if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Give ‘Em an Inch..
by
And they take all of your rights away. This just in, SCOTUS looking to take guns case.
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital’s 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
“I wouldn’t be confident on either side,” said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
Here we go, folks....
Comments
I’m certain “National Guard” is what the founding fathers REALLY meant when they said “a well-regulated militia”.
Yeah, I think they actually meant what they wrote and nothing more.
because I’m certain “National Guard” is what the founding fathers REALLY meant when they said “a well-regulated militia”.
Is there anything to suggest that they meant individual being able to buy hand guns? If so, what does “well-regulated” mean?
The problem is that things like rocket launchers, grendades and tanks would be far more useful for a well-regulated militia, hand guns arn’t going to be much use against the federal government.
Supreme Court you are not the fuckin’ Supreme Court of anything - except HELL
Is there anything to suggest that they meant individual being able to buy hand guns?
Go check out the Federalist Papers - the answer is a giant YES!
Is there anything to suggest that they meant individual being able to buy hand guns? If so, what does “well-regulated” mean?
What’s it to you, Pip?
It’s such a clear infringement that I can’t believe it took this long to do something about it. I’m sure that a few other questions about the case will cause hangups. How does DC’s lack of statehood affect its use of federal law? Does DC act more like a state than just a city ordinarily would?
What is with you people saying firearms will do little against the federal goverenment. Obviously the most important reason for individual ownership of firearms was to prevent government tyranny. Blather on all you want about the Military superiority over the average citizen. Do you honestly believe a military of less then 2 million could put down an armed revolt of say 40-50 million people. Just examine the vietcong, poorly trained farmers killed tens of thousands of our soldiers with small arms and homeade explosives.
Is there anything to suggest that they meant individual being able to buy hand guns? If so, what does “well-regulated” mean?
Oh, they absolutely did.
The problem is that things like rocket launchers, grendades and tanks would be far more useful for a well-regulated militia, hand guns arn’t going to be much use against the federal government.
That’s a curiously moronic statement from a person who cheers Islamic terror. Look at the tactical problems created by an insurgency, and that’s regular firearms and “improvised” expolisive devices.
Also, bear in mind that the military would essentially be turning on it’s own families (that are armed) to usurp power. I think that the forefathers meant something in the stalemate that is created.
It might be as unsubstantiated as the definition of a ‘firearm’ but if you enact a scenario of a military take over, if all are armed it puts a severe cap on what it would take to accomplish the task.
Is there anything to suggest that they meant individual being able to buy hand guns? If so, what does “well-regulated” mean?
It means - quite simply - “a group of people who practice frequently.”
er ... that should read “a group of CITIZENS who practice frequently.”
also - the the comment re: rocket-launchers, etc. The theory here is that the people should be on equal-footing with the government-run military at ALL times. The whole point is to keep the government entity in fear of the populace. A government that does not fear its people has no problem unleashing the military on the citizenry when the people don’t toe the party line. If that day ever came - and our government became a totalitarian dictatorship in dire need of overthrowing, I’d much rather be armed with military-grade stuff than my current arsenal.
Man, it’s fun to watch you people froth…
Even the Supreme Court is pragmatic enough to not attempt to take away the firearms from the citizenry.
There will be a lot of bluster and blather, but no sane person can believe that the Court will rule against personal firearm ownership.
The idea that private ownership may not be expilicitly named in the Constitution and therefore, should be outlawed, is bunk. Neither cars nor ladders are mentioned, yet both are legal and are involved in the deaths of citizens each year. A lack of explicit mention in the document does not on it’s face make something unconstitutional.
Actually, the interpretation I’ve read is that the well-regulated militia does, in fact, refer to the army and the second phrase is a response. An annoted version might read:
Because protecting the United States will require the existence of a standing army, the people must always have the right to have weapons of their own.
No, Hal, according to US Law:
10 USC Sec. 311:
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 year of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [32 USC sec. 313], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
The debate over gun ownership has been won by our side for awhile now. No Democrat in a national election would dare run on a strict gun control platform.
The real issue has to do with the types of firearms. Courts have consistently ruled that the government can regulate machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and the Supremes will have to defer to those precedents. That means that they could uphold a ban on handguns because they have limited military application and are most usable for crime.
Nonetheless, even if we lose this case; it could be a blessing for Republicans. All of the national candidates would be scrambling to get a pro-gun position and promise to pass laws that defend the 2nd Amendment. Conservative voters would be reminded of the importance of a right-leaning Supreme Court and this would solidify oppostion to the Democrats. Even if this goes badly, conservatives could still gain from it.
That said, I think that the Supreme Court will uphold the DC handgun ban based on the precedents I mentioned above with sawed-off shotguns. This will appear bad on the face of it but it will force Democrats to define their position on the gun control debate. They always lose when they do.
Thrill, I started reading “The Turner Diaries” on your recommendation. Whats interesting is that their revolution was predicated on “The Cohen Act” which outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States,......timely.
Nonetheless, even if we lose this case; it could be a blessing for Republicans. All of the national candidates would be scrambling to get a pro-gun position and promise to pass laws that defend the 2nd Amendment. Conservative voters would be reminded of the importance of a right-leaning Supreme Court and this would solidify oppostion to the Democrats. Even if this goes badly, conservatives could still gain from it.
Totally agree that. the best possible solution to this (hopeless) future democratic presidence is to preserve the other branches of the government. You keep the convservatives in and issues like gun control can only be tampered with so much.
Even the Finland school shooting should be (yet another) reason why prohibition is not the answer to societal woes.
We can not legislate our individual freedoms based on those who would intend to abuse it anyway.
As for fully automatic rifles, I couldn’t put a finger on it, as to how I would decide. I really think it shouldn’t be tampered with, in general. However, these weapons have made law enforcement an issue in some cases.
I wold stand on the side of STRICTLY enforcing the regulations to obtain and own these weapons. Maybe a more strict way to keep track of the hands these guns go through.
The idea that private ownership may not be expilicitly named in the Constitution and therefore, should be outlawed, is bunk. Neither cars nor ladders are mentioned, yet both are legal and are involved in the deaths of citizens each year. A lack of explicit mention in the document does not on it’s face make something unconstitutional.
Yes, but istn’t the point that the states can then decide what is legal and what is not, but here we have a case where the supreme court is going to try and override a state (I realise it’s not a state and that confuses things) based on the constitution.
It seems to be both sides of these sorts of things try and find things in the constitution that don’t exist, there is clearly no right to an abortion in the constitution and it dosen’t seem to me there is a right to personal firearm ownership. In both cases, why not just let the states decide?
I started reading “The Turner Diaries” on your recommendation.
Once you hack through some of the outright stupidity of the book, such as every black man is a thug, every Jew is a villain, and the Equal Rights Amendment passed resulting in rape being considered a virtual misdemeanor; you see it for what it is. It’s a blueprint for waging a successful insurgency in the US. The author was prescient in several places: the use of truck bombs in government buildings, the use of a suicide aircraft attack against the Pentagon, the government creating a national ID card system in response to terrorism, and the militarization of law enforcement. Hell, McVeigh was arrested with a copy of this book in his car.
Many of the tactics used in the book are also typical of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq: sniper attacks, assassination of sherrifs and judges, mortar attacks against meetings of government officials (the Capitol), improvised explosives, converting members of the military,
and such. This, combined with seeing what white supremacists really want to accomplish, is what makes the book so frightening.
lol @ The Turner Diaries.
I read that awhile ago. The admirable and cunning tactics for revolution aside, it’s really just angsty neo-nazi fan fiction from a literary standpoint.
But I do believe that there probably would be some kind of violent backlash if the government really did enact a law to seriously take away our guns.
ManWhore, thank you for posting this story.
Padders, i dont expect you to understand, after all you are a Subject of the Queen, and not a Citizen.
Here it is in a nutshell, the right to keep arms is meant to give citizens the right to have weapons of military useful value. THAT is Weapons that would be used by Military forces. Swords, Handguns, rifles, cannon, and the such.
Well regulated, ... dear god, today when people hear that they think of laws and regulations. The meaning of the term was different back in the day.
Regulated back then had more to do with the training and proper use of firearms, in a military function, such as sniping and squad volley firing.
After the end of the revolution the Military was pared down to a skeleton force, and relied HEAVILY on volunteer militias to form in the time of need…
This worked in various levels of success up till the Spanish America War, Which one of my great-great-great grandfathers.. served in, we have his Krag.
the 2nd amendment is not about hunting bambi, its about hunting politicians, and it states the right of citizens to bear the arms that would be necessary for such a purpose.
Down here in San Diego, they’ve passed a “trial” alcohol ban on beaches. Of course it’s for “public safety” and all that.
Yet another case of removing people’s rights because a select few don’t follow the rules that already exist. Of course I’m just positive they’ll wake up and follow this one for some reason.
Thread on this in an internal chat list at work today and it amazes me how many people actually think it’s a good idea and don’t see the overall implications. At least one person who likes it is a friend that thinks gun control laws are bad.. and doesn’t see the obvious parallels of punishing those that follow the laws, and likely having no effect on the few that cause the problems anyway.
There will be a lot of bluster and blather, but no sane person can believe that the Court will rule against personal firearm ownership.
I don’t think any sane person ever thought they would stretch the meaning of public good to that used in Kelo and vote that way either.
It’s only insane until it happens and becomes normal.
That means that they could uphold a ban on handguns because they have limited military application and are most usable for crime.
That makes no sense.
If that were the thinking, all kinds of machine guns and “assault rifles” would have to be legal simply because they DO have more use to the military then handguns.
It seems to be both sides of these sorts of things try and find things in the constitution that don’t exist, there is clearly no right to an abortion in the constitution and it dosen’t seem to me there is a right to personal firearm ownership. In both cases, why not just let the states decide?
Oh, I believe what was written was kept a little loose in order to account for zeitgeist, and political current of the day.
I would imagine if America found herself attacked there would be a resurgence in popularity of people to want this right. I can garuantee it. However, what the founding forefathers probably intended was for these rules to remain alive in the public conscience forever. In the abscence of an enemy to fight, the government can REALLY become an enemy fast. To what limits we protect oursleves from it, is a great debate to have.
I know it’s an alien concept to the English at this point, but our society asn’t had a long history of stability with something that works as a form of government. What keeps all parties on thier toes are some of these ideas.
We are an experiemnt on a way to run as civil as the English, but with more personal freedom, and less taxation essentially.
ManWhore, thank you for posting this story.
you’re welcome. It’s a fascinating debate, and one that touches almost every aspect of what it is to be an American.
But I do believe that there probably would be some kind of violent backlash if the government really did enact a law to seriously take away our guns.
maybe not…
they just come to your home when you are away at the IRS tax audit…
Down here in San Diego, they’ve passed a “trial” alcohol ban on beaches. Of course it’s for “public safety” and all that.
Yet another case of removing people’s rights because a select few don’t follow the rules that already exist. Of course I’m just positive they’ll wake up and follow this one for some reason.
It’s the same in Hawaii, used to be so annoying when I lived there. Generally if you had it in a non alcoholic looking container the cops would ignore you, but otherwise cops would honestly walk along the sand to groups of people minding their own buisness and either empty out alcohol or even arrest them. Whole thing was so pointless.
I know it’s an alien concept to the English at this point, but our society asn’t had a long history of stability with something that works as a form of government. What keeps all parties on thier toes are some of these ideas.
You are right, it is an alien concept to us; yet intellectually I completly understand it. The biggest threat to us really is our government, but for some reason it just dosen’t seem a threat here at all. I don’t know why that is, perhaps longer history or maybe just the expectation that the English wouldn’t put up with certain things for long, I don’t know. At the same time we are already seeing gradual erodement of civil liberties from longer detentions without trial, the explosion of CCTV etc, so are we really as safe from government as we feel; it’s a good question. New technology is giving government a much much stronger ability to control the lives of its citizens, but at the same time I wonder how bad things would really have to go for a violent revolution of a democratic government to take hold.
Someone talked about 30 million armed people fighting against a government/army of 2 million. I wonder, if it goes to the point that 30 million pick up their guns - would they even need to be armed; it seemed like a peaceful protest of that nature would being down a government.
Someone talked about 30 million armed people fighting against a government/army of 2 million. I wonder, if it goes to the point that 30 million pick up their guns - would they even need to be armed; it seemed like a peaceful protest of that nature would being down a government.
that is assuming the other side is peaceful too, and all those guns would MAKE the government sit up and listen.
A number of yeas ago during the mui
Add to this that out of the 30 or 40 million gun owners there is about 5 to 9 million that would qualify sniper.
Imagine civil war with a few million snipers shooting it out.
Neil Boortz chimes in…
THE SUPREMES AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
It’s looking like the Supreme Court is going to take the case of the DC gun ban. For 70 years the court has had little to say about the Second Amendment, but when an appeals court overturned DC’s gun ban, the stage was set. The issue will be whether the Second Amendment actually does protect an individual’s right to own a gun. Opponents of private gun ownership have been trying to sell this idea that the Second Amendment actually protects state’s rights, not the rights of individuals.
It’s interesting to note that most of the people who push this idea that the Second Amendment protects the state’s right to form a militia are people who are steadfastly opposed to the concept of state’s rights ... except in this one instance.
If the Supreme Court sides with the left on this argument then it will have ruled that nine out of ten of the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights were written to protect the rights of individuals, while one, the second, was written to protect the rights of government. That’s a hard argument to swallow.
you know its interesting the left tends to claim the 2nd is a collective right of the government.. while all teh rest of the amendment’s are for the people....
Someone talked about 30 million armed people fighting against a government/army of 2 million. I wonder, if it goes to the point that 30 million pick up their guns - would they even need to be armed; it seemed like a peaceful protest of that nature would being down a government.
No matter how many numbers you can create for your argument padders, my point is still there. In essence the United States Military thinks it has problems now, I’d imagine it would have a REAL problem controlling an armed Los Angeles. In that city alone, there are 10,000,000 people potentially armed before we can even begin to talk about language, cultural, religious factions that would be created.
All of this is held together by a citizenry with the right to defend itself from a rogue government.
I don’t know why that is, perhaps longer history or maybe just the expectation that the English wouldn’t put up with certain things for long, I don’t know. At the same time we are already seeing gradual erodement of civil liberties from longer detentions without trial, the explosion of CCTV etc, so are we really as safe from government as we feel; it’s a good question. New technology is giving government a much much stronger ability to control the lives of its citizens, but at the same time I wonder how bad things would really have to go for a violent revolution of a democratic government to take hold.
Yes, it is a curious thing to ponder from the English perspective, but I don’t think really it has remained that peaceful for that long because of relative peace in the UK.
The UK citizen is also pretty free to leave at thier own whim and many are. So, the statement that the average English would casually protest things they don’t like doesn’t really work for me. Again, I am not English. Many people seem to find it not so insane to live there the way it is now.
However, as the commonwealth deteriorates, and busniess opportunities/living abroad opportunities dry up people will (mark my words) become frustrated with the intrusions of the government into thier lives.
the UK is an experiment in and of itself, as of late. Can you maintain the conglomerate with the EU, the Pound, and the commonwealth all intact?
A small sidebar, but I think what I’ve been seeing over there is a gradual softening of the public conscience to ready its people for EU takeover. And the EU (to me) is about as totalitarian as it can get as it pertains to free will governance. Like communism, it was a great idea.
All of this, and you can’t even willfully purchase something like a gun. It would never end. Soon it would be a pair of scissors. The European quest to never have to re-live WW2 will see it going right back there. The motivations to fight are political/religious/fiscal, and the vehicle is a weapon.
you can’t attack the vehicle without a driver inside. you can, but you’d merely be vandalizing. Same as with the Second Amendment.
No matter how many numbers you can create for your argument padders, my point is still there. In essence the United States Military thinks it has problems now, I’d imagine it would have a REAL problem controlling an armed Los Angeles. In that city alone, there are 10,000,000 people potentially armed before we can even begin to talk about language, cultural, religious factions that would be created.
I do see the point, I still wonder if it would make a difference. I wonder, has there ever been an overthrow of a democratic government by a dictator whereby that dictator was then removed from government by a violent uprising of the popuplation, in recent history? I honestly don’t know, but I can think of plenty non violent examples and also dictators living in countries where there are lots of guns e.g. Iraq and Venezula (although I certainly wouldn’t count the later a dictatorship - yet).
So while I do accept the argument that you need to be armed to prevent government controlling you, I actually wonder if it is really necessary and if peaceful protest wouldn’t work just as well. Of course, the military can kill peaceful protestors but they can also kill non peaceful ones so that istn’t a defining difference.
I think as someone said above as well, if anything Iraq has shown us that weapons can be *made* if it became necessary. Bombs are going to be more useful than guns against an out of control army and it dosen’t take much information to make a bomb.
A small sidebar, but I think what I’ve been seeing over there is a gradual softening of the public conscience to ready its people for EU takeover. And the EU (to me) is about as totalitarian as it can get as it pertains to free will governance. Like communism, it was a great idea.
You find the EU totalitarian? I can’t understand that, it is massivly less controlling than your federal government and covers only a few more people. Yes - it is not as democratic but then if I am honest I don’t find the election of a single president to be very democratic - it appears only a tiny percentage of your population have any actual say in what is going to happen if they happen to live in swing states.
Either way, the EU is important for both ecnomic reasons but more importantly to prevent wars. Europe is very different to America full of a lot of very old civilisations and as we have seen during the last century - not always peaceful ones. The EU effectivly makes war impossbile and to me this is the most important success. Added to this are simple liberties we have got like the freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU - this is a huge freedom, I can go and work in Madrid tomorrow if I want, this is something my parents couldn’t just do. Combine that with the massive positive impact immigration has had on the UK and most is good to me. There are certainly some issues with the EU (as I mentioned the democratic defecit, CAP etc) but the good far far outweighs the bad.
You find the EU totalitarian? I can’t understand that, it is massivly less controlling than your federal government and covers only a few more people. Yes - it is not as democratic but then if I am honest I don’t find the election of a single president to be very democratic - it appears only a tiny percentage of your population have any actual say in what is going to happen if they happen to live in swing states.
Just wait until you have the discussion of a ‘national’ language. You’ll see France’s true colors then. Even Sweden has prepared herself to be independent (agricultturally-economically) within the construct of the EU. I’d say the experiment won’t last long, and the squabbling that results could lead to war, moreso than sharing commerce with each other.
I disagree with padders - I don’t really think the EU is worth the £300 per second it reputedly costs us for the couple of clear benefits of freedom of movement and being able to use the embassy of another member state if there isn’t a British one about.
Actually, that embassy benefit in particular caused a bit of a stir recently. If you’ve ever seen the inside cover of a British passport, there’s a long spiel which stops just short of threatening to send a gunboat if there’s any trouble. The EU are trying to get that changed to an excerpt from the deliberately incomprehensible Constitution treaty.
However, I also think Manwhore goes too far. There is virtually no more chance of another European war than there is of another one between American states. Even the Greeks and the Turks have largely chilled out.
However, I also think Manwhore goes too far. There is virtually no more chance of another European war than there is of another one between American states. Even the Greeks and the Turks have largely chilled out.
Tsk, tsk, Patrick. Wasn’t the last big war in Europe caused by a Treaty neither party was willing to REALLY agree to?
I fail to see how an idealistic Frenchmen can re-write history with a super-power bid.
Wasn’t the last big war in Europe caused by a Treaty neither party was willing to REALLY agree to?
I’m afraid I don’t follow. Are you talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop?
I’m afraid I don’t follow. Are you talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop?
I don’t quite follow you there. I was referencing a war between European nations, isn’t yours the cold war?
I was talking Treaty of Versailles that set Hitler to work on his Blitzkrieg, Luffwaffe, and U boat strategies.
isn’t yours the cold war?
No, it was the (quickly broken) non-agression pact between Nazi Germany and the USSR.
I was talking Treaty of Versailles
Ah, ok. Yes, you’re absolutely right, it didn’t suit the Germans terribly well, and the national humiliation probably played a large part in them rebelling against its terms. The EU constitution may be unloved, unwanted and poorly-written, but it’s not a humiliation, nor is it imposed on any nation from without.
I’m afraid I don’t think it’s comparible to Versailles at all…
EU constitution may be unloved, unwanted and poorly-written, but it’s not a humiliation, nor is it imposed on any nation from without.
I’d say the Franco German alliance imposes it’s will quite a bit.
I’d say the Franco German alliance imposes it’s will quite a bit.
Perhaps. But when they do it against the will of Her Majesty’s Government, how ever misguided it may be, take away our overseas possessions, and limit our armed forces to a kite and a rowing boat, then you might have a comparison.
However, I also think Manwhore goes too far. There is virtually no more chance of another European war than there is of another one between American states. Even the Greeks and the Turks have largely chilled out.
uhm, i hate to burst your bubble, but somewhere in the next 25 to 35 years there will be a another war between the states…
and im sure Europe too, will find a good excuse to begin slaughtering each other like days of old.
Where Maxim when you need him?
Posted by Patrick on 11/13/07 at 06:54 PM from United Kingdom
I’d say the Franco German alliance imposes it’s will quite a bit.
Perhaps. But when they do it against the will of Her Majesty’s Government, how ever misguided it may be, take away our overseas possessions, and limit our armed forces to a kite and a rowing boat, then you might have a comparison.
hmm,. considering how fast e military budget is decreasing in the UK, a Rowboat maybe out fo the question.. and that Kite will have to be shared between the RAF and the Royal Navy,
uhm, i hate to burst your bubble, but somewhere in the next 25 to 35 years there will be a another war between the states
Why do you think that Harley? What causes of tension do you see?
considering how fast e military budget is decreasing in the UK,
It was for a long time, but there’s been a 10% hike over the past three years, so we mightn’t be at the kite stage just yet.
tensions, everything from leftwing socialism, Right wing religious nuttery, immigration, Big Brother Government, and possable economic troubles, racial tensions.
gun control laws, people control laws, ......
I think that its all gonna roll in one big ball....of BIG government control, ones state or anoteh will try to pull free, and down that road we go.
As for Europe, pretty much ths same thing, but i have been hearing that a lot of minor nationalist partys are growing, and Im willing to bet that eastren Europe is not gonna be thrilled with what The FrancoGerman union, has in store for them.
GOD i hope im wrong.... but given the track record of human activities…
If a civil war were to occur (and that’s a big “if"), I would attribute it to the following trends:
1. Increasingly divided opinion on such topics such as abortion, civil rights, and eminent domain. People are very emotional about these issues and it doesn’t help that courts are making all of these decisions instead of letting the democratic process work. This is very frustrating for many citizens.
2. Increased bitter partisanship and suspicion between the parties.
3. An increased perception that there is general lawlessness. The crime rate is still lower than it was twenty years ago but people still don’t feel that it’s safe. If you don’t believe me, just look at the parent’s who walk their children to the bus stop in nice neighborhoods and watch the kids until they get on the bus. When I was in elementary school, I walked almost a mile to school and back. That’s fairly uncommon today.
4. The most critical one: a distrust of the voting system. The claims of stolen elections, fraudulent voters, malfunctioning voting machines, and the like seem to be on the rise. This is probably just the product of a 50/50 split in the electorate but I consider this to be the most troubling for our future.
5. Ever-increasing distrust of the federal government. This is usually a good thing, in my opinion, but you have to wonder how far people are willing to go when they feel their rights are being threatened. The 90’s gave us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and OKC. The ideas that influenced those events haven’t disappeared but they are dormant. What would it take to start it again? What spark?
6. The increased perception of a growing gap between rich and poor. I’m not convinced it’s true but this is often a huge factor in civil unrest throughout history.
I hope you are wrong, Harley, but there are many signs showing that you’re not. The one thing I do think you’re wrong about is that it won’t be a “war between the states” but a true civil war between neighbors of different idealogies. It will be closer to “Bloody Kansas” than Bull Run.
Just wait until you have the discussion of a ‘national’ language. You’ll see France’s true colors then. Even Sweden has prepared herself to be independent (agricultturally-economically) within the construct of the EU. I’d say the experiment won’t last long, and the squabbling that results could lead to war, moreso than sharing commerce with each other.
Huh, national language? No one wants that, why would it ever be an issue. Some people tried with esperanto, it was a complete failure.
Squabbling over want leading to war? Incredibly unlikely. You are going to need to come up with something better than this manhore for your dislike of the EU.
I disagree with padders - I don’t really think the EU is worth the £300 per second it reputedly costs us for the couple of clear benefits of freedom of movement and being able to use the embassy of another member state if there isn’t a British one about.
Come on, there are a lot of other benefits to the EU than that. It may cost £300 per second (i have no idea), but it generates massivly more than that in terms of trade, toursim etc.
Either way, as I said earlier £300/second is a tiny price to pay to prevent further wars.
I’d say the Franco German alliance imposes it’s will quite a bit.
Anybody can pull out of the EU when ever they want. Some countries have decided not to join. It’s not imposed like Versailles which was “we won, you loose, you now owe us”.
Compare and contrast Versailles with what happened after WW2 with both Germany and Japan. Lesson learnt I think.
Come on, there are a lot of other benefits to the EU than that.
Oh, I know. But I just don’t like the way it’s a one-way street to a superstate. Look at all the talk of common arrest warrants, for example. We now all know the weapons-grade incompetence of the Portuguese police, but if they were decide they wanted me in connection with something, without even prima facie evidence, they could have me hauled off to Portugal in a trice. There might be trade benefits, but to me it’s simply not worth it.
Compare and contrast Versailles with what happened after WW2 with both Germany and Japan.
I agree, but I’ve always thought the territorial losses inflicted on Germany after the second war were much harder than after the first. Prussia was really their heartland, and they lost pretty much all of it, and Silesia and Pomerania too.
Squabbling over want leading to war? Incredibly unlikely. You are going to need to come up with something better than this manhore for your dislike of the EU.
I don’t really think I need to. The EU is a dismal failure, in part, because of the reason europe can never really be unified. Each nation is sovreign, and most have unique languages and cultures that they are unwilling to let go of for the promise of a unified-economically prosperous EU.
It’s a failure, and won’t ever work. There isn’t really even a constitution. I understand Europeans value thier longevity, but someone needs to move before Europe is economically irrelevant.
By Europe, I mean the mainland btw...:-)
you boys on that cold, gray island seem to hold your own very well. Much like your history have proven you to do.
;-)
Oh, I know. But I just don’t like the way it’s a one-way street to a superstate. Look at all the talk of common arrest warrants, for example. We now all know the weapons-grade incompetence of the Portuguese police, but if they were decide they wanted me in connection with something, without even prima facie evidence, they could have me hauled off to Portugal in a trice. There might be trade benefits, but to me it’s simply not worth it.
Yeah, I am not suggesting everything is good at all but we need to deal with those invididually as opposed to just throwing the baby out with the dish water. I havn’t read too much about common arrest warrants, but realistically the person to be arrested would have to have been in Portugal would they not? Personally I think it is right, say, the Portugese wanted to arrest the McCannes again that they should be able to. I’d put the disaster that case has become as much down to the media as anything else though.
I don’t really think I need to. The EU is a dismal failure, in part, because of the reason europe can never really be unified.
You saying the EU is a dismal failure does not make it so. You have to give an actual argument as to why it is a failure. And what do you mean by europe can never be unified? We don’t want to be unified like the United States, that is not and never has been the idea of the EU so of course it’s a failure in your mind if you think we are trying to copy your type of federalism. Fortunatly we are not, no one here wants federalism (or the almost complete lack of it) that you have.
Each nation is sovreign, and most have unique languages and cultures that they are unwilling to let go of for the promise of a unified-economically prosperous EU.
Why do you keep on going on about languages? How is the EU a threat to any language? There are of course different cultures in the EU but I see absolutly no problem with this. The EU dosen’t make it illegal for Germans to eat sausages or the British to drink tea. There are pretty different cultures across the US as well (compare a rancher in Texas to someone living in Manhattan) but you still seem to manage a system of federalism where power is much further removed from the individual than the EU ever intends.
It’s a failure, and won’t ever work. There isn’t really even a constitution. I understand Europeans value thier longevity, but someone needs to move before Europe is economically irrelevant.
There istn’t a constitution because voters rejected it and told the politicians to have another go. However this is a fair criticism of the EU because the politicians are essentially sticking a referndum in via the back door and the new document should be up for national referndum as well. There are some good reasons for not doing this but not enough - it should be subject to popular vote. Still, we are not looking for a constitution like the US; again this is just not how EU states are run. If you are looking for a US style constitution you are not going to see one.
By Europe, I mean the mainland btw...:-)
you boys on that cold, gray island seem to hold your own very well. Much like your history have proven you to do.
;-)
But we are as much a part of the EU as everyone else with only some minor expcetions; we are under the same rules and regulations and continue to exist how we want. There is of course some loss of soverignity - for example, European courts can, in some situations, overrule British ones - but the cases are few and far between. If you think we are doing ok, why do you think Bulgaria or Spain or Germany or whoever have problems with the EU.
Just as a general humanist issue, the benefits of the EU to our neighbours in Eastern Europe have been astronomical. Just look how many Eastern European countries have overtaken Mexico since joining the EU (GDP/head). This goes hand in hand with the war/security issue - improving the economic lot of our neigbours can only be a good thing and the EU is doing that amazingly well - while benefitting us as well.
"baby out with the dish water”
well that was one crazy mixed methaphor. Bath water ....
but realistically the person to be arrested would have to have been in Portugal would they not?
I don’t think so… you could perhaps use your absence as an alibi at any subsequent case, but I don’t think it would prevent you from having to answer. I’m not sure though…
power is much further removed from the individual than the EU ever intends
I disagree here - the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected failures, put out to pasture in Brussels because the Government believes they can do less damage there than they would otherwise achieve in Whitehall. Neil Kinnock - representing the UK in Europe until three years ago despite the fact he last ran for elected office (and lost) in 1992. The Constitution debacle - never mind that it was voted down, the EU just asks again, and no doubt again, until the people get it right. Of course, a better solution is to avoid asking altogether, as d’Estaing noted when he suggested a vote in the UK was a bad idea because the result was “uncertain to say the least”. All I can really vote for is the European Parliament, which is a glorified rubber stamp.
There istn’t a constitution because voters rejected it and told the politicians to have another go.
I agree they rejected the wretched thing, but they didn’t say have another go. Still, that didn’t stop the EU changing the font and trying again.
If you are looking for a US style constitution you are not going to see one.
I agree - the US Constitution is simple, concise and clear. The EU attempt is deliberately complex, long and opaque. D’Estaing admits this himself.
the benefits of the EU to our neighbours in Eastern Europe have been astronomical.
Here, I absolutely agree. But don’t you think it’s possible free trade and direct aid from western countries (i.e. before French farmers alone siphon off ten percent of the EU budget) would have helped just as much?
Still, credit where it’s due, my bananas are no longer abnormally bent. I used to hate it when that happened.
Next entry: "Okay Fink, let's chow."
Previous entry: Communism and Environmentalism
because I’m certain “National Guard” is what the founding fathers REALLY meant when they said “a well-regulated militia”.