(For Americans) What the gun debate looks like in Europe

[Adam]

I trust the cops here more than the majority of the civilians here

and don't knock the Soviet Union... take a lesson from your german mates there

[TheoK]

The state is the greatest mafia there ever was. It doesn't change anything that you live in a "democracy".

[P7PSP]

Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!

Its not hypocritical at all, even if they ban average citizens from having guns (e.g. over here in the UK), people who need armed police protection get it. Bear in mind that Ted Kennedy had his two brothers shot to death, it would be suicide for him not to have armed bodyguards. Same with Bill Clinton. As for the average citizen, they don't need the protection for the most part.

Also disarming the plebs doesn't seem a bad idea to me, provided I was one of the few who got a gun, of course.

It is hypocrisy when they claim they believe in equal protection under the law and make damn sure they are better protected than those they disarm. If they simply said "I have mine, fuck all the rest of you", then they would not be hypocrites.
As far as politicians needing, or deserving, more protection than the unwashed masses, there were 16,137 homocides in the USA in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
Just how many of these were politicians Hadron? So which of these 16,137 people who were murdered in 2004 did not need protection Hadron?
In numerous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that Police have no obligation to protect individuals they know to be in specific danger. Here is one such ruling from 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_t=1

[Christopher McCandless]

Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!

Its not hypocritical at all, even if they ban average citizens from having guns (e.g. over here in the UK), people who need armed police protection get it. Bear in mind that Ted Kennedy had his two brothers shot to death, it would be suicide for him not to have armed bodyguards. Same with Bill Clinton. As for the average citizen, they don't need the protection for the most part.

Also disarming the plebs doesn't seem a bad idea to me, provided I was one of the few who got a gun, of course.

It is hypocrisy when they claim they believe in equal protection under the law and make damn sure they are better protected than those they disarm. If they simply said "I have mine, fuck all the rest of you", then they would not be hypocrites.
As far as politicians needing, or deserving, more protection than the unwashed masses, there were 16,137 homocides in the USA in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
Just how many of these were politicians Hadron? So which of these 16,137 people who were murdered in 2004 did not need protection Hadron?
In numerous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that Police have no obligation to protect individuals they know to be in specific danger. Here is one such ruling from 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_t=1

Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?

As for the supreme court ruling, it is ridiculous. Then again, the average American is ridiculous politically, so I am not all surprised. Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.

[P7PSP]

Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?

What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.

As for the supreme court ruling, it is ridiculous. Then again, the average American is ridiculous politically, so I am not all surprised. Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.

And you are an elitist snob who did not answer the question about "which of the 16,137 murder victims listed in the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report did not need protection?", I find it interesting that you, at times, claim to be a revolutionary and in this thread claim that politicians deserve protection. So what are you about Hadron? Being a revolutionary or protecting the status quo? I also find it interesting that you approve of disarming citizens but approve of school shooters. Maybe you just want to make the spree killers work easier?

[Christopher McCandless]

Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?

What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.

It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.

As for the supreme court ruling, it is ridiculous. Then again, the average American is ridiculous politically, so I am not all surprised. Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.

And you are an elitist snob who did not answer the question about "which of the 16,137 murder victims listed in the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report did not need protection?", I find it interesting that you, at times, claim to be a revolutionary and in this thread claim that politicians deserve protection. So what are you about Hadron? Being a revolutionary or protecting the status quo? I also find it interesting that you approve of disarming citizens but approve of school shooters. Maybe you just want to make the spree killers work easier?

You can be elitist and a revolutionary - as I have said countless times I am a social meritocrat. Just happen to be disgusted at how the current social order is comprised; it is anything but merit.

As for the 16137 homicides, a minority of whom were genuine victims, that minority would be safer if guns were gotten rid of. In the UK, its almost always gangland members who get shot and if our rates were scaled up and compared to the US - less than 500 people would get shot. In the case of the politicians, however, having armed bodyguards makes them safer. The maths here is practically unarguable.

[Adam]

Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.

[P7PSP]

Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?

What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.

It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.

The ones who occupy such offices and want to trample my rights can fuck off and die.

You can be elitist and a revolutionary - as I have said countless times I am a social meritocrat. Just happen to be disgusted at how the current social order is comprised; it is anything but merit.

Depends on which way the wind is blowing when you wake then?

As for the 16137 homicides, a minority of whom were genuine victims, that minority would be safer if guns were gotten rid of.

The specific Supreme Court case I referenced was about Domestic violence not gangbangers. And again, you have stated in the past in numerous threads that you approve of spree killers. From that I conclude that you approve of spree killers having access to the guns that you would deny to ordinary citizens.

In the UK, its almost always gangland members who get shot and if our rates were scaled up and compared to the US - less than 500 people would get shot. In the case of the politicians, however, having armed bodyguards makes them safer. The maths here is practically unarguable.

And aside from no 2nd Amendment guarantees you also have no protection from Ex Post Facto laws ( Atticle 1, Section 9 ), something a few Brits are whining about with regards to Gary McKinnon, yeah you have it made.

[Adam]

Things aren't perfect here, not by a long shot. But personally I'd much rather live in the uk than most parts of america.
At least Obama seems ti be changing a few things though

tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either

[TheoK]

Things aren't perfect here, not by a long shot. But personally I'd much rather live in the uk than most parts of america.
At least Obama seems ti be changing a few things though

tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either

Why should there be double standards for the people and the ones in charge? It's hypocrisy to call a country a democracy if the citizens don't have a right to bear arms.

[Adam]

so all citizens should have the same level of security as presidents?

I wouldn't be happy if I knew any random person where I live could easily have a gun in their house. I'm not stupid enough to think that world leaders should just walk around without any kind of protection though

If someone breaks into your home, call the cops and smash his head in (the intruder, not the cop)

[TheoK]

so all citizens should have the same level of security as presidents?

I wouldn't be happy if I knew any random person where I live could easily have a gun in their house. I'm not stupid enough to think that world leaders should just walk around without any kind of protection though

If someone breaks into your home, call the cops and smash his head in (the intruder, not the cop)

All citizens should have a right to buy, keep, carry and use firearms for self-protection. That includes self-protection against a tyrannic government. The Second Amendment is brilliant. The only thing wrong is not in the Amendment itself but in the fact that the US armed forces are incredibly more powerful than they were when it was written.

Calling the cops won't help you against a dangerous intruder. And the worst criminals are the one taking away law-abiding citizens' guns. The UK is a real disgrace, even worse than Sweden.

[P7PSP]

It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.

tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either

What Hadron clearly doesn't understand in making the above post is that I believe that politicians are expendable but rights are not. The 5th Amendment Right to not be put in jeapordy of life or liberty twice for the same offense came about because the English Crown did exactly that to Sir Walter Raleigh among others. Writs, or Titles, of Nobility are likewise prohibited in part because there was no desire to create a noble class here who could hang a starving peasant for having the temerity to hunt on His Nibs land to feed his family.
Writs of Attainder are likewise prohibited because again the Crown had done this sort of thing to the Irish and others throughout the history of the British Empire, disenfranchising entire groups of their rights to vote, own property etc.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder

The rights in the Constitution have been wrestled over in the Federal and State Legislatures and Courts pretty much from the begining of the Republic. The system is not perfect but I can live with it. Any President or other elected official who desires to disarm the citizens of my country should lead by example and not pull this "do as I say, not as I do bullshit" that so many of them pull.

[Christopher McCandless]

Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?

What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.

It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.

The ones who occupy such offices and want to trample my rights can fuck off and die.

Its your fellow countrymen who trample on your rights, not the people at the top.

You can be elitist and a revolutionary - as I have said countless times I am a social meritocrat. Just happen to be disgusted at how the current social order is comprised; it is anything but merit.

Depends on which way the wind is blowing when you wake then?

I have always been pretty consistent with my political beliefs thank you.

As for the 16137 homicides, a minority of whom were genuine victims, that minority would be safer if guns were gotten rid of.

The specific Supreme Court case I referenced was about Domestic violence not gangbangers. And again, you have stated in the past in numerous threads that you approve of spree killers. From that I conclude that you approve of spree killers having access to the guns that you would deny to ordinary citizens.

I said I don't object to spree killers who take a lot of nasty people with them - its an improvement all around.

In the UK, its almost always gangland members who get shot and if our rates were scaled up and compared to the US - less than 500 people would get shot. In the case of the politicians, however, having armed bodyguards makes them safer. The maths here is practically unarguable.

And aside from no 2nd Amendment guarantees you also have no protection from Ex Post Facto laws ( Atticle 1, Section 9 ), something a few Brits are whining about with regards to Gary McKinnon, yeah you have it made.

You might want to check out some of the things the US does to its own citizens before you even think of starting on us. Like the 2nd Amendment protects you at all - it is another lie like democracy.

[Christopher McCandless]

It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.

tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either

What Hadron clearly doesn't understand in making the above post is that I believe that politicians are expendable but rights are not. The 5th Amendment Right to not be put in jeapordy of life or liberty twice for the same offense came about because the English Crown did exactly that to Sir Walter Raleigh among others. Writs, or Titles, of Nobility are likewise prohibited in part because there was no desire to create a noble class here who could hang a starving peasant for having the temerity to hunt on His Nibs land to feed his family.
Writs of Attainder are likewise prohibited because again the Crown had done this sort of thing to the Irish and others throughout the history of the British Empire, disenfranchising entire groups of their rights to vote, own property etc.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder

The rights in the Constitution have been wrestled over in the Federal and State Legislatures and Courts pretty much from the begining of the Republic. The system is not perfect but I can live with it. Any President or other elected official who desires to disarm the citizens of my country should lead by example and not pull this "do as I say, not as I do bullshit" that so many of them pull.

You are living proof that 99% of people are too stupid to get the vote. Big flaw of democracy - 99% of people don't know what is good for them.

Though I should point out that when politicians are unprotected from assassination, you have a hell of a dictatorship. May as well just let the Mafia run the country and be done with it.