I read an interesting article (in Finnish) on someone's opinion about
the basic difference between European governments and the government of
the United States.

  This basic difference is that in Europe the government grants the
citizens rights and freedoms, while in the US it's the other way around:
There it's the citizens who grant the government their rights (to govern
them).

  And this is why they have the second amendment to their constitution:
To ensure that that's the way things will be. In Europe, if the government
goes bad, there's little the citizens can do about it, but in the US the
citizens have the concrete power of keeping the government in check, and
this is the power granted by the second amendment.

  Throughout Europe there has been a trend, during the last years, of
governments passing stricter and stricter laws regarding guns. For example
Belgium recently outlawed all handguns and confiscated (or tried to) all
handguns without any recompensation to their owners. (As an ironic but
at the same time sad result of this, where Belgium previously had about
1 million legal handguns accounted for by officials, who knew who owned
them and where, now Belgium has something like 700 thousand illegal
handguns which officials have no idea where they are, ostensibly making
them much more dangerous than before.)

  In Finland there has been talk about a similar law (and I guess similar
results, as Finland *never* learns from other countries).

  If that kind of law (ie. all handguns illegal, confiscated without
recompensation) was enacted in the US, it would most probably result in a
civil war. The US citizens wouldn't submit to such governmental control,
would deduce that the government has gone bad, and would shoot back.

  Some argue that Europe is in grave danger of becoming a totalitarian
government system because the citizens have no way of keeping governments
in check, and they are passing stricter and stricter laws, restricting
more and more liberties, as time passes. Europeans don't shoot back, but
instead they submit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   If that kind of law (ie. all handguns illegal, confiscated without
> recompensation) was enacted in the US, it would most probably result in a
> civil war.

It just wouldn't get enforced. The federal government has no forces to do 
that other than the military, and a fairly recent poll (like a few years 
ago) asked "would you assist in wide-spread confiscation of firearms from US 
citizens" of the general soldiers and about 70% said they wouldn't.

But yeah, this is the whole "we don't trust our government here" that also 
drives having juries and etc etc etc.

That's why all the arguments here over whether a firearm is appropriate for 
hunting game or something like that are simply smokescreens.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> But yeah, this is the whole "we don't trust our government here" that also 
> drives having juries and etc etc etc.

  You know, sometimes I feel that this kind of sentiment should be more
prevalent in Europe as well. It sometimes seems that European governments
get way too cocky and think they can pass whatever laws they want and
restrict people's freedom in whatever way they want (just not too fast;
people accept changes more easily if they happen slowly) and all citizens
will just submit. Sadly, they are right.

  (Of course not everything is right in the US either. For instance,
a private company suing an individual for 2 million dollars because she
copied a couple dozen of songs, and *winning*, is just wrong. There's
absolutely no sense of proportion between the severity of the crime and the
punishment. It's not *that* bad here, but we are quickly getting there.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:28:15 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It sometimes seems that European governments get way too cocky and think
> they can pass whatever laws they want and restrict people's freedom in
> whatever way they want

Happens in the US as well - that's how something like PATRIOT gets passed.

Governments are owned by corporations - doesn't matter where you are in 
the world.  The golden rule applies - he who has the gold makes the rules.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Of course not everything is right in the US either.

There are way more problems than that here. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

>>   If that kind of law (ie. all handguns illegal, confiscated without
>> recompensation) was enacted in the US, it would most probably result in a
>> civil war.

Except that a couple of dreaming idealists with pistols and shotguns 
aren't going to last 7 seconds against the entire might of the US 
military, the largest army on the face of God's Earth.

Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.

> It just wouldn't get enforced. About 70% said of soldiers
> they wouldn't.

Seems plausible.

> But yeah, this is the whole "we don't trust our government here" that 
> also drives having juries and etc etc etc.

Now, see, if you don't actually trust the government, then you accept 
that you've already lost. The government has so much power that if they 
want to get rid of you, they *will* get rid of you, and there's nothing 
that you as an individual can possibly do about it.

It's like companies who don't trust their sysadmin. Uh, guys, you 
realise that the sysadmin is GOD, right? They can do absolutely 
ANYTHING, and you can't stop them. So you'd *better* make sure they're 
trustworthy before you hire them!

> That's why all the arguments here over whether a firearm is appropriate 
> for hunting game or something like that are simply smokescreens.

Well, I wouldn't want to live on a country where it's legal for any 
random crazy person to own a gun. Not that all gun owners are crazy, you 
understand - just that it only takes one of them to be crazy to cause a 
whole heap of trouble...

Face it, there are already people driving cars which you really wouldn't 
want behind the wheel.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>   If that kind of law (ie. all handguns illegal, confiscated without
> >> recompensation) was enacted in the US, it would most probably result in a
> >> civil war.

> Except that a couple of dreaming idealists with pistols and shotguns 
> aren't going to last 7 seconds against the entire might of the US 
> military, the largest army on the face of God's Earth.

  Yeah, sure. The US Army is going to attack its own country and its own
citizens, especially at a large scale, resulting in thousands and thousands
of casualties, millions and millions in property damage and a full-fledged
civil war, plummeting the economy of the country so low that the current
crisis is paradise in comparison. I don't think so.

> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.

  There is. They can shoot back.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>>   If that kind of law (ie. all handguns illegal, confiscated without
>>>> recompensation) was enacted in the US, it would most probably result in a
>>>> civil war.
> 
>> Except that a couple of dreaming idealists with pistols and shotguns 
>> aren't going to last 7 seconds against the entire might of the US 
>> military, the largest army on the face of God's Earth.
> 
>   Yeah, sure. The US Army is going to attack its own country and its own
> citizens, especially at a large scale, resulting in thousands and thousands
> of casualties, millions and millions in property damage and a full-fledged
> civil war, plummeting the economy of the country so low that the current
> crisis is paradise in comparison. I don't think so.

The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
rest will just quietly accept it. Half a dozen zeolots are not difficult 
to control when you have a huge army at your disposal.

>> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
>> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
>> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.
> 
>   There is. They can shoot back.

Oh, sure, like that's *really* going to work.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
> rest will just quietly accept it.

  Clearly you aren't an American.

> >> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
> >> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
> >> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.
> > 
> >   There is. They can shoot back.

> Oh, sure, like that's *really* going to work.

  Civil wars erupt even if "it's not *really* going to work" all the time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
>> rest will just quietly accept it.
> 
>   Clearly you aren't an American.

You noticed. :-)

>   Civil wars erupt even if "it's not *really* going to work" all the time.

I am unconvinced that

1. There will be a cival war if the government does something the people 
don't like.

2. Not having guns makes it impossible to force the government to change 
its policy.

This whole idea that "without guns the government will enslave the 
people, but as long as people carry guns the government can be held in 
check" seems utterly ridiculous to me.

Post a reply to this message