07-23-2018, 10:25 PM
(07-23-2018, 12:08 PM)hollodero Wrote:that's clever put.
Just for the record, no direct knowledge of French law, but it's not impossible at all for civilians to own guns here. It just is a way longer process. But Austria recently even had a highly relevant presidential candidate who carried a Glock around.
Thank you.
True, I don't know the exact extent of the firearms laws in France. I can safely say they are far more restrictive than those in even CA.Quote:I can see the logic in that, it must be noted though that this freedom does come with a downside. That's not a spin, that's just as true as it is with traffic.
Oh, absolutely. This is true of all freedoms to some extent. The right to free speech which we enjoy in the US and does not exist in the same fashion in Europe, is ripe for abuse. The freedom of religion enables horrible people like the Westboro Baptists. The freedom of assembly enables them to annoy and borderline harass people, and this is in no way restricted to them.
Quote:On the other hand, understand the Europeans, we grew up with the knowledge that a) a gun is deadly and meant to be and and b) a society is safer if common people don't have those deadly things. And from everything we see and witness (and have statistics on), this seems to be the correct take. Our downside of course being taking a calculated risk to fall victim. Calculated as in very small chance.
Yes, you are unlikely to be a victim. You are even less likely to be in a position to use your firearm if you are one. Self defense is just one facet of the 2A though. It exists as the Framers also had a healthy fear of a well armed central government and its ability to oppress our citizenry. Regardless, having some chance to defend yourself instead of none is far more preferable to me.
Quote:In my case, the calculation is helped that I'm qute clumsy at times and probably would hurt myself or shoot an innocent, were I ever to defend myself with a gun in an obvious high-stress situation. I'd rather be defenseless than risking that. Which is a bit of the point, if at least people who have guns can show that they're properly trained, like when they are using their freedom to drive a car, then we could see some reason in all that. But without these things in place, with basically everyone being able to buy self-defense weapons of all sorts and calibers, Europeans can't help but think you're taking a crazy road here. And paying a yearly toll of human life for it.
Except the vast majority of firearms related homicide are criminals killing other criminals. This is, of course, no solace at all to the victims of gun related crime that aren't, themselves, criminals. Again, it is a trade off. I turn a very jaundiced eye towards any attempts to restrict the freedoms of law abiding adults, especially when such freedoms are enshrined in our country's founding document.
Which takes nothing away from your argument, and I additionally know there's an amendment in place. One I find an outdated absurdity, like laws from around 1800 often are, but that doesn't mean I could really argue with an amendment.[/quote]
I must respectfully disagree. I think the intent behind the 2A is just as, if not more, relevant now than when the Bill of Rights was written. The government's ability to control or monitor every facet of a citizen's life is far more extensive now than in 1789. I find it oddly contradictory that when the Patriot Act was passed many left leaning types, including myself, felt it was an overreach. Many quoted Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." However, when it comes to gun rights that quote seems to fall out of favor. I've seen gun control activists state, "If it saves just one life it is worth it". Sorry, but no.
