I am back and disappointed

Status
Not open for further replies.
"How can I be a socialist and a Nazi at the same time?"

Simple. Naziism is a BRANCH of socialism. As in National Socialist Worker's Party? NAZI party?

"Top place is held by the genocide of Native Americans."

Source material & citation, please.

May be the case, may well NOT be the case, because no one knows how many Native Americans there were in the New World (North AND South America) when Europeans arrived. There are only wildly varying estimates.

What IS known, however, is that the vast amount of that genocide was brought to you by EUROPEANS -- the Spanish, French, Dutch, Portugese, and English.

The United States contribution is a drop in the bucket, I would say.

By bringing this up in the manner that you do, you imply that the United States is responsible for it. Actually, I now see that you actually state it further down. Laughable. Absolutely laughable.

Oh, and let's not forget European presence in Africa. No one knows how many died there, either, but it was a lot, all brought to you by Europeans in search of profit.

Actually, the only people who kept good records on the numbers of people killed were the Nazis. That information was later used at Nuremburg.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
A couple of points:

This guy is OBVIOUSLY a total troll. Why? First, ANYONE studying physics at MIT is going to have a MUCH better understanding of English than he has (this would INCLUDE spelling). Second, IIRC, the Nazi's were the National Socialist party. So, his statement Socialists are NOT the same as the Nazi's is not based on fact.

Third, as a HISTORY student, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to ignore the NUMBER ONE incident of genocide in the history of the world: Stalin's execution of nearly 20 MILLION of his own people. Funny, but Helge doesn't even MENTION that. And there were NEVER 20 million native Americans.

So you see guys, I suggest we either ignore this troll completely, or ban him. He is NOT who he says he is. Period.
 
Amazing how much can happen in so few hours.

I recieved a few emails from people actually offering arguments (some even in a polite and open minded way). So I will just quickly brush over a few of the recent insults and then go back to the arguments:

- the ISP thing: Yes, my ISP can find your IP with ease if you send me an email. But that's not the point. My ISP (like most other universities) is not allowed to provide me with that information. The message board here is.

- the genocide thing: The estimate for victims of slavery and the genocide of the native population in north america is around 200 millions. That is more than the victims of the last 20 major wars on this planet together. Does that mean anybody condems the US (like many of you seem to condem Germany)? No, because some people are intelligent enough to realise two things:

a) people are responsible for their own actions, not for the actions of their ancestors. They are supposed to learn from those fatal actions, but they certainly can't be declared guilty of crimes that happened before they walked on this earth.

b) the genetic code does not happen to carry "evilness" from generation to generation.

c) people under a dictatorship are still people. do you really believe that 40 million germans under Hitler were suddenly all complete devils? Come on. Somebody emailed me saying that if the US would elect somebody like Hitler the first thing he would do would be to find some buddies and then go and kill that person. Do you guys live in a dream world? When Hitler was elected he was democratically elected because he came in the right time (completely chaos in Germany due to WW1 restrictions and world financial crisis) and promised to bring germany back to life. This is what pretty much every of your presidents promised too before his election. Then imagine yourself being exposed over years to propaganda and SUCCESS (what the population saw was a swift decrease of unemployment, depth, etc). Personally, I am myself not sure if I would have objected to the regime right away. Not because I have any sympathy for the system, but because I don't live in an absolute dream world. Doomed are those who cannot find a problem with themselves and point the finger to anybody just to cover it. Think about it.


- next is the Europe/US crime rate issue. Some people here seriously claimed that the crime rate in europe is higher since the balkan is part of europe too. Oh man... this is just painful, sorry. We are comparing two areas with the same social and economical level here (US/ European Union). Obviously you will get a higher rate of "crimes" if you push an active warzone into the comparison. Come on guys, that is just silly.

- My condolences for the last of cousins. I am sure that they didn't want to die, yet they gave their lives preventing a destructive political system. This should be honoured. I also lost a bit of family. To be correct, none of my relatives except my parents, one grandfather and one grandmother survived the war. Not counting distant relatives that leaves a little bit over 100 aunts, uncles, cousins of my parents who perished one way or the other. Some fighting, some being slaughtered, some in KZ, some in sibiria, some in western prisoner camps. My father grew up as a complete orphan, my mother was raised first by her mother until my grandfather came back from sibiria as a broken wreck.
Does that mean I suffered more than you? No, we both suffered from a brutal and bad political system. The question is, do you want me to honour you cousins and spit on my losses just because yours fought for the winning side and mine for the loosing side?

- and just to dispell one more myth (oh, this will give me a lot of fire...). If any country on this planet should be congratulated every single day for saving us all from the Nazi terror then we are talking about Russia here. I mean no disrespect to all participants from other countries, but the victory in WW2, the protection from the Nazi terror, was bought in blood by the Russian. The entire action on the western front saw less than 1 million active soldiers. In the first WEEK after barbarossa the russian CASUALTIES were over 1 million.
As much as modern media (from nonsense movies like Saving Private Ryan to propaganda of the democratic systems) would want us to believe that the mighty US and its helpers (britain, france, etc) saved the world, a simple study of numbers reveals that compared to the effort in humans, material and blood the russians made, all the other participants of the war look like children throwing pebbels against the wrestler who has just knocked unconcious by the russian bear.
Again, this is not intended to be disrespectful. All those who did their part to stop the Nazi terror have done an enormous deed. But it is an effort to blow the mist of propaganda away from many minds here. I stood in the Halls of Honour in the former Stalingrad where a huge cupola features the names of all the fallen are carved into the walls of the cupola. If you stand under a cupola as big as a small football stadium and see that the entire walls are covered with names written in letters only 1cm tall then you can but cry and mourn.

Ok, so much for that.

Now to the first "valid" point actually contributing to this discussion (which is about gun control, not about my heritage, in case somebody forgot):

The rights of the US people to bear arms.

Yes, I agree, this is part of your constitution (as it has been part of pretty much any constitution of any country in the past). But, that constitution was written in a time when having a gun was for many people essential for survival (hunting, farmers, etc). Furthermore, back then the law enforcement was simply not capable of offering adequat protection due to the vast distances between many of the smaller settlements.
It is a law signed for a need. The question is, whether that need is still there nowadays. I doubt that there are all that many people who need guns to survive or get an income. So it comes down to the crime prevention issue. And that is, to me, the only chance I see for the pro gun movement to make a solid stand. Talk about all that "the people will control the government" and such will simply be laught at. But making a case that open gun laws will indeed lower the crime rate, THAT is something worth discussing and presenting to the public. I think the law itself should be regarded as a "right thing at the right time". If it is not the right time anymore, then change it. This has happend and will always happen, even with the US constitution (voting rights, etc). Holding on to a century old system of rules just for the sake of it is pitiful, holding on to it because it still makes sense, now that's a smart move.

And I am the first to admit that the "guns/crime" issue is indeed a very complex one. Certainly worth discussing. I would appreciate if we could focus on that part, instead of all the pointless insults and "historical" discussion.

Good arguments have always shifted my position, so maybe somebody even succeeds in winnin me for the pro gun movement. Who knows. But that requires convincing arguments, backed up by statistics, proof and so forth. Not just bluntly repeated propaganda slogans over-heard and not undestood.

In my initial post I made the claim that reducing guns will reduce crimes. I offered a bunch of arguments for that. Please counter.

cheers

Helge

PS: All this above does of course assume that you are actually interested in discussing the issue. Discussion of any form can only exist if both opinions are present. You should be grateful that I came here, for it gives you a chance to actually do more than simply patting each other on the back, knowing that everybody has the same opinion anyways.
 
HelgeS:

I will give you credit. You are man enough to face the heat and I can only repsect that aspect of your character.

With reference to the Atomic bombing of Japan, bear in mind that the Japanese put the fork in the road. Should we have allowed the axis forces to rule the world so that the U.S. could have avoided killing anyone? The Japanese threw the first punch and they got what was coming to them. The U.S. could have laid claim to the areas we conquered but instead we rebuilt these countries and returned them to their people.

Every American citizen that pays taxes has participated in spreading freedom around the world. Time is the most precious resource we have and all Americans work until the June each year just to pay taxes that are used to resolve conflicts, dispense medicine and feed the hungry the world over. BTW, do you know of any foreign countries that help us during disasters yet America and her people are always generous in times of strife. Yes the war ended 55 years ago but more than one 15, 16 or 17 year-old American lied about their age to fight in WWII. Additionally, it should be remembered as the 100 year war lest we forget what can happen.

Personally, I don't care how you feel about our obsession with guns over here and you are free to move to a country where they are outlawed anytime you wish. Our Bill of Rights does not give anyone freedom in this nation, it merely recognizes God-given rights that exist regardless of what any government may think or feel. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting, target shooting. It exists as a means for the people to stand up to a government that gets out of control. In this manner, if we ever do elect a "Hitler" we have a legal method in place to quickly disolve his power. Likewise, we now have a situation in this country where the government for 30+ years penalized the institution of marriage, rewarded sexual promiscuity and paid people to have illegitimate children. Now these same chidren are filling our streets with violence and using firearms to do it. If the government tries to further punish those who play by the rules and abide by the law by taking away our guns. We can say "no" and stand up to them.

America from its beginning used guns as a means to revolt against tranny. The fact that we have this access is the reason we have enjoyed more freedom than any other society known to man. Take away the right to keep and bear arms and freedom will go with it.

You are free to voice your opininons as often as you like. No where else in the world can you exercise this right to the extent that you do in America thanks to guns.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
In the USA, our constitution sets up our entire framework of government. It is designed to prevent tryanny, by clearly spelling out the rights of the people, and the powers and limitations of the various branches of the government. Unlike in Britian or Austrailia, our government should not be able to supercede this supreme law of the land by merely passing another law. While you are correct that crime control and whatnot is an effective argument to use, you are wrong to dismiss our Constitution as irrelevant to the discussion. If our framework for a republic is ignored, we have no assurance of freedom, only a hope that our government won't erode our rights. There is indeed a mechanism for our constitution to be changed via ammendments. The fact that people try to ignore and violate the constition rather than change it angers us. If HCI, the VPC came out and tried to eliminate the Second Ammendment, at least that would be an honest thing to do, rather than lie about it and ignore it.

To learn about guns and crime, try books rather than posts by random people. I suggest "Targeting Guns : Firearms and Their Control" by Gary Kleck (an expanded "Point Blank"). I have been unable to find it in my library, but John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" has a good reputation, and demonstrates that relaxed concealed carry laws lead to reduced crime. If you are in the mood for something unique, I suggest "A Well Regulated Militia : The Battle over Gun Control" by William Weir, as he enjoys bashing both the NRA and Handgun Control Inc, and winds up with some thought-provoking conclusions.

Do guns make people safer? Absolutely, the evidence is here on this board, in the self-defense accounts and stories that are occasionally posted. Ask yourself- if this particular good person, who maintains or carries a self-defense gun, is disarmed, will he or she be safer or less safe? That question is easily answered if you ask yourself another question- If I was a criminal, would I rather attack an armed victim or an unarmed one? Taking guns away from good people causes them material harm.

You mentioned that a long time ago people did not have effective police, so they needed guns. So are you saying that now we have a totally effective police, and don't need guns? Several weeks ago a young couple was stabbed to death a few blocks from my house, and a few blocks from the police station. The wife was apparently chased out of the apartment and stabbed on the pavement. The killer(s) have not been caught. Might they have had a fighting chance if they had had a gun by the bed? Why didn't the police save them? How often do police stop crimes as they occur? Do they rather not come after the crime, take the report, and try to find the perpetrators? Our courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have NO DUTY to protect individual citizens. The case that established this was of a woman who phoned in that someone was breaking into their house or something similiar. The monster entered and captured them, and the police arrive. They knocked on the door, then left when no one answered. The victim went on to be raped and tortured for hours. Cops do their best, but there is no way they can be everywhere at once, nor can they arrive immediately, or sometimes even quickly. Most studies of defensive gun use come up with numbers of ranging from around 700,000 to 2,500,000 times a year. I know someone who used a shotgun to capture a home intruder. Ask on the board, and I'm sure you will get some stories. Earlier, you asked about people killing others by mistaken identity. That's rare among civilian shooters. I believe it happens approximately 30 times a year. Mistaken identity/threat killings by police are many times that number. Many gun accidents seem to be of the "Yes, I pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger, but I didn't think the gun would shoot!" variety. In other words- violation of gun safety rules, and sheer stupidity.

TFLers, let's please try to be polite, and if you can't be polite, DON'T post.

[This message has been edited by BTR (edited July 16, 2000).]
 
BTW, my reference to the penchant for Nazi Concentration Camp guards to mutilate babies for pleasure is not an attack on anyone it is simply what happened. The younger memeber of this forum who did'nt learn this in school need to know all of the facts.

I recently saw a special on Discovery teaching about the Wehrmact aimed at young children. If you took this show at face value, you would have walked away believing the Wehrmact were a bunch of nice guys. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were a brutal, violent force that terrorized all they came in contact with.

I wonder how many people HelgeS's Grandfather had put to death on the Eastern front before he realized Germany could not win and that negotiation with the allies was a better alternative? Again, not an attack just the facts.

The truth hurts. When we fail to expose the truth for what it is in the name of politeness, we are in for a world of hurt.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Helge, you are most verbose. Let's give us the Readers Digest version. I have work to do.

"The estimate for victims of slavery and the genocide of the native population in north america is around 200 millions. "

Both the natives and the slaves were disarmed for the purpose. I can't think of a better argument for keeping a people armed well enough to resist the tyrannies that may be placed upon them. The post-bellum south made special efforts to pass gun control laws which served to disarm newly freed slaves. The indians of Wounded Knee were disarmed as well.

>In my initial post I made the claim that reducing guns will reduce crimes. I offered a bunch of arguments for that. Please counter."

The crime and murder rate in England was lower before the series of gun laws were enacted. America has a higher murder rate with hands and feet. Would you then argue that America has more hands and feet per capita? Some portions of America are dangerous places, New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., (all with strict gun control.) Why would you want me to be disarmed in the face of it given that?

"Furthermore, back then the law enforcement was simply not capable of offering adequat protection due to the vast distances between many of the smaller settlements."

By American case law, police have no legal responsibility to protect individuals (South v Maryland 1856, Warren v District of Columbia 1981...)

"But, that constitution was written in a time when having a gun was for many people essential for survival (hunting, farmers, etc)."

The Second Amendment was not a sporting goods issue.

Here is a famous article widely published during the founding of our country. It was written by Tench Coxe, a friend of Madison and Jefferson who later served as Atty Gen. You will not find a single founding father writing in disapproval of these words.

Tench wrote the following glowing report of the Second Amendment,

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Madison later read these words and wrote back to Coxe, "...the printed remarks I already find in the gazettes here...be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the cooperation of your pen.".

Coxe, like the rest of our Founding Fathers was not Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue, the following words were written prior to the Constitutional Convention:

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Are you getting the idea behind the 2A now?

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
The estimate for victims of slavery and the genocide of the native population in north america is around 200 millions.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but this guy is full of crap. There are only 280 million inhabitants in the U.S. NOW. Had there been even CLOSE to 200 million native Americans, the country would have looked like it does TODAY, but 100+ years ago, and I GUARANTEE you that THEY would be the ruling power in the U.S. today.

As I said, his numbers are bogus, and, I believe, so is HE. That's not being rude, that's being TRUTHFUL.
 
The people who wrote and argued for the Constitution made it very plain that one of the main purposes of the armed citizenry was to prevent tyranny. Why? They had just had such an experience. The British were unable to control any part of the colonies except the port cities because of the widespread ownership of guns.

Tyranny (which is often caused by chaos) can return any time. Power always seeks more power. It is true that the citizens of any modern state would have great difficulty resisting the forces of law and order, but the fact that they are armed makes the tyrant less likely to try to oppress them. The founders didn't envision the citizen militia defeating a standing army, just resisting the police long enough that the army would lose the will to kill its own citizens.

I confess one thing in your post makes me a little skeptical, Helge. You talk about "fighting" in many different countries. The German constitution allows only the defensive use of the armed forces, and it was only recently, after a huge controversy, that the highest court ( the Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that the German armed forces could participate in ANY foreign operation. (For other readers, the court basically ruled that "defensive" meant whatever the legislature said it meant.) So I guess I'm a little skeptical about that part of your claim, which is at any rate irrelevant to the main discussion.
 
Helge:

Would we even be having this discussion if the Germans and the Japanese won World War two. I don't think so, most of us would have been extermenated and only a regulated population of slaves would be doing expendable servitude for their masters. I feel your grasp of history is biased and not really realistic, which is also obvious to a lot of people on this board. You are very young to be preaching to the choir about history, a lot of the choir were over there fighting your ancestors. Who needs to argue or convience you of anything...your mind is set in stone and will not change, nor will ours as a free and slightly slipping democratic soriety. What we have is balls, the balls to fight evil when it rears its ugly head and tries to put the bite on our form of democracy. We hate tyranny and oppression, we don't like foreigners trying to preach to us that they themselves cannot practice. So, it seems to be a bit of a waste of time to even try to have meaningful discussion with you. A waste of time is you getting your licks in and us giving it right back to you...no one is listening to the other person.

James
 
Helge...

RE tracing IP. Not true, I can trace a person's IP (if sent an e-mail) without ever getting my ISP logs, in fact, my ISP couldn't stop me if they wanted to.
Further, you could too as well...and your Univ ISP can't stop you. Their logs are not needed.

I might also add that your PhD in physics is as useless as my PhD in biochemistry vis 2nd Amendment rights. Both are irrelevent to the issue and give no credibility to one's position on the issue. Your degree, however, would give you the edge over me and some others here if we were discussing ballistics and frictional coefficients....but not politics and natural rights.

BTW, you might ponder a bit about my sig phrase:

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
On a few things;

1) the ISP. If there is a List taken from this board, I'm already on it, so why should edit my speech?

2) The second Amendment, My interpretation for what's it worth. Is simply the Reset button for the Consitution. Any good programer always leaves a Save and Exit feature. The right to self defence is a given and was considered to the framers of the Consitution to be to inane to discuss. The discussion to repeal this amendment defacto supports it's purpose.

3) The thought that banning guns would refuce crime is a fallacy. America's society is much more prone to violence then the EU. This is a result of our media and culture. To remove the "Tools" of violence would only lead to a new "Tool" being used. There has NEVER been a successful attempt to ban a technology. Once something has been done, it can not be undone. I know how to make a firearm. And I could not be stopped from Making one if I chose to. Or from passing the knowledge on to someone else. The only way I could be stopped is by removing my ability to act or communicate.

So since we cannot remove guns from America, but we can reduce the crimes committed with guns, would it not make more sense to go after the criminals then guns? The amount of firearms used in commiting a crime is far out numbered by the amount of crime STOPPED by firearms. It's like banning air bags because of the 40-50 deaths a year while ignoring the lives saved.

I personaly beleave that the "Fear of Weapons" is a neurosis caused by a persons fear of death. A person who has a tramatic experiance, or realization of thier own mortality, undergoes a process where they must learn to cope with thier death. Some seek to "protect themselves" by seeking ways to avoid death. Some by exersise and "good health", others by campaigning against a potential evil. A SMALL but VOCAL body of anti-gunners are like this. These are the ones that no amount of rational discussion will reach.
Another is the ones who are seeking to protect others, (i.e. "the Children") and those who are Seeking to "avenge" an incident, (Sarah Brady).
In every case these are people who cannot control thier enviroment (i.e. thier death) and seek something they can change. Guns are a easy spector they can go after.

Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to continue.
 
Finally, some fair and good arguments. I am delighted.

The quickies:

- 200 million killed natives and slaves. This is an estimate confirmed by the vast majority historian. Keep in mind that we are talking about a genocite that went on for several hundreds of years here (Basically from 15th century straight to foundation of the current version of the US and liberation of the slaves

- "terror committed by the Wehrmacht" This is an interesting point. Yes, there has been countless acts of violence and brutality by the German army. There is no excuse for that. On the other hand, do you really think it justified to declare all members of the german army as brutal beasts? The "wehrmacht" was nothing but the standing army of Germany. Many soldiers in it were part of it way before Hitler came to power. Their political system ordered them to wage war, so the soldiers did their job. In their minds they fought for a good cause, the liberation of their home land, the "saving of the world" from the communist grip, etc. Yes, some of them took delight in the killing and committed severe war crimes. So did soldiers of all sides (even though nonsense movies like Saving PR would want to make us believe that the nice americans led all the prisoners surrender and walk hom peacefully only to then have those "evil germans" come back and commit more crimes). War crimes happened on all sides. Almost all historians agree that numerically the number of victims to military acts that violated the convention of geneva (ie war crimes) was highest among the russian army, then the german army and then one by one the other involved armies. Does that mean that the russians are the most brutal group of people? No, it just means that there were more russians fighting than germans, more germans than americans and so forth. More fighting people, more people loosing control and taking pleasure in the killing. Do you really think that some groups of people are naturally more "evil" than others?
So much for the "small" war crimes, now to the ones initialised by the government in large scale (not the holocaust part. THAT is indeed is a terror committed solely by germany and russia (non slavics) during WW2). Here, every single country involved did just what was required to do. Just that. No "more evil than others", they ALL didn't care about "evil" for one second, they just did what needed to be done to ensure military victory. Had the US 6 million Japanese inhabitants than those 6 million would have been send to interment camps, their property stolen (making many a person on the west coast rich until today), prisoners tortured for information and forced to labour. In war, countries try to win. That is the highest priority. Lets just be realistic here. I am not in the least defending the acts of terror committed by german soldiers in WW2, but it is silly and simple minded to declare them as more evil than any other participant. Look at Vietnam. The US went in there with EXACTLY (from the common soldiers perspective) the same goal as germany went into WW2 (liberation and protection for the world from the communists). The US army committed countless war crimes and so forth. Nobody in the political and military leading group cared one bit. War is desired to be won, the means can be justified later (or never in case one wins).
My grandfather, well, I don't think he killed anybody personally. He certainly gave orders to kill thousands of enemy soldiers. Maybe even a million. But so did any other general, allied or axis. Both parties fought to win the war, to preserve their believes and their country.


- My time in the military: Germany passed a law in 1991 allowing german soldiers to participate in NATO operation on foreign territory, initially as in support (medical teams, guards, engineers, etc) and nowadays also under arms. My unit (4./Objektschutz Batallion der Luftwaffe) is currently operating in Kosovo, securing two preliminary airfields. The only big difference between the german and the other NATO soldiers down there is that the german law requires every single soldier going there to agree in writing. No soldier can be forced to go, no matter what status the soldier has (professional, military service, etc).

- US people securing peace in the world: Not only the US people, but any other citizen of other countries also pays tax that is then use to fund military purchases. But that's not the problem with this statement. The problem is that you substitute "peace" for "our belief system". Think about it. The US and NATO don't necessarily try to mainting peace all over the globe, they try to make sure that their belief system is followed all over the world. We (I include me here, I belief in democracy as well), take the liberty to assume that OUR system is the absolutely superior one. So we venture out, wage war on helpless smaller countries and enforce our system on them because we think it to be better (Vietnam, Gulf War, Ruanda, etc etc). That is just what people have been doing for milleniums now. And nowadays we judge those attempts in the past as evil, yet our own action is good? What gives us the right to take this superior stance and declare our system as the ultimate? What tells us that in 200 years we will be refered to as the saviours of mankind? Isn't it equally possible that in 200 years NATO and the current US will be revered to as the bane of mankind? A political system that gave corporations the ultimate power, that lead to the abuse of millions of people, that waged war on other nations whenever possible to implant their system? Bear with me, I personally believe our system to be good, but I think we should put ourselves into the minds of those people that lives under Hitler, or under Stalin, etc. They just did the same we do. The only difference is that we (currently) write the history books and judge right from wrong, based on OUR concept of the world. When french revolution brought down the monarchy people rejoiced and called it the age of absolute freedom. A mere 200 years later we now talk of it as the exchange of one tyrant for many tyrants. Allow yourself the benefit of the doubt.

- US as place of ultimate freedom: Hmmm, in the constitution, yes. In reality, I beg to differ. Yes, the US is very liberal in issues regarded as "proper". In other issues society (society, not the law. And since it is society that makes the real action, this is what counts) suddenly becomes as close minded and dictatorial as possible. Easy examples are homosexuality, racism and industry control. Try to be a gay chinese in the US and all that freedom stuff soon doesn't hold anymore. Try to be a spanish immigrant from mexico and suddenly you face massive hatred and are restricted in countless affairs. The industry control is the heaviest chain. Take the gun issue. If it would be a decision of the people straight away then gun laws would be a lot harder already (just look at recent polls in the population). Yet there is a huge gun PRODUCER (not gun USER) lobby in US and thus democratic actions are delayed or even overthrown by lobbying. My sister in law works as a doctor in Manhattan. She has to work 35 hour shifts, 80-90 hours a week, she has no social protection, no holidays, nothing of the things considered "standard" in many other countries. Her only protection is the high income that allows her to insure herself against all the issues that the government here does not take any responsiblity for. Yet, her contract can be withdrawn with the blink of an eye by the Cornell Hospital (since their is no worker protection either). And then that it. Is that called freedom?

Now finally back to the gun discussion. I can see the point about guns preventing crime to an extend. Maybe we should try to accumulate some real statistical data to base our discussion a bit more solidly. i have just ordered the first book on that list (thank you very much for the suggestion) and will try to read it within the week. Does anybody have unbiased (either way) statics?

cheers

Helge
 
PS: (to that "we have the balls" fellow above): Again, have you fought in WW2? Have you personally done anything to prevent unjust war? Have you tried to stop the US government from wagin war in Vietnam?
I firmly believe that we would have this discussion even if Germany and Japan had won the war. the difference would be that you would call me an evil democrat, I would be the american, you the german, I would be attacked for all the acts of destruction committed by the US in the past and you would be the one accusing me of forging facts when I told you that your government committed the biggest genocide ever. You would claim that your government secures "peace" all over the world, etc etc.

Always remember, we are human beings, not saints. And our place and date of birth are ABSOLUTELY random. Had I been born in 17th century US, I would likely have been a slave holder. Had you been born in Nazi Germany, you would have likely been a wehrmacht soldier. Always keep that in mind when judging others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top