore there is rather a common interest to preservre the so - called welfare state, than to abolish it.

4. Ever been to Sweden ? Or Norway ?
They are the richest countries I know (except the Swiss or the Gulf states).
I would like to see on what factors the comparision between Sweden and the US-States was drawn. In Sweden the very rich pay a lot more taxes than everywhere in the world, but still the Swedish have a highly sophisticated welfare system. So you get a lot of things for it, which can not be measured in money.

It needs adjustments as ours does, but I doubt they are willing to get rid of it.

5.
Immigration and crime is also an issue where there are some myths.
Yes there are areas in Europe, which are ghettoized. But this is neither a strict european problem, but one any country with high numbers of immigrants has.
The german government has finally started to meet this problems with integration programs, so will see the outcome in the future.
Will this work ? Dunno, but I personally find the alternatives offered by some not very nice.

regards
ze germanguy

Here is the accepted definition of sovereignty: : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control.

You have a somewhat tortuous definition of 'sovereign,' since the European Union, at its beginnings in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters: they established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty. If the following is true, then the 'nations' of Europe are not sovereign.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.


Unless you are denying a, b, and c above, there are no 'sovereign' EU nations.

As far as "Also, if there will be in the future an Army of the EU, it might easily outclass any other army on this planet." this is laughable.

Europe has shown neither the willingness to equip and innovate the necessary hardware, nor have Europeans shown the requisite backbone.

 

[germanguy]

Es tut mir leid, mein freund, aber du bist nicht recht.

First, "Defense certainly is an issue, but as the EU consists of neutral states ..."

Certainly!

The army that defends EU is the American army.

And almost all of the NATO troops have orders not to shoot back in Afghanistan.

Seems that only English speaking troops can shoot back.

"...sovereign nation ..." means you have borders, and you are serious about protecting them.

And, I know what you are going to say about contemporary American...Quel dommage...


"You are mixing the question of which kind of organisation is better suited for defense with the question what the EU is."

No, I'm implying that the EU has given up both the concept of defense, and of sovereignty.

But I'm not predicting that it will remain so, as Germany is the engine that drives the EU and once it determines how to deal with the energy problem vis-a-vis Russia, things may change.

And it seems that elections are moving the EU to the right, in goose-step, er, in lock-step.


"Europe’s socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the Left’s fanciful picture even further: Western European voters’ widespread reaction against social democracy.

…in Germany, where Angela Merkel became chancellor in 2005, and in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy took over the presidency in 2007. Those developments, as well as the third term that Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi won in 2008, were grounded largely in public recognition of the need for economic liberalization….And in Sweden, perhaps the ultimate symbol of social democracy, voters motivated largely by concerns over unemployment and other economic issues unseated the long-powerful Social Democratic Party in 2006. In its place they installed a center-right coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderates, who promised to help businesses and lower taxes."

Heirs to Fortuyn? by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2009

Just to put some points right:

1. Every member state in the EU is sovereign. They organize and regulate their defense as it suits them. Some are neutral, some are in NATO, some are neither. Defense is no task of the EU, as it is neither a national state, nor a confederation, nor a federal state.
Some states, like France and Germany or Germany and the Netherlands have formed multinational units on corps level. Also, there is now a EU-Mission called "Mission Atalante" to control the shipping lines around Somalia. But this does not qualify as a common defense.
2. The US Army did defend Europe only in the sense, that without US troops, the USSR would have outweighed all Western European countries. Still - West Germany alone was able to mobilize up to 1,2 mio men under arms in case of war (which is nearly the peacetime strength of the US Army). So you might have had a little help.

In 2010 the US will have about 24 000 men in Europe, which is a little bit more than a Bundeswehr Panzer Division.

Also, if there will be in the future an Army of the EU, it might easily outclass any other army on this planet. The EU consists of 500 million citizens, with the highest BIP of this planet. But as aforesaid is valid, the military structure is not there. So do not worry.

3.The cited article stresses only the negative factors, but not the successes.
That there are waiting lists causing deaths is the same half-truth as if I would say, that the US let people die, because they do not get any medical insurance or are unable to afford it.
For Germany, France and the Netherlands (because I have lived there I can assure you, that this is BS. Everybody is insured and gets every medical treatment necessary. In Britain you might have to wait for certain procedures, but still THESE COST YOU NIL.

That the social democrats are having a hard time is, according to most analysts, not because people see the truth in neo-liberalism, but because right or center parties have moved more or less to the left. Therefore there is rather a common interest to preservre the so - called welfare state, than to abolish it.

4. Ever been to Sweden ? Or Norway ?
They are the richest countries I know (except the Swiss or the Gulf states).
I would like to see on what factors the comparision between Sweden and the US-States was drawn. In Sweden the very rich pay a lot more taxes than everywhere in the world, but still the Swedish have a highly sophisticated welfare system. So you get a lot of things for it, which can not be measured in money.

It needs adjustments as ours does, but I doubt they are willing to get rid of it.

5.
Immigration and crime is also an issue where there are some myths.
Yes there are areas in Europe, which are ghettoized. But this is neither a strict european problem, but one any country with high numbers of immigrants has.
The german government has finally started to meet this problems with integration programs, so will see the outcome in the future.
Will this work ? Dunno, but I personally find the alternatives offered by some not very nice.

regards
ze germanguy

Here is the accepted definition of sovereignty: : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control.

You have a somewhat tortuous definition of 'sovereign,' since the European Union, at its beginnings in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters: they established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty. If the following is true, then the 'nations' of Europe are not sovereign.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.


Unless you are denying a, b, and c above, there are no 'sovereign' EU nations.

As far as "Also, if there will be in the future an Army of the EU, it might easily outclass any other army on this planet." this is laughable.

Europe has shown neither the willingness to equip and innovate the necessary hardware, nor have Europeans shown the requisite backbone.

Whoa, this will lead to a discussion about constitutional law - my fav.

I follow your definition, but would get it more precise. In case of Germany, any power emanates from the people (Art 20 Abs 2 Grundgesetz).
According to your understanding, this means to be free of external control and to be able to do internally as it suits the people.

EU members have deceided to give up parts of their sovereignity and delegate this to supranational institutions like the EU, EURATOM etc. (the EU consists practically of three tiers, which makes it even more difficult to understand:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/a/ab/Saeulenmodell_EU.svg
As this is german, it might only give you the idea.)
Only and this is important: ONLY in these fields, member states have agreed to give up sovereign rights. As all of them have done so in a democratic process according to the respective national constitutions, this is legal and valid.
The European Court now only has precedence over national constitutions, where these conflict with one of the different treaties.
I.e. it was decided by the EC, that the german law to not allow german woman as professional soldiers in the Bundeswehr is against the treaties.

The main point is, that within federal states like Germany, the federal level is
a. holding the what is called in german "Kompetenz-Kompetenz": the federal level can define out of itself new tasks or things which need to be organized.
b. the federal level is responsible for foreign affairs, defense
c. anything regulated by the federal level can not be regulated by the individual state (at least here in Germany, or Austria or Switzerland)

As within federal states it might be rather difficult to precisely define who is sovereign,
one may say, that the EU is definitely no sovereign entity. It´s member states are, although this sovereignty is limited, as certain parts of it are delegated to the European Union.

In regard of basic rights, one must consider, that the European Human Rights Convention, which is part of the several European Treaties, provides in many points a higher degree of protection of the individual´s right, as some of the constitutions of the member states.

I know of no case, where the EU inflicted violations of individual´s rights.
Also, in that case every individual can claim this to the European Court.

I do agree, that the European Commission is not properly checked by the European Parliament. The EP still has not the same power as the national parliaments.
But this again proves my point: It can not have these, as the EU is no sovereign state, so any EP with the same functions as a national parliament would supercede these.

regards
ze germanguy



Any state have joined the EU, delegates parts of its national sovereignty

 

[Diuretic]

Some interesting points in there but I want to take one aside for closer inspection.

The cops have a hard enough time against us unarmed civilians.. they would absolutely EPIC FAIL against us, if we were all armed.
JD_2B

I disagree. Police are trained to use only reasonable force. The military approach of overwhelming force doesn't feature in police thinking. Oh, okay, there was the case of Rizzo and the MOVE mob, but that's highly unusual.

Police aren't conditioned to see citizens as the “enemy” and so deal with situations as individuals dealing with other individuals.

If police had to deal with armed citizens who were intent on rebellion then that would change.

Unlike Europe which has a tradition of gendarmerie forces as well as civilian forces, the US has militarised its civil police to a high degree.

Take into account the various law enforcement bodies that exist outside of local/state police and that's a pretty powerful array of armed people who are highly organised and with the power of the state (the polity) behind them.

It would be very messy.

 

[germanguy]

Nope, I do not deny it.
And believe me, even if everybody would have kept several firearms, the result would have been the same. What makes a gun powerful is not the caliber or whatever, but the one who uses it. I agree with that. Still, if you were fighting it out with the guys from the SS on your own, you still would be dead. Perhaps taking some of the guys with you, but still dead.

Again, I disagree that the end result would be the same. The whole army really doesn't show up at anyone's door, trying to "get you", even in the days of Nazi Germany. Maybe a team of two or three will, but it is just so incredibly rare and unlikely that more than a handful of people would ever show up. Even in riot situations, there are rarely more than a couple dozen cops handling it. Honestly, most riots become that way (riots) because of police intervention. You have hundreds of law abiding, unarmed citizens usually protesting something, peacefully, even if it is loudly, and suddenly there is tear gas and men in armor carrying shields, tasering and billy-clubbing everyone involved.
Try to tell me that the cops would really get this involved with already angry protesters, if all of those protesters were legally armed, and their guns were in full sight, hanging from their belt holsters.. I wouldn't bet on it either.

So organizing on a larger scale would be then the better idea, but this proved difficult, because you were never sure whom to trust and wh o might inform the Gestapo. So you keep a low profile.

Even in dealing with the Gestapo, again, there were few camps or even troupe divisions having more than a dozen or two doz. men. When Gestapo Soldiers pulled up at the door of Anne Frank's hideout, there were absolutely NOT EVEN a HALF dozen of them. A few, but not a half dozen. Anne's family outnumbered their enemy Gestapo, and could fairly easily have taken them out, and disposed of the remains elsewhere.



Sure, if a whole platoon was all at once coming after you.. but that is never how war works, domestic terrorism included.



Until a bunch of individuals hold a peaceful protest, and the two dozen cops get involved, or the platoon of soldiers, lol, as you prefer it.. Then you have what is currently known as a "riot", but in reality, is the people taking a stand as best as they can, being unarmed, and all. The cops have a hard enough time against us unarmed civilians.. they would absolutely EPIC FAIL against us, if we were all armed. It would still be called a riot, of course. That is the media hard at work, twisting our current police state into a crime of the people.. Nobody ever blames cops for riots.. Even though they tend to, or at least SEEM to be responsible, at least half of the time.



And I know from experience that when one person is armed and the other is not, then the unarmed person is at the armed person's mercy. It becomes a slave-master situation, very quickly.

Look at it this way: If you had to deal with a cop, and the cop was an asshole, and you let him know what a jerk he was being, and how unreasonable and unfair he was being, and you rattled off the law to him, and he ignored it.. Would you REALLY actually call that cop ignorant or a jerk, if he was armed, or would you be more likely to say what was really on your mind to him, if he is unarmed?

Another perfect example:
If your neighbor was fucking your wife, and he was unarmed what would you do? You would most likely walk over to your neighbors house, fists flying, ready to fuck HIM up.
But if he was armed, what would you do? You sure as hell wouldn't be hitting him, or calling him a dickhead, and pushing his buttons, at least not as long as YOU are unarmed, yourself.

If everybody would know what to do then and act cool, it would work perhaps.
But you normally do not take fear, confusion or anger into the equasion.
Also, someone trying to steal your purse might be scared away by the sight of your gun.
Or he thinks he still might risk it and shoot you first, or he is plain stupid and still give it a try.

That is a risk I am willing to take.. because I also understand that the other person, even if he is armed, might be just as scared, confused, and angry as I am. If he is ALREADY scared, confused and angry, then I say to hell with what kind of statistics might be involved there, I would pull my fucking gun out and shoot the little shit, for scaring the piss out of me. That is just me, though. I am a little bit of a crazy bee-otch, of course. lol- But I also do not think that being a bitch or a little bit crazy makes anyone's life any less worth defending against cretins with guns who want to steal my brand new lipstick, credit cards, and my carefully-clipped coupons that I was on my way to go shopping with. If a person has a gun, then it can be ASSUMED that he means business, and that my life or peace of mind means absolutely nothing compared to his need for another crack rock. Fuck that, man!!! Bang bang!! Down he goes!!!

But, keep you all your guns, as long as I do not have to get one as well.

regards
ze germanguy

Suit yourself.

Nope, I do not deny it.
And believe me, even if everybody would have kept several firearms, the result would have been the same. What makes a gun powerful is not the caliber or whatever, but the one who uses it. I agree with that. Still, if you were fighting it out with the guys from the SS on your own, you still would be dead. Perhaps taking some of the guys with you, but still dead.

Again, I disagree that the end result would be the same. The whole army really doesn't show up at anyone's door, trying to "get you", even in the days of Nazi Germany. Maybe a team of two or three will, but it is just so incredibly rare and unlikely that more than a handful of people would ever show up. Even in riot situations, there are rarely more than a couple dozen cops handling it. Honestly, most riots become that way (riots) because of police intervention. You have hundreds of law abiding, unarmed citizens usually protesting something, peacefully, even if it is loudly, and suddenly there is tear gas and men in armor carrying shields, tasering and billy-clubbing everyone involved.
Try to tell me that the cops would really get this involved with already angry protesters, if all of those protesters were legally armed, and their guns were in full sight, hanging from their belt holsters.. I wouldn't bet on it either.

So organizing on a larger scale would be then the better idea, but this proved difficult, because you were never sure whom to trust and wh o might inform the Gestapo. So you keep a low profile.

Even in dealing with the Gestapo, again, there were few camps or even troupe divisions having more than a dozen or two doz. men. When Gestapo Soldiers pulled up at the door of Anne Frank's hideout, there were absolutely NOT EVEN a HALF dozen of them. A few, but not a half dozen. Anne's family outnumbered their enemy Gestapo, and could fairly easily have taken them out, and disposed of the remains elsewhere.



Sure, if a whole platoon was all at once coming after you.. but that is never how war works, domestic terrorism included.



Until a bunch of individuals hold a peaceful protest, and the two dozen cops get involved, or the platoon of soldiers, lol, as you prefer it.. Then you have what is currently known as a "riot", but in reality, is the people taking a stand as best as they can, being unarmed, and all. The cops have a hard enough time against us unarmed civilians.. they would absolutely EPIC FAIL against us, if we were all armed. It would still be called a riot, of course. That is the media hard at work, twisting our current police state into a crime of the people.. Nobody ever blames cops for riots.. Even though they tend to, or at least SEEM to be responsible, at least half of the time.



And I know from experience that when one person is armed and the other is not, then the unarmed person is at the armed person's mercy. It becomes a slave-master situation, very quickly.

Look at it this way: If you had to deal with a cop, and the cop was an asshole, and you let him know what a jerk he was being, and how unreasonable and unfair he was being, and you rattled off the law to him, and he ignored it.. Would you REALLY actually call that cop ignorant or a jerk, if he was armed, or would you be more likely to say what was really on your mind to him, if he is unarmed?

Another perfect example:
If your neighbor was fucking your wife, and he was unarmed what would you do? You would most likely walk over to your neighbors house, fists flying, ready to fuck HIM up.
But if he was armed, what would you do? You sure as hell wouldn't be hitting him, or calling him a dickhead, and pushing his buttons, at least not as long as YOU are unarmed, yourself.

If everybody would know what to do then and act cool, it would work perhaps.
But you normally do not take fear, confusion or anger into the equasion.
Also, someone trying to steal your purse might be scared away by the sight of your gun.
Or he thinks he still might risk it and shoot you first, or he is plain stupid and still give it a try.

That is a risk I am willing to take.. because I also understand that the other person, even if he is armed, might be just as scared, confused, and angry as I am. If he is ALREADY scared, confused and angry, then I say to hell with what kind of statistics might be involved there, I would pull my fucking gun out and shoot the little shit, for scaring the piss out of me. That is just me, though. I am a little bit of a crazy bee-otch, of course. lol- But I also do not think that being a bitch or a little bit crazy makes anyone's life any less worth defending against cretins with guns who want to steal my brand new lipstick, credit cards, and my carefully-clipped coupons that I was on my way to go shopping with. If a person has a gun, then it can be ASSUMED that he means business, and that my life or peace of mind means absolutely nothing compared to his need for another crack rock. Fuck that, man!!! Bang bang!! Down he goes!!!

But, keep you all your guns, as long as I do not have to get one as well.

regards
ze germanguy

Suit yourself.

First, when my neighbour fucks my wife, I would get at my wife.

Man, what a neighborhood you live in.

But serious.

What you say about Nazi Germany does show, that you thankfully have not experienced how a dictatorship works. We had two of these in the last 70 years, so I know perhaps better.

The system worked far more subtle than tall men in leather-coats kicking in your front door 5 a.m, shouting guttural orders in German.

Imagine a Jew in 1933 and the following years in Germany

First the state explains, that from now on you are on the shit-list. Who cares you might say.
I am armed.

Then your children are excluded from sports in school.
Then it is made illegal, that you employ non-jews.
Then your children must go to a only-jewish school.
Then you are not allowed to marry non-jews. Married to a non-jew ? This will be an extra - tax. Also, your partner is treated like a jew.
Then making business outside Germany is banned for you.
A passport is denied.
Then you are not allowed to buy at non-jews, visit restaurants, bars and even park-benches are not for you. You must carry a yellow star, to be marked.
Then your business is "arianised" means you have to sell it to a nazi for nil.

This can be continued till finally you get a letter and show up at train-station so-and-so to get "evacuated to the east". Your ticket to the gas chambers, but you are not aware of this.

Mix now to this the fact, that the Gestapo had it´s ears everywhere. You were not able to tell who to trust and who was on your side. Even worse, helping you would bring the one to prison.
Also, the question to a citizen: "Are you on our side or an enemy of the state and no true patriot ?" can be very intimidating. Especially if there is only one right answer and severe punishment for the wrong one.

At no point a Gestapo Squad appeared at your door. But they took step by step away your rights and managed to make you very alone.
How to face this with a gun ?

There were incidents, when small resistance groups fought back, but this was quickly crushed with brute force.

In the GDR they were more sophisticated.

The all-present Staatssicherheit, the east-german secret police had hundreds of thousands informers. And they gathered information about anybody posing a possible threat.

There were different stages to get you along.

First you were always aware, that someone might listen to what you say and report it.
Then it was clear, that any opposition might get you in trouble.

First step was to let you know, that the state was unhappy with you. This was perhaps done by your boss during a little chat.

This was then upgraded step by step with hints and whispers, but at a point the Stasi started to get serious. Even then a little visit by two friendly men, explaining it would be very sorry to let your son not study, clever as he is. Just think about it, sir!.
And when they got bloody serious, they began to "dissolve" you as person.

Rumours started about you stealing or being a child molester. Someone had been in your house. You suddenly were unable to get tickets for your holiday trip (remember:all state owned).
Informers were planted around you, perhaps even your wife was forced into being one.
(Madam, with two nice children, you must do your duty as citizen. Imagine how it would be without them). Or your best friend. You never knew.
If you decided to flee to the west - good luck while getting over the wall.
If you asked to leave the country, they might have allowed you that, but without one of your children.

In both states it pretty ran down to the fact, that a single citizen, fighting for his rights became quickly a very unheard person of. And to go out on the streets you needed organization and communication, which was monitored.
Only when the grip became a litter looser in 1989 and it was clear, that the Soviets would not interfere, people took their chance.
And the East-Germans proved, that 70.000 unarmed on the street could overthrow a government. The then government deceided, that the troops were probably not to be trusted to massacre so many people, so they left it.
The chinese in used tanks on Tianmen-Square 1989, a mighty help firearms would have been.

Also, you must distinguish between police forces, which lack the training to use firearms in a military sense and the military.
Perhaps a SWAT-team could be seen as an equivalent to Specvial Forces, but here in Germany they still are not allowed to shoot to kill (well there are rare exceptions).

So personally I still think against a determined and well trained military unit in sizeable force (let´s say an armoured bataillon) a large mass of protestors, even armed with guns, would have a hard stand.

But I would not like to see this point proven.

It must be something deep-rooted, that Americans often see their personal freedom being connected with the right to carry a firearm.

And honest: what you write sometimes sounds rather blood-thirsty to me. This "don´t fuck with me I´m armed" attitude" I do not get.
But I do agree that a firearm is a good way to stress a point, even if you are not right.

kind regards
ze germanguy


-

 

[Skull Pilot]

It must be something deep-rooted, that Americans often see their personal freedom being connected with the right to carry a firearm.

And honest: what you write sometimes sounds rather blood-thirsty to me. This "don´t fuck with me I´m armed" attitude" I do not get.
But I do agree that a firearm is a good way to stress a point, even if you are not right.

kind regards
ze germanguy


-

The freedom to protect oneself is basic.

What 's not understandable about not wanting to be a victim?

would you rather go through life having to surrender to those who would do you harm or would you rather want to be the one who fights back?

personally, what's mine is precious to me. I would rather protect my family than let anyone do them harm and if that means being armed to the teeth and being willing to kill, so be it.

How would you feel if some creep molested your wife and you couldn't protect her because he had a gun on you and you don't believe people should carry firearms?

Sorry but I am not that kind of man.

 

[Diuretic]

It must be something deep-rooted, that Americans often see their personal freedom being connected with the right to carry a firearm.

And honest: what you write sometimes sounds rather blood-thirsty to me. This "don´t fuck with me I´m armed" attitude" I do not get.
But I do agree that a firearm is a good way to stress a point, even if you are not right.

kind regards
ze germanguy


-

The freedom to protect oneself is basic.

What 's not understandable about not wanting to be a victim?

would you rather go through life having to surrender to those who would do you harm or would you rather want to be the one who fights back?

personally, what's mine is precious to me. I would rather protect my family than let anyone do them harm and if that means being armed to the teeth and being willing to kill, so be it.

How would you feel if some creep molested your wife and you couldn't protect her because he had a gun on you and you don't believe people should carry firearms?

Sorry but I am not that kind of man.

I didn't read anything in any of germanguy's posts which seemed against the concept of self-defence.

What I did read was a well-argued point that the individual, even a group of individuals, no matter how well armed, are no match for the power of the state. But then, again as gg pointed out, an un-armed people can overthrow even a dictatorship if the time is right and circumstances combine to facilitate it. So the argument for individuals to keep and bear arms in case of a need to overthrow the state seems to be a bit wobbly.

There is a second point. It's a sad state of affairs that in the US people feel it necessary to be armed both in public and to have firearms in the home, to protect themselves from predators. I know it's not the only country in the world where that is part of mainstream thinking, but nonetheless, it's a sad state of affairs.

 

[germanguy]

It must be something deep-rooted, that Americans often see their personal freedom being connected with the right to carry a firearm.

And honest: what you write sometimes sounds rather blood-thirsty to me. This "don´t fuck with me I´m armed" attitude" I do not get.
But I do agree that a firearm is a good way to stress a point, even if you are not right.

kind regards
ze germanguy


-

The freedom to protect oneself is basic.

What 's not understandable about not wanting to be a victim?

would you rather go through life having to surrender to those who would do you harm or would you rather want to be the one who fights back?

personally, what's mine is precious to me. I would rather protect my family than let anyone do them harm and if that means being armed to the teeth and being willing to kill, so be it.

How would you feel if some creep molested your wife and you couldn't protect her because he had a gun on you and you don't believe people should carry firearms?

Sorry but I am not that kind of man.

Who wants to be a victim (except the masochists) ?
Nobody does.
And still, a firearm does not necessarily protect you from a rapist, robber or burglar. It comes pretty much down to under which circumstances you go through this world.
If you guard and protect your family and your wife as perhaps a soldier on patrol does, there will not be much going to happen to you. But not everybody does so or wants to.

Therefore, you might be forced to watch your wife being raped, because you could not draw quick enough. Or woke up too late (Would happen to me. I sleep like a log and would fumble around for the gun and my glasses).

I would nonetheless question, that it is very likely for most people to watch how the girlfriend / wife is raped. It happens, but everybody familiar with crime statistics will tell you that rape happens in most cases among people who know each other.
The burglars breaking into your house, stealing from you and raping your wife happens, but is statistically rare.
So you must normally not fear anonymus criminals, but pretty much the people you date, neighbors, family members, friends and colleagues.

Perhaps do some Americans mix the fear of rather rare incidents with the availability to get a hand on a gun. I do not know. Just a guess.

Still, being a victim or not has something to do with determination. The gun will not help you if you are not willing to blow someones head to pieces. I doubt that everybody having a gun has already tested his determination to do so. And if you then get on someone who is more determined than you, you are second winner.

But as said, I see this is an issue, we will not agree upon. Notwithstanding I have the feeling, that fear and insecurity is in a lot of cases behind the desire to have a gun.
And people who are afraid I would not trust to have weapons. Or the contrary is true, which leads to a lot of cold-minded and armed people. Both not the ones I would love to have around me.

kind regards
ze germanguy

 

[Ryan]

First you must realize that having the guns and being brave enough to use them is what made us free...

If we want to stay free we need to keep our guns in case the government needs to be reset.

The second Amendment is not about hunting, it's about freedom and being a European I understand how you wouldn't understand that.

Non-Americans don't understand the cultural mistrust of government that Americans have. I have to say it must be very unpleasant to have to live like that.

On edit - I also find it very sad that you have to be armed in your own home to have a sense of security. Again, that must be a very unpleasant way to have to live.

What is it that you find so very unpleasant to live like, being a non-American or having a cultural mistrust of government? Either way your point seems disingenuous.

Often someone chooses to be able to defend their home with a firearm which has no real bearing as whether you live a more pleasant life then scores of people who have made this decision. Get over yourself.

Was it you that lived in a community where there was some type of extensive gun ban? Are gun bans a form of cultural mistrust?

Do you pity the people that do not feel safe in their own homes because someone else in their neighborhood might have a firearm in their home? Does a neighbor owning a firearm impact your sense of security?

 

[Ryan]

Just last night my wife rushed in from our back deck at midnight and told me that two men had just walked around the corner of the house and laughed at her when she told them to get the fuck off the property. I stormed out with my hand on my pistol grip behind my back and told them they had two seconds to turn around and leave or they'd be shot legally. I counted to "one" and they were already running.

They never even saw the gun.

Cops are for placing criminals in jail. Guns are for stopping criminals before they can act.

The second amendment took into account that throughout history, the most dangerous criminals have been government. Don't let them take it away from us. Gun control led to Stalinism, Maoists, and the Nazi regime in Germany.

We all know the history. The question is "How many of us are too fucking stupid or naive to stand up and prevent it from happening again?"

Gun control doesn't always lead to Stalinism/Maoism/Nazism. In fact it's entirely possible that the theories behind those systems preceded any notion of gun control. Anyway, my jurisdiction has gun control and it's not going nutso any time soon.

Sometimes it's useful to put an argument for something without a resort to hysterical claims.

Maybe your jurisdiction went "nutso" a long time ago and you just missed it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It must be something deep-rooted, that Americans often see their personal freedom being connected with the right to carry a firearm.

And honest: what you write sometimes sounds rather blood-thirsty to me. This "don´t fuck with me I´m armed" attitude" I do not get.
But I do agree that a firearm is a good way to stress a point, even if you are not right.

kind regards
ze germanguy


-

The freedom to protect oneself is basic.

What 's not understandable about not wanting to be a victim?

would you rather go through life having to surrender to those who would do you harm or would you rather want to be the one who fights back?

personally, what's mine is precious to me. I would rather protect my family than let anyone do them harm and if that means being armed to the teeth and being willing to kill, so be it.

How would you feel if some creep molested your wife and you couldn't protect her because he had a gun on you and you don't believe people should carry firearms?

Sorry but I am not that kind of man.

Who wants to be a victim (except the masochists) ?
Nobody does.
And still, a firearm does not necessarily protect you from a rapist, robber or burglar. It comes pretty much down to under which circumstances you go through this world.
If you guard and protect your family and your wife as perhaps a soldier on patrol does, there will not be much going to happen to you. But not everybody does so or wants to.

Therefore, you might be forced to watch your wife being raped, because you could not draw quick enough. Or woke up too late (Would happen to me. I sleep like a log and would fumble around for the gun and my glasses).

I would nonetheless question, that it is very likely for most people to watch how the girlfriend / wife is raped. It happens, but everybody familiar with crime statistics will tell you that rape happens in most cases among people who know each other.
The burglars breaking into your house, stealing from you and raping your wife happens, but is statistically rare.
So you must normally not fear anonymus criminals, but pretty much the people you date, neighbors, family members, friends and colleagues.

Perhaps do some Americans mix the fear of rather rare incidents with the availability to get a hand on a gun. I do not know. Just a guess.

Still, being a victim or not has something to do with determination. The gun will not help you if you are not willing to blow someones head to pieces. I doubt that everybody having a gun has already tested his determination to do so. And if you then get on someone who is more determined than you, you are second winner.

But as said, I see this is an issue, we will not agree upon. Notwithstanding I have the feeling, that fear and insecurity is in a lot of cases behind the desire to have a gun.
And people who are afraid I would not trust to have weapons. Or the contrary is true, which leads to a lot of cold-minded and armed people. Both not the ones I would love to have around me.

kind regards
ze germanguy

i am not afraid because i have the capacity to protect myself. I would be more afraid of having to hide in a corner or flee my home like a coward because i have to wait 20 minutes for the cops to respond to a phone call while some scum bag ransacks my home and threatens my family.

I have my home alarmed but i do not trust the police to get here in time to stop a criminal so i will stop him with a couple of hollow points to the chest and the cops can clean up the mess.

I carry a concealed weapon, sometimes 2 depending on circumstances and yes the occasion might be rare but tell me if one person was armed at Fort Hood or the University of Virginia how many of those that were slaughtered like sheep would be alive today?

there are 300 million people in the US if the odds of me being put in a position to pull a gun and shoot are 1 in 300 million that's enough for me.

 

[Emma]

What happened at UVA?

 

[JD_2B]

First, when my neighbour fucks my wife, I would get at my wife.

Man, what a neighborhood you live in.

But serious.

What you say about Nazi Germany does show, that you thankfully have not experienced how a dictatorship works. We had two of these in the last 70 years, so I know perhaps better.

The system worked far more subtle than tall men in leather-coats kicking in your front door 5 a.m, shouting guttural orders in German.

Imagine a Jew in 1933 and the following years in Germany

First the state explains, that from now on you are on the shit-list. Who cares you might say.
I am armed.

Then your children are excluded from sports in school.
Then it is made illegal, that you employ non-jews.
Then your children must go to a only-jewish school.
Then you are not allowed to marry non-jews. Married to a non-jew ? This will be an extra - tax. Also, your partner is treated like a jew.
Then making business outside Germany is banned for you.
A passport is denied.
Then you are not allowed to buy at non-jews, visit restaurants, bars and even park-benches are not for you. You must carry a yellow star, to be marked.
Then your business is "arianised" means you have to sell it to a nazi for nil.

This can be continued till finally you get a letter and show up at train-station so-and-so to get "evacuated to the east". Your ticket to the gas chambers, but you are not aware of this.

Mix now to this the fact, that the Gestapo had it´s ears everywhere. You were not able to tell who to trust and who was on your side. Even worse, helping you would bring the one to prison.
Also, the question to a citizen: "Are you on our side or an enemy of the state and no true patriot ?" can be very intimidating. Especially if there is only one right answer and severe punishment for the wrong one.

At no point a Gestapo Squad appeared at your door. But they took step by step away your rights and managed to make you very alone.
How to face this with a gun ?

There were incidents, when small resistance groups fought back, but this was quickly crushed with brute force.

In the GDR they were more sophisticated.

The all-present Staatssicherheit, the east-german secret police had hundreds of thousands informers. And they gathered information about anybody posing a possible threat.

There were different stages to get you along.

First you were always aware, that someone might listen to what you say and report it.
Then it was clear, that any opposition might get you in trouble.

First step was to let you know, that the state was unhappy with you. This was perhaps done by your boss during a little chat.

This was then upgraded step by step with hints and whispers, but at a point the Stasi started to get serious. Even then a little visit by two friendly men, explaining it would be very sorry to let your son not study, clever as he is. Just think about it, sir!.
And when they got bloody serious, they began to "dissolve" you as person.

Rumours started about you stealing or being a child molester. Someone had been in your house. You suddenly were unable to get tickets for your holiday trip (remember:all state owned).
Informers were planted around you, perhaps even your wife was forced into being one.
(Madam, with two nice children, you must do your duty as citizen. Imagine how it would be without them). Or your best friend. You never knew.
If you decided to flee to the west - good luck while getting over the wall.
If you asked to leave the country, they might have allowed you that, but without one of your children.

In both states it pretty ran down to the fact, that a single citizen, fighting for his rights became quickly a very unheard person of. And to go out on the streets you needed organization and communication, which was monitored.
Only when the grip became a litter looser in 1989 and it was clear, that the Soviets would not interfere, people took their chance.
And the East-Germans proved, that 70.000 unarmed on the street could overthrow a government. The then government deceided, that the troops were probably not to be trusted to massacre so many people, so they left it.
The chinese in used tanks on Tianmen-Square 1989, a mighty help firearms would have been.

Excellent job on educating everyone on what happened.. I do read, and was already aware of the majority of this. I have German roots, not that it matters here.. But really- no sarcasm meant- that was very well put.

I just think that NONE of that snowball effect would have happened in the first place, had the jews been armed, openly, as well as the polish and Germans.
I have lived in a dictatorship, also.. It just was not an entire country or actual King, but a man who thought he was king, and manipulated (tricked) the people around me to believe that it was me who had something wrong, and not him, until he finally almost dissolved my life. Also, if you don't think that governmental collusion happens here in the states, you are mistaken. I know several people who have fallen victim to collusion, and it is EXACTLY why we have lawyers and a strong justice system, to hold people accountable for their damaging methods involving corruption.
It should also be said that everyone has certain boundaries- a line, so to speak. Mine is much lower than the average joe's, in that I do not put up with anyone's shit, while some people are far more willing to just take it and take it and take it, until there is literally a giant wall between themselves and their freedoms.. If anything, I think that by NOT taking responsibility at maintaining one's personal freedom and well being, then THAT is the greatest act of corruption a person can experience. You can refer to this as "self mutilation", if you would like. I think that laying down like a doormat is absolutely the worst thing any person can do. I would rather die protecting my life, family, and property, and get a little media attention over the incident, than give those things freely..

Also, you must distinguish between police forces, which lack the training to use firearms in a military sense and the military.
Perhaps a SWAT-team could be seen as an equivalent to Specvial Forces, but here in Germany they still are not allowed to shoot to kill (well there are rare exceptions).

So personally I still think against a determined and well trained military unit in sizeable force (let´s say an armoured bataillon) a large mass of protestors, even armed with guns, would have a hard stand.

Your point here is practically moot, though, because of the rarity of instances when this actually happens. Granted, it happens here and there, but it is just not the big issue.
Besides, your argument, summed up, is that it makes no difference whether the populace is armed or not, that we are somehow powerless, either way, and have shown great strength in organized numbers, even when unarmed. I, for one, am not falling for that crap for a second. I think it is important for people to be able to show their strength in numbers, which happens regularly here in the US.. Being openly armed only shows more strength. It would certainly be enough to cause the armed forces to hesitate before sending in a battalion or two..
As many meth-heads as there seem to be here in the US, there are almost as many cooks. All that an interrupted protest would need would be a couple dozen mobile meth labs to kaboom the tanks out of mobility. Not that I have it all planned out or anything. I am certainly not planning any kind of hostile takeover, lol. My point is only that it would not be nearly as hard as it seems, to regain control, if that kind of action needed to be taken.

But I would not like to see this point proven.

It must be something deep-rooted, that Americans often see their personal freedom being connected with the right to carry a firearm.

And honest: what you write sometimes sounds rather blood-thirsty to me. This "don´t fuck with me I´m armed" attitude" I do not get.
But I do agree that a firearm is a good way to stress a point, even if you are not right.

kind regards
ze germanguy

That is the attitude, based solely on the fact that we can't walk ANYWHERE outside, in almost all places in the US, with a gun out in the open, unless we are in a hunting area and are actually hunting. Police and military CAN do this, and that is unfair, based on the Constitution. The government should not have rights that the people do not. The government serves US, we do not serve the government.

So there you go: master-servant relationship all summed up. You seem to believe that the government is an entity that should be served.. We don't. We think the opposite.

I do not consider that sentiment to be blood-thirsty, at all.

 

[Diuretic]

First you must realize that having the guns and being brave enough to use them is what made us free...

If we want to stay free we need to keep our guns in case the government needs to be reset.

The second Amendment is not about hunting, it's about freedom and being a European I understand how you wouldn't understand that.

Non-Americans don't understand the cultural mistrust of government that Americans have. I have to say it must be very unpleasant to have to live like that.

On edit - I also find it very sad that you have to be armed in your own home to have a sense of security. Again, that must be a very unpleasant way to have to live.

What is it that you find so very unpleasant to live like, being a non-American or having a cultural mistrust of government? Either way your point seems disingenuous.

Often someone chooses to be able to defend their home with a firearm which has no real bearing as whether you live a more pleasant life then scores of people who have made this decision. Get over yourself.

Was it you that lived in a community where there was some type of extensive gun ban? Are gun bans a form of cultural mistrust?

Do you pity the people that do not feel safe in their own homes because someone else in their neighborhood might have a firearm in their home? Does a neighbor owning a firearm impact your sense of security?

I just think it's not very pleasant having to live in a society where so many ordinary people, and I don't mean that in a disparaging manner, feel the need to be armed to protect themselves from attack. Now I know that's a blanket statement but I've read it often enough and heard it from people in various places that I can say that I think it's valid, although it is a generalisation.

Yes, I wonder about the cultural mistrust of government. As long as you can boot one lot out at the next election then why mistrust government? I mean fair enough in Iran but in the US?

On the point about pity and my sense of security. I'm not fussed who has a weapon in their home so long as they're complying with the law and so long as I don't get it brandished at me. And my neighbours on both sides could have firearms, I don't know and I'm not inclined to find out. Again as long as it doesn't impact me it doesn't bother me.