[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

With respect badaim, i'd disagree it's giving up a freedom for security, more surrenderibg a priviledge and a responsibility that can, in a small number of cases, be abused with horrible consequences. I doubt many would phrase narcotics prohibition with a curtailment of freedom, which could be taken as a parallel.

Technically it is. Holland must have got it awfully wrong otherwise. The day they'll manage to tax drugs, you'd be able to get em from your corner shop, just like booze and cigarettes.

[quote]
You quoted me, so seems you were talking to me. You also clearly implied I did not exercise my right to vote.
[quote]
No, it's Winny that doesn't vote, not you.

And no, I don't think someone who either doesn't vote, or who votes without making an informed decision, is a responsible citizen. All laws obly offer an illusion of safety, it's only if people adhere to them that they are truly effective. I find your implied intention to only arm the employed and those living in "safe" areas rather disturbing though, and ironically extremely fascistic. One law for the rich much? Preventing gun ownership on economic terms would represent a horrific curtailment of the principles of equality that this country tries to live by. This delusion that the country is more dangerous and violent ignores crime statistics, or only reads them without also understanding the much improved level of reporting crime. Sounds very Daily "going to hell in a handcart" Mail.

Fascist? Seriously? If you obey the law and conduct a respectable life, why should you be considered a fascist if you want to defend what you have? We all have a potential, it's all about what we can do with it. Some people are successful, some aren't, but some important choices are the key to our life achievements. I know plenty of respectable workers who live in difficult areas and they would have the same rights to bear arms like any other in my ideal society.

I think it really depends in the area you live man. I don't perceive my neck of the woods as an utterly safe one, I had a conversation with a police constable not so long ago on our local square, he said "yes, unfortunately this is not a safe area and we can't guarantee 100% cover". The introduction of CCTV systems for many was the solution, cos nobody with a sane brain would ever commit a crime and get recorded. Truth is that even that system (which is not pro-active anyway, but just a way to gather evidence), will do little as a deterrent for many (see what happened with the riots).

The rioting stopped because all police leave was cancelled and they flooded the streets, not because the country had been stripped bare. Not a fast enough response, but that's not bei.g debated. Are greek and french police forces routinely armed? How about their riot handling ability?

it's still not acceptable for a country and a city under constant terrorist threat (don't forget we're involved in war against a terrorist organisation). Again, many many people were dramatically affected by the riots, it wasn't just a case of shops being looted: people have lost their houses and belongings, some died, it's no light matter that can be dismissed like that.

As for the Greek and French, they're different cases altogether. What happened in Greece was a political issue, not a case of scumbags who realise that they can go and steal cos the police is doing nothing to stop them.
What happened in France is the result of a deep unresolved racial issue.

Oh, and I find the idea of a corrupt uk government amusing when cited by an italian.

I never said that the UK government is corrupt, it surely isn't more than the average countries, and that's what I like about it, there are some cases, but it's petty stuff compared to other countries.

Italy's government is a bloody shambles, that goes without saying, and it's one of the reasons why I don't miss living in my country of origin that much.