Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> I think the
> result is quite good on a global level, and worked out well for them.

I think the fact that the rules *are* in writing and that most educated 
people know what they are is one of the biggest helps. If something starts 
getting abusive, one can always say "Hey, that's not right at all."

Not just the 2nd amendment, but all the limits on powers, who has 
responsibility for what, limits on what you can change with how many votes 
in what timeframe, and so on.  People talk about Bush "stealing the 
election", but really, the courts decided how it had to go based on the 
writings, and that's how it came out.

> Additionally, you have to define what is "successful enforcement"

It's not hard to define. It's just hard to measure.

> See above. You may have a large element of truth here. I did not think about
> it like that.

See the "Black Panthers" in the USA.

Funny enough, I think you need to have most of the population thinking that 
that sort of discrimination is reasonable. I don't think we're quite there 
yet in the USA with muslims or those of middle-eastern descent. We're not 
quite there with atheists either. But in some areas, for sure.

> This, to me at least, is being "more free" than

Free as in beer, or free as in speech?

Oh, sorry, wrong topic.

> go and kill blacks because you "could" - if you tried it you'd get arrested
> and processed, and hung (we still had the death penalty then) like any
> other murderer.

Wind back about 150 years in the USA. :-) Slaves were property. Read Huck 
Finn.  "Electric pole fell in the stream."   "Was anyone hurt?"  "No, but a 
couple niggers got killed."  I'm glad the US finally moved away from that 
mindset.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message