You guys and your guns...

[JimC]

it is the result of a series of economic blunders and mismanagement, plus the greed of too many within the international finance sector. Plus widespread corruption and featherbedding...

I think we could claim that of the United States also.

Not to the degree in Greece, Spain et al...

[Wandering Through]

And I mean subservient in a more pernicious way than the U.S.A's states are subservient to the federal government over here.

What makes you think it's more pernicious? The balance of power between the EU government and its states is much more strongly with the states than between the U.S. government and its states, which makes the EU much more flexible.* The EU is really much closer to the Articles of Confederation than to our present government.

O.k., I wholeheartedly agree that we have wandered far afield from the framers intent re: federal authority and influence over the several states. And as I pointed out, I am certainly no expert on the European Union. However, a bit later:

Here in NZ and also in Australia (I assume similar in other places, but I know NZ and Oz best) we have a very high degree of freedom of speech. I can say what I like, even to calling the Prime Minister a total dickhead, or worse, with no consequence. The only time freedom of speech is limited is in telling vicious and deliberate lies. I agree that we should not be permitted to do this.

How does your situation compare to the UK, or Canada? There, hate speech laws essentially prohibit even rational discussion of certain subjects.

Guns do not protect voters rights. The places in the world (except the US) where voters rights are best protected are all places where guns are limited.

Hardly. The power of appointed offices in the E.U. has risen to the point where the Greeks complain about being dictated to by German bureaucrats, without any real democratic voice over their fate.*

*All emphasis mine

Well, which is it? A loose confederation of European nation-states with more flexibility than the modern-day U.S.A.? Or a bunch of privileged, unaccountable political appointees subjectively applying diktats to the E.U.'s hapless vassal states?

I believe you and I share many similar ideological foundations, including RKBA issues, but the E.U. cannot be all of the above.

[Warren Dew]

On point 1. Restrictions on rational discussion does not exist. However, if a person deliberately spreads a damaging untruth, the victim can sue. I think this also applies in the US? Am I right?

A person can sue for libel damages here, but the burden of proof is on the person doing the suing, which I understand is the opposite of the UK.

Holocaust denial and the like are perfectly legal here, which is more what I was asking about.

On point 2. Is this not equivalent to a Texan complaining that he cannot complain about a federal law to his state government?

Not really, as the Texan can also vote directly for the president and for federal representatives, giving him power over the federal government. The EU parliament has much less power, with more of the power residing in appointed bodies.

Well, which is it? A loose confederation of European nation-states with more flexibility than the modern-day U.S.A.? Or a bunch of privileged, unaccountable political appointees subjectively applying diktats to the E.U.'s hapless vassal states?

It's a looser confederation of European nation states, which is overall less democratic due to lack of firearms. The strength of the federalist ties are orthogonal to the degree of democratic control.

[Blind groper]

Holocaust denial and the like are perfectly legal here, which is more what I was asking about.

It's a looser confederation of European nation states, which is overall less democratic due to lack of firearms. The strength of the federalist ties are orthogonal to the degree of democratic control.

Point 1.
Holocaust denial is perfectly legal, if idiotic, in NZ and Australia also.

Point 2.
Lack of firearms, as I pointed out before, has nothing to do with degree of democracy. I can assure you that democracy is extremely healthy in NZ and Oz, with very strong gun control. In fact, if the international surveys are correct, both NZ and Oz have substantially lower levels of corruption in government, and in voting, compared to the USA.
http://www.infoplease.com/world/statist ... tries.html

[Tyrannical]

Svartalf wrote:

...Firear assault and murder rates are very low in the UK due to firearms being scarce...

This, and this alone, is the Groper's point...

Wanna guess who in the UK commits the most gun crime

Hunters, cops, and the military?

Once again, surprise, surprise, it's Blacks.

Blacks who make up 12% of the London population commit 67% of the gun crime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -race.html

The official figures, which examine the ethnicity of those accused of violent offences in London, suggest the majority of men held responsible by police for gun crimes, robberies and street crimes are black.
The data provide a breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who police took action against for a range of violent and sexual offences in London in 2009-10.

They show that among those proceeded against for street crimes, 54 per cent were black; for robbery, 59 per cent; and for gun crimes, 67 per cent. Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob and snatching property.

Just over 12 per cent of London’s 7.5 million population is black, including those of mixed black and white parentage, while 69 per cent is white, according to the Office for National Statistics.

[Seth]

we disagree about guns. Our "gun culture" is what has kept us free for 236 years. And it will keep us free for another 200 years if we don't let the Progressives and socialists take them away.

Total crap.

The advanced western nations who have avoided the American style gun culture are free. Britain, France, Germany, Canada etc retain all the freedoms that are desirable, which can be equated approximately to adherence to the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. Any nation that gives those rights to its people can be called free.

No nation comprised of a people who are unable to use force to retake their government from the hands of a tyrant or despot, by virtue of being disarmed by their government even with their willing consent, can be deemed to be "free" in any way. Such nations, which pretty much includes every nation except Switzerland and the United States, are filled with nothing more than slaves to their government masters precisely because they have no power to put down a tyrant, should a tyrant come to power...a thing which has happened again and again to purportedly "free" countries in the past.

The only freedoms that have been taken away are those freedoms that are undesirable, like the freedom to own a hand gun, or drive drunk, or recklessly, or to interfere with the rights of other people.

Conflating drunk and reckless driving and "interfering with the rights of other people" with gun ownership is just another demonstration of willful ideological ignorance unconnected to any fact. What you think "undesirable" because you fear your fellow citizens to us is a basic necessity to remain free.

America's gun culture has done nothing to ensure freedom. That comes from a government that knows it will be voted out of existence if it fails to take care of the voters.

Wrong. Our "gun culture" is what backs up and insures our power as voters, and it's what persuades our elected officials to act properly and cede their power and position when unelected, unlike, say Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, who rule countries with disarmed populaces that cannot use force to turn either out of office when they refuse to cede power. Our politicians know full well that if they refuse to hand over power peaceably, they can and will be removed by force. That helps to keep them from constructing a tyranny.

[Jason]

Our "gun culture" is what backs up and insures our power as voters, and it's what persuades our elected officials to act properly and cede their power and position when unelected, unlike, say Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, who rule countries with disarmed populaces that cannot use force to turn either out of office when they refuse to cede power. Our politicians know full well that if they refuse to hand over power peaceably, they can and will be removed by force. That helps to keep them from constructing a tyranny.

Honestly? How do you suppose that an armed militia would fare against the US Army/Navy.. hell even the national guard?

If you suppose the military would support the insurrectionists, then what need is there for an armed citizenry?

When the founding fathers penned the constitution an armed citizenry was a viable defence against tyranny. I cannot see that it still holds in modern warfare.

[Blind groper]

Thank you, Pord.
nice to see a bit of good sense being expressed.

As far as armed insurrection goes, the IRA could show you how it is done. It is not done with silly little hand guns. It is done with bombs, mortars, machine guns, stinger missiles and the like.

Freedom does not come from a bunch of survivalist morons running around with hand guns, or even semi automatics. It comes from people who are concerned enough to vote out any bunch of politicians who are not focused on the welfare of the people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Honestly? How do you suppose that an armed militia would fare against the US Army/Navy.. hell even the national guard?

"Hell, son, ain't ya never seen that there Libertarian move, 'Red Dawn'? Why them there high school kids grabbed themselves a bunch of rifles and some beef jerky and they tore them Cubans a new asshole! They did just fine against the entire Commie world! Until they all died, that is."

[Tero]

Them militias could always attack Canada ans force them to remove comm...nationalized medicine.

[laklak]

On the issue of an armed populace overcoming a totalitarian government - it's true that shotguns and deer rifles aren't going to do much to an M1A1 tank or an A10 Warthog. However, that's not what would happen. It doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or Iraq, and didn't for the most part in Vietnam. But in all those places one fuck of a lot of U.S. soldiers died. One does not need to triumph on a conventional battlefield to bring down a government. All you need to do is make it too expensive for them to continue their occupation. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment.

[Warren Dew]

As far as armed insurrection goes, the IRA could show you how it is done.

Oh, did the IRA finally get the UK to let go of Northern Ireland, and get it united with the rest of Ireland? I hadn't heard that they'd had that success.

[Blind groper]

Oh, did the IRA finally get the UK to let go of Northern Ireland, and get it united with the rest of Ireland? I hadn't heard that they'd had that success.

No they did not. And that is the point. The IRA had a lot more than pistols and sporting rifles and still could not overcome a modern army.

[Warren Dew]

Oh, did the IRA finally get the UK to let go of Northern Ireland, and get it united with the rest of Ireland? I hadn't heard that they'd had that success.

No they did not. And that is the point. The IRA had a lot more than pistols and sporting rifles and still could not overcome a modern army.

I guess they should have stuck to the basics, eh?

[Tyrannical]

Our "gun culture" is what backs up and insures our power as voters, and it's what persuades our elected officials to act properly and cede their power and position when unelected, unlike, say Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, who rule countries with disarmed populaces that cannot use force to turn either out of office when they refuse to cede power. Our politicians know full well that if they refuse to hand over power peaceably, they can and will be removed by force. That helps to keep them from constructing a tyranny.

Honestly? How do you suppose that an armed militia would fare against the US Army/Navy.. hell even the national guard?

If you suppose the military would support the insurrectionists, then what need is there for an armed citizenry?

When the founding fathers penned the constitution an armed citizenry was a viable defence against tyranny. I cannot see that it still holds in modern warfare.

You don't understand the concept of citizen-soldier.