The US is becoming Europe (and maybe that's a bad thing) (1 Viewer)

[swag]

Why is this a thread again? :confused2

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Hængebøffer]

Bollocks. It rest on money which is being used through the constitution. We can't build societies purely on law, cause the laws are being manipulated all the time. Look at America after 9/11.

 

[Layce Erayce]

Why is this a thread again? :confused2

A little bit of trolling, a little bit of observational tragedy.

 

[swag]

You'd be better off comparing Trump to a racist Berlusconi.

 

[Layce Erayce]

Intriguing comparison if not for the inexplicable absence of Trump sex scandals. Maybe there's not enough money in the world to make leathery coitus tolerable.

But I have to say I'm not seeing why the dismay at the OP. Maybe I'm slow and I don't see some subtext everyone else is seeing. Maybe my ideological biases don't run the same way as everyone else. But the unhappiness (and the accompanying lack of explanation) is interesting.

Help me out here.

- - - Updated - - -

Bollocks. It rest on money which is being used through the constitution. We can't build societies purely on law, cause the laws are being manipulated all the time. Look at America after 9/11.

What do you mean by "used through the constitution"?

 

[Hængebøffer]

Intriguing comparison if not for the inexplicable absence of Trump sex scandals. Maybe there's not enough money in the world to make leathery coitus tolerable.

But I have to say I'm not seeing why the dismay at the OP. Maybe I'm slow and I don't see some subtext everyone else is seeing. Maybe my ideological biases don't run the same way as everyone else. But the unhappiness (and the accompanying lack of explanation) is interesting.

Help me out here.

- - - Updated - - -



What do you mean by "used through the constitution"?

My English is bad. Constitution(s) can be bend like you want. It doesn't guaranty you anything.

 

[Layce Erayce]

My English is bad. Constitution(s) can be bend like you want. It doesn't guaranty you anything.

I think you're right that it's revisable.

But I think the main intent is for it to be stable. Stable enough as a foundation for the rest of your political organs to operate and develop on. So stability is more important than revisability.

But I think there's a deeper question here: What exactly are our motivations in trying to revise it? Is it merely to prevent deaths? Are we saying humanity is now so degenerate that we cannot be trusted with guns anymore? Have we abandoned the original intents of the framers to preserve a balance between the citizen and her state?

I think these are deeper, more fascinating issues that people on both sides fail to grapple with. These are the more interesting questions, I think, because they uncover the uncomfortable fact that we as a civilization find ourselves untrustworthy.

 

[Seven]

Dude, I think people are weird, when I go outside the city I live in. But I haven't travelled much in The States, so I can't tell. I still think it's retarded to talk about Europe like one country. I know they're different from state to state, over there, but they're still one country. The big difference between Europe and The USA is the view on capitalism and socialism - nothing else. Imo, comparing a Dane to a Spanish person is weider than comparing a New Yorker to a Southern person.

Of course it's retarded. And of course the differences between a Dane and a Spaniard are bigger than the differences between a New Yorker and a southerner.

As for the bolded part, that's why I think Americans see Europe as one country. Because socialism exists everywhere in Europe.

The legal framework of the United States rests on the constitution. The Constitution enshrines the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Why?

The primary motivation was the awareness of oppression and persecution of the people by power in Europe (many settlers came to the United States to escape precisely this). The framers wanted to protect the rights of the citizenry and prevent this from happening again.

Obviously there are more details to fill in, such as the tension between state and federal powers, the influence of English common law, the notion of the free person as more fundamental than the state, etc.

But this is the historical context, so far as I understand it. And for the people of the time, in fact for any group of people who are relatively uniform in motivation and values, they can be trusted with this kind of right.

Unfortunately we live in a different time today. The culture and lifestyle is different. And it's natural to ask whether the assumptions made at the time of adoption really carry over today.

Many people think that the motivations still matter: It's still important to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, that the balance of power between persons and the state needs to be safeguarded, etc. That people need to have the freedom to take on the duty of self-defense if they want to or need to, rather than being dependent, without choice, on the government.

I, and many others, think these motivations are important. However, I also believe these considerations are not the most important. They can be overruled by more pressing issues, one of them being a widespread and pervasive abuse of this right.

/rant

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's a very funny argument when people say that the 2nd amendment safeguards the liberties of the individual towards the State. As if you can buy a handgun and take on the entire USA.

 

[Maddy]

Maybe you just don't live in the United States and have no idea.

Up your game please. Your trolling is weak as hell.

 

[Klin]

Why is this a thread again? :confused2

Because old forum members are somehow worse than the new ones.

 

[Ocelot]

Compared to the US Europeans do think alike on several issues. Also, Americans are truly clueless on this.

Also, in Europe you get to know much more about the US than vice versa, in terms of news, politics, media, movies, franchises....

Just because of the language alone the difference is huge, the vast majority of (young) Europeans speak English at least to some degree, but how many US Americans speak any language other than English (and those with an SA background Spanish)?

 

[Layce Erayce]

Of course it's retarded. And of course the differences between a Dane and a Spaniard are bigger than the differences between a New Yorker and a southerner.

As for the bolded part, that's why I think Americans see Europe as one country. Because socialism exists everywhere in Europe.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's a very funny argument when people say that the 2nd amendment safeguards the liberties of the individual towards the State. As if you can buy a handgun and take on the entire USA.

The goal of the framers is not as unrealistic as "someone buys a handgun and suddenly they can defend the state." Rather, it's a different goal: That a citizenry that is suitably armed, across the board, will not be bullied by the state.

It's still problematic in the way that you describe: Today military tech, and life in general, is too different to realistically implement the spirit of the second amendment, as you rightly notice.

But this is what leaves us with the current debate about how to proceed.

Up your game please. Your trolling is weak as hell.

I acknowledge your antipathy.

But what's the point of merely bleating "troll"? If you don't see anything at all worth discussing, why not move on from the thread?

For the record, I'm interested in what, exactly, you find so problematic about the OP. Are you saying it's absolutely false that the US is becoming like Europe? Are you saying it's absolutely false that this Europeanization is a bad thing? Are you enraged about my ambivalence towards tight jeans?

If, on the off-chance you want to lay down the pitchfork and explain what the issue is, I'm all ears.