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

[P7PSP]

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

While there are non elected citizens who want to do so it does not let elected or appointed politicians off the hook.

[Parts]

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.

And you do?  This is why people should have rights

[P7PSP]

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.

Aside from being an elitist piece of shit that would like 1% of the population to order the others around, you are also a bullied little coward who would not have the nerve to say that face to face.

[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.

And you do?  This is why people should have rights

Democracy only works with a well informed, intelligent and well informed public. Without that, the whole house of cards comes falling down.

As for people knowing what is good for them, I think even the average 10 year old could make a list as to what sort of society they want. Unfortunately those options never land on the ballot paper, making the whole process a big lie. Thanks to the 99%'s gullibility and stupidity, the system is maintained.

[Parts]

So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you?  Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that

[Christopher McCandless]

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.

Aside from being an elitist piece of shit that would like 1% of the population to order the others around, you are also a bullied little coward who would not have the nerve to say that face to face.

Stupidity is a lifestyle choice, quite frankly. It is only right that those who choose to adopt it are put in their place and punished for it, where as those who want to achieve are given the chance to do so. Democracy does not allow this kind of correction of society.

[Christopher McCandless]

So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you?  Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that

Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision. The people are allowed to produce a general document (by demarchy and referendum) every 5 years which provides a set of objectives for the meritocratic decision makers. The irony here is that they have a lot more power than in a democracy.

By the way, the state can do what it likes, whether you have guns or not. Even if 1% sees the light, you have the stupid 99% who will stick to the system like dutiful sons and daughters. Hence why terrorism is the scissors to the paper of democracy - it is the only way ordinary people can actually influence anything fundamental these days.

[Parts]

Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision.

Again who are these people?

 

[Christopher McCandless]

Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision.

Again who are these people?

The people who are the best in their respective fields, making decisions on their fields, along with some generally intelligent people with a lot of clever ideas. As I said the most qualified. Given the people set the broad agenda, decisionmakers can be accurately measured. Much better than the current system where decisions are made by the biggest suck up and the best connected - qualities which lead to poor decisionmakers and poor decisions.

In short, the average citizen gets a society which just works, giving them an optimum position and opportunities in society. People are only judged for what they can do, in a strictly relavent context. Social meritocracy is a brilliant system, unfortunately the current social elite have brainwashed people to think its a bad idea.

[matthe]

yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?

[Christopher McCandless]

yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?

The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.

[matthe]

yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?

The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.

so then who designs and maintains the system?

[Parts]

It still would depend on who you know and whose ass you'd kiss just to be picked to be in such a system.

yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?

The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.

so then who designs and maintains the system?

Those designing and maintaining it would also control it

[P7PSP]

I got two papers with mistakes on them - absolutely ridiculous for a maths exam. Which would be less of a problem, if
they published their actual marking procedures.

Got extra time (25%) this year - though didn't claim it last year because I didn't trust them to adhere to the basic data
protection laws (which they have flouted on several occasions). Though in all honesty they are not enough, next year I
am going to insist onwell defined marking criteria published in advance, as well as having what I need to know being well defined. Should ensure I get a first.

So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me.  But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.

So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you?  Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that

Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision. The people are allowed to produce a general document (by demarchy and referendum) every 5 years which provides a set of objectives for the meritocratic decision makers. The irony here is that they have a lot more power than in a democracy.

Like the Staff and Faculty of your University?

[The_Chosen_One]

Hadron, you're full of shit. Try studying actual fact instead of the fantasy that you are quoting.

People elect governments to act on their behalf to form laws (legislation) and to run the country for them. Thus it's the PEOPLE who VOTE for these individuals that are their 'employers'.  The 2nd amendment right to bear arms goes back to the days of the citizen militias back in the 19th century, nad has been kept in case of the possibility of revolution. Very unlikely, as the authorities would just overrun them with the armed forces anyway. But the 2nd amendment by itself doesn't guarantee RESPONSIBLE ownership. That has to be taught. Claude said 'it isn't the weapon that kills but the idiot behind the trigger' (or words to that effect. True, but if everyone was given lessons on how to responsibly manage their firearms, then maybe things would be better too. Most police are trying NOT to have to use guns, and are heading toward NON-LETHAL force such as pepper spray or Tazers. Problem is, you can still get the cops who seem too trigger-happy. Proper training is the only way to go, and responsible ownership as well.