Help educate a european
- Thread starter Husqvarna
- Start date
Yes, but point out that many laws serve to help make felons, and that government has much more control over felons than over citizens who have full rights - and so has a possible interest in creating a supply of felons - and people accuse one of playing politics, or employing scare tactics, or of being an Ayn Rand fan.
Yet those laws do in fact create a sub-population that is more dependent upon, and subject to, the state.
Historically, crimes that were created (particularly as felonies) had a real heyday when slavery was abolished. Road gangs, work farms.... all allowed government to provide free labor to favored parties.
Yet those laws do in fact create a sub-population that is more dependent upon, and subject to, the state.
Historically, crimes that were created (particularly as felonies) had a real heyday when slavery was abolished. Road gangs, work farms.... all allowed government to provide free labor to favored parties.
Just in case people missed it. We are now legally required to show ID to the police.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ustices-jenny-jones-show-nevada-supreme-court
If the police detain you or do a data base search after getting your ID it follows that they will know you have a CWP. At that point they will doubtless ask to see said permit and the gun it authorizes.
If there is any question in the officers mind he will then (as a safety precaution) relieve you of that firearm.
Looks like the top of a slippery slope to me.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ustices-jenny-jones-show-nevada-supreme-court
If the police detain you or do a data base search after getting your ID it follows that they will know you have a CWP. At that point they will doubtless ask to see said permit and the gun it authorizes.
If there is any question in the officers mind he will then (as a safety precaution) relieve you of that firearm.
Looks like the top of a slippery slope to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say that European governments to are about personal liberty, but we needed a strong goverment based on democracy to be away with the kings and lords. the US didn't have that problem luckily so a small government/constitution is was possible
You started more fresh, we needed democracy and government to enforce equality aswell as liberty
You started more fresh, we needed democracy and government to enforce equality aswell as liberty
Strafer Gott
New member
Google "E Plebnista". Get a real education.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Re: BuzzCook's post (no. 84):
You have the right case, but your post is misleading. Mr. Hiibel wasn't approached at random -- the officer who asked him who he was had been dispatched to investigate a report of a man beating up a woman in a pickup truck. Hiibel fit the description -- as did his truck ... which should come as no surprise, since it was indeed Mr. Hiibel who was the subject of the report. So the officer wasn't "fishing," he had sufficient information to justify at least an investigatory stop, if not an arrest.
Secondly, which you fail to mention and perhaps did not pick up on, the state where this occurred has a state law that requires individuals to identify themselves to police officers upon request. Hiibel refused to tell the officer who he was, so he was arrested under the state law that was in effect at the time. Hiibel's Supreme Court appeal was an attempt to have the SCOTUS declare the state law requiring people to identify themselves as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS declined to do so.
The case was NOT about producing documentation of his identity. All he had to do was say, "My name is Larry Hiibel, am I free to leave?"
I don't know how many states have a law requiring that you give an officer your name if asked. I'm pretty certain it's not all states, but I don't have a guess as to the percentage.
You have the right case, but your post is misleading. Mr. Hiibel wasn't approached at random -- the officer who asked him who he was had been dispatched to investigate a report of a man beating up a woman in a pickup truck. Hiibel fit the description -- as did his truck ... which should come as no surprise, since it was indeed Mr. Hiibel who was the subject of the report. So the officer wasn't "fishing," he had sufficient information to justify at least an investigatory stop, if not an arrest.
Secondly, which you fail to mention and perhaps did not pick up on, the state where this occurred has a state law that requires individuals to identify themselves to police officers upon request. Hiibel refused to tell the officer who he was, so he was arrested under the state law that was in effect at the time. Hiibel's Supreme Court appeal was an attempt to have the SCOTUS declare the state law requiring people to identify themselves as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS declined to do so.
The case was NOT about producing documentation of his identity. All he had to do was say, "My name is Larry Hiibel, am I free to leave?"
I don't know how many states have a law requiring that you give an officer your name if asked. I'm pretty certain it's not all states, but I don't have a guess as to the percentage.
Husqvarna, (I like your chainsaws, btw
)Europeans may be all about personal liberty, but their documents don’t guarantee it. The problem arises when the State becomes responsible for the well-being of the individual. If the state has the right and responsibility to protect a citizen, it has the ability to choose between citizens, and usually has the ability to choose which qualities of citizens are to be protected. This sets up a condition where liberty exists because of the State allowing it.
In most, if not all, cases in Europe there are 2 types of rights, individual and collective. These rights are supposed to be balanced against each other to yield a civilized liberty. However, the collective rules the nation by proxy through representatives. Therefore, individual rights only exist at the whim of the majority. Even freedom of speech, takes terrible abuse in many European States to this day.
One can even note an interesting case of freedom of speech restrained in a particular area, and an exception to a national gun ban in that same area. This causes an outsider to wonder if these things are related, and are a purposeful attempt to subdue an element of the population deemed undesirable by the State.
Here in the US, there are also 2 types of rights that are often confused with one another.
Immunities are those rights of the individual that are immune from government regulation. These can be called the natural rights of man and include things like self-protection as well as innumerable others. In all natural rights, whether they are to life, property, interaction with others, beliefs, etc … your natural right is…. To keep what is yours, to use it as you see fit, and to strive for more or success (as you define it.)
Privileges are those rights that come into existence by the creation of government, and can be regulated by government. They are our "manufactured rights" (similar to European individual rights) and defined by government.
With privileges, you have the right to use them in the ways the government defines as correct.
Success, expansion, and security are never rights in and of themselves, but a goal governed by a judgment of natural law. The government exists as a way to integrate the individual into society rather than add him to the whole. This is done by balancing rights between individuals.
In the real world though, there’s only one difference between European and American individual rights. In Europe, their loss is due to the natural progression of the legal system of government. In America, their loss is due to politicians breaking Constitutional principles; which is a case of government breaking the People’s law, written to regulate the government.
We Americans don’t like to admit it much, but we were English then, and many of our patriots supported the monarchy until it became obvious that we would not receive representation in Parliament. Even then, some revolted reluctantly. There were also diehard Loyalists, some of whom later enlisted with the British. Conscripts weren’t the only colonists in the British army.
Although there were many protest actions leading up to the revolution, the hot war didn’t begin until the British attempted to disarm the colonists at Lexington. Basically the colonists waited until the last moment to rebel … when their means of self protection and rebellion was threatened. In that action, the people were reserving the natural right to revolt against a tyrannical government (a derivation of self-protection). From then, until the formal beginning of the revolution with the Declaration of Independence, the representatives were still petitioning England for redress of grievances.
IMHO: In the 13 colonies, there was no single overwhelming issue that led to revolt, but all issues had one thing in common, and that was all grievances led to the Crown The religious freedom issue was a matter of signing a paper that was largely ignored. The rates of the taxes objected to on principle were relatively low. The quartering of troops in homes affected a minority of the population. Etc etc … Ultimately, each person was rebelling for his own reasons against a common authority, rather than having special interest factions. Even the revolutionary clubs that were formed promoted general liberty of the individual. When the Committees of Correspondence formed to link them together, the resultant was a decentralized shadow government based in individual liberty.
Combining all of the above with the colonists being well armed from the beginning, the absence of an internal class struggle, and the Atlantic Ocean separating the colonies from England. . … We were able to fight a civil war as if it were a war of invasion; and during the process, the shadow government came out into the light.
And Mr. Bluetrain, the question about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is answered by logic if you view it as an extension of the right of self protection … the answer is self protection in general, including both support of the State and` insurrection (depending upon which is necessary to secure their rights). I think a reading of Federalist #29 would show you this, and more.
For that matter, a reading of the Declaration and Constitution in concert, shows the entire Bill of Rights to be either redundant, or a reaffirmation of topics already covered by logical extension..
)Europeans may be all about personal liberty, but their documents don’t guarantee it. The problem arises when the State becomes responsible for the well-being of the individual. If the state has the right and responsibility to protect a citizen, it has the ability to choose between citizens, and usually has the ability to choose which qualities of citizens are to be protected. This sets up a condition where liberty exists because of the State allowing it. In most, if not all, cases in Europe there are 2 types of rights, individual and collective. These rights are supposed to be balanced against each other to yield a civilized liberty. However, the collective rules the nation by proxy through representatives. Therefore, individual rights only exist at the whim of the majority. Even freedom of speech, takes terrible abuse in many European States to this day.
One can even note an interesting case of freedom of speech restrained in a particular area, and an exception to a national gun ban in that same area. This causes an outsider to wonder if these things are related, and are a purposeful attempt to subdue an element of the population deemed undesirable by the State.
Here in the US, there are also 2 types of rights that are often confused with one another.
Immunities are those rights of the individual that are immune from government regulation. These can be called the natural rights of man and include things like self-protection as well as innumerable others. In all natural rights, whether they are to life, property, interaction with others, beliefs, etc … your natural right is…. To keep what is yours, to use it as you see fit, and to strive for more or success (as you define it.)
Privileges are those rights that come into existence by the creation of government, and can be regulated by government. They are our "manufactured rights" (similar to European individual rights) and defined by government.
With privileges, you have the right to use them in the ways the government defines as correct.
Success, expansion, and security are never rights in and of themselves, but a goal governed by a judgment of natural law. The government exists as a way to integrate the individual into society rather than add him to the whole. This is done by balancing rights between individuals.
In the real world though, there’s only one difference between European and American individual rights. In Europe, their loss is due to the natural progression of the legal system of government. In America, their loss is due to politicians breaking Constitutional principles; which is a case of government breaking the People’s law, written to regulate the government.
We Americans don’t like to admit it much, but we were English then, and many of our patriots supported the monarchy until it became obvious that we would not receive representation in Parliament. Even then, some revolted reluctantly. There were also diehard Loyalists, some of whom later enlisted with the British. Conscripts weren’t the only colonists in the British army.
Although there were many protest actions leading up to the revolution, the hot war didn’t begin until the British attempted to disarm the colonists at Lexington. Basically the colonists waited until the last moment to rebel … when their means of self protection and rebellion was threatened. In that action, the people were reserving the natural right to revolt against a tyrannical government (a derivation of self-protection). From then, until the formal beginning of the revolution with the Declaration of Independence, the representatives were still petitioning England for redress of grievances.
IMHO: In the 13 colonies, there was no single overwhelming issue that led to revolt, but all issues had one thing in common, and that was all grievances led to the Crown The religious freedom issue was a matter of signing a paper that was largely ignored. The rates of the taxes objected to on principle were relatively low. The quartering of troops in homes affected a minority of the population. Etc etc … Ultimately, each person was rebelling for his own reasons against a common authority, rather than having special interest factions. Even the revolutionary clubs that were formed promoted general liberty of the individual. When the Committees of Correspondence formed to link them together, the resultant was a decentralized shadow government based in individual liberty.
Combining all of the above with the colonists being well armed from the beginning, the absence of an internal class struggle, and the Atlantic Ocean separating the colonies from England. . … We were able to fight a civil war as if it were a war of invasion; and during the process, the shadow government came out into the light.
And Mr. Bluetrain, the question about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is answered by logic if you view it as an extension of the right of self protection … the answer is self protection in general, including both support of the State and` insurrection (depending upon which is necessary to secure their rights). I think a reading of Federalist #29 would show you this, and more.
For that matter, a reading of the Declaration and Constitution in concert, shows the entire Bill of Rights to be either redundant, or a reaffirmation of topics already covered by logical extension..
Let us be frank for a moment and think about 1776 for a minute. Two things happened then. There was a rebellion and there was also a revolution. True revolutions are rare; rebellions fairly common, successful rebellions less so. In fact one of the first emergencies the US had to deal with after the constitution was adoped and the government formed was--a rebellion. The militia was embodied and it was put down.
True revolutions change the way people think, whether or not they realize it at the time, and a few were inspired by the American Revolution. At the time, I suspect that the ones who believed the fancy words in all those documents less than anyone were the ones who wrote it. It was what we call oratory. Already there was a caste system of sorts in place, at least in the towns along the Atlantic. Those who cared to live outside of that system did--they just moved further west. But the delegates to congress and the conventions were well-to-do landowners, merchants--and lawyers. They hardly believed "all men were created equal." They mostly believed in slavery. Women didn't even enter into the thing.
But other folks believed it and to be sure, there were opportunities here not found anywhere else, including other American colonies to the south, most of whom had imported a hacienda system of peonage that would take a while to shake off. The British colonies never developed a peerage system such as they had at home. It is possible we have a form of that system now and when the son of a president becomes president and especially when the election is decided in the state where the other son is governor, it is difficult to argue otherwise. But mostly, we don't have a system of titles based on land ownership and loyalty to the king.
One thing that set apart the thinkers and writers of congress and the conventions was the fact that few of them had been educated abroad.
True revolutions change the way people think, whether or not they realize it at the time, and a few were inspired by the American Revolution. At the time, I suspect that the ones who believed the fancy words in all those documents less than anyone were the ones who wrote it. It was what we call oratory. Already there was a caste system of sorts in place, at least in the towns along the Atlantic. Those who cared to live outside of that system did--they just moved further west. But the delegates to congress and the conventions were well-to-do landowners, merchants--and lawyers. They hardly believed "all men were created equal." They mostly believed in slavery. Women didn't even enter into the thing.
But other folks believed it and to be sure, there were opportunities here not found anywhere else, including other American colonies to the south, most of whom had imported a hacienda system of peonage that would take a while to shake off. The British colonies never developed a peerage system such as they had at home. It is possible we have a form of that system now and when the son of a president becomes president and especially when the election is decided in the state where the other son is governor, it is difficult to argue otherwise. But mostly, we don't have a system of titles based on land ownership and loyalty to the king.
One thing that set apart the thinkers and writers of congress and the conventions was the fact that few of them had been educated abroad.
dogrunner, I thought the Europeans were responding pretty timely, and well. We’re in the same boat as they are. The only difference is that their governments are acting in accordance with their laws. When it comes to the people at large, democracy strips the rights of unpopular persons, same here.
Thanks for the sentiment, but this is a complex topic and no mention of the Constitution as a referee between the States has been made… The States as examples of governments operating as European nations, where individuals can cede rights to the State … whether or not that’s Constitutional today because of the 14th Amendment, etc etc. IMO this stuff is ridiculously confusing, especially when our own educational system is geared toward exalting democracy rather than the rule of impartial law.
We live in an age where the rights of the individual are seen as selfish, but it’s largely ignored that collective rights remove our chance to act selflessly through our own moral senses. The freedom to exercise charity is our greatest right, imo, and that includes protecting the innocent at risk to ourselves. The means to do that are also incorporated in the 2nd Amendment, imo.
Bluetrain There’s ample evidence that the American aristocracy believed that all men were created equal, but only in that all men had the same inalienable rights. Part of that was the right to build yourself into what you wanted to become. Aristocracy was to be judged by the People, based on accomplishments in personal honor and property. Extending that concept to women and others was a matter of debate among them, based in whether they saw natural ability in those groups. A protected class loses the ability to exercise rights by virtue of their protected status… From children and women, to slaves, protection comes at a price if it is a legal mandate; since it stems from a misapplied right to property. As an individual right, it can come simply from desire, with no reciprocal payment due.
All governmental judgments should be based on equitable exchange, not so among men.
Our founding fathers were men of science, logic, and mathematics that read the same texts as their European counterparts. On average, they were simply less afraid of radical ideas.
Maybe the Europeans just don’t think have the chance to respond or aren’t sure what to respond to, since we Americans are intent on our right to argue amongst ourselves
Thanks for the sentiment, but this is a complex topic and no mention of the Constitution as a referee between the States has been made… The States as examples of governments operating as European nations, where individuals can cede rights to the State … whether or not that’s Constitutional today because of the 14th Amendment, etc etc. IMO this stuff is ridiculously confusing, especially when our own educational system is geared toward exalting democracy rather than the rule of impartial law.
We live in an age where the rights of the individual are seen as selfish, but it’s largely ignored that collective rights remove our chance to act selflessly through our own moral senses. The freedom to exercise charity is our greatest right, imo, and that includes protecting the innocent at risk to ourselves. The means to do that are also incorporated in the 2nd Amendment, imo.
Bluetrain There’s ample evidence that the American aristocracy believed that all men were created equal, but only in that all men had the same inalienable rights. Part of that was the right to build yourself into what you wanted to become. Aristocracy was to be judged by the People, based on accomplishments in personal honor and property. Extending that concept to women and others was a matter of debate among them, based in whether they saw natural ability in those groups. A protected class loses the ability to exercise rights by virtue of their protected status… From children and women, to slaves, protection comes at a price if it is a legal mandate; since it stems from a misapplied right to property. As an individual right, it can come simply from desire, with no reciprocal payment due.
All governmental judgments should be based on equitable exchange, not so among men.
Our founding fathers were men of science, logic, and mathematics that read the same texts as their European counterparts. On average, they were simply less afraid of radical ideas.
Maybe the Europeans just don’t think have the chance to respond or aren’t sure what to respond to, since we Americans are intent on our right to argue amongst ourselves
Sounds pretty, doesn't it? But were things so radical? The crown was out of the way after the revolution but the same people still ran things. That's the simplified version, of course. There were a lot of things that still had to be worked out and it took a while for everyone to think of themselves as Americans first and anything else second. That's an on-going process, of course. It even took a while for everyone to literally understand one another and that took a while to overcome, too. Even now I think some people are very confused with their loyalties.
Dogrunner I already answered way back in the thread when I got the/an answer, And Dogrunner I am well aware of the ideological differences, frankly stating your identity isn't that much of a fuzz.
Re Animal firstly it is hard to speak of Europeans in one generalizing way (or rather it is easy because we Euros do it towards americans all the time.
even with the EU we are a collection of nations not states, we now have the Lisbon treaty which in effect is law but european nations are still more independent than US states.
We do have a constitution of sorts but as stated earlier (not just by me) it is taken from another angle if you like, All power stems from the people. it is two sides of a similar coin. but different in how it arose
The funny thing is that until like 25 years ago we did have pretty liberal gunlaws. you just bought what you wanted and got your license, now you gotta be a hunter or a sportsshooter and not only pass some tests but actually be active to
Re Animal firstly it is hard to speak of Europeans in one generalizing way (or rather it is easy because we Euros do it towards americans all the time
. even with the EU we are a collection of nations not states, we now have the Lisbon treaty which in effect is law but european nations are still more independent than US states.
We do have a constitution of sorts but as stated earlier (not just by me) it is taken from another angle if you like, All power stems from the people. it is two sides of a similar coin. but different in how it arose
The funny thing is that until like 25 years ago we did have pretty liberal gunlaws. you just bought what you wanted and got your license, now you gotta be a hunter or a sportsshooter and not only pass some tests but actually be active to
Neither is walking or riding a bike or a horse or breathing or eating. Just because the Constitution does not mention it doesn't mean we need to regulate it to death.
I despise this argument.
Just remember, the more liberties you give up because they're not "protected" by the Constitution the more they tend to take away.
It's not about safety or regulation, it's about control of the people and the taking of your money. Which ironically you elected them to do for you.
The mentality of the people in this country never ceases to amaze me.
Obviously children aren't being taught what being an American is all about, the people possess the power, we elect those to act on our behalf within the confines of the Constitution. Why on earth we ask them to bound us more and more I cannot understand and frankly find most of it illegitimate IMO as an American Citizen.
We should remember that giving up liberties is not why we have Memorial Days, they sacrificed for freedom, not bondage, the exact thing most of them died trying to provide for other nations.
Justice06RR
New member
I think Dogrunner made a good post in #11 explaining it.
OP, unless the person broke a law, they should not be able to arrest everybody on the spot as long as they are not doing anything illegal.
I don't know the state laws in Oregon, but it seems Open carry is legal so the guy in the video is obviously not doing anything wrong. Some other people probably just got freaked out, but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong to deserve questioning or intrustion of his privacy.
Its a different story when they actually catch you doing something illegal or have probable cause.
Showing your ID, well that is a touchy subject and i'm not an expert of the law. I don't know if your are required by law to show ID in certain places, but if you weren't required to, obviously you don't have a duty to do so.
OP, unless the person broke a law, they should not be able to arrest everybody on the spot as long as they are not doing anything illegal.
I don't know the state laws in Oregon, but it seems Open carry is legal so the guy in the video is obviously not doing anything wrong. Some other people probably just got freaked out, but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong to deserve questioning or intrustion of his privacy.
Its a different story when they actually catch you doing something illegal or have probable cause.
Showing your ID, well that is a touchy subject and i'm not an expert of the law. I don't know if your are required by law to show ID in certain places, but if you weren't required to, obviously you don't have a duty to do so.