Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Freedoms

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Ricky, Mar 31, 2005.

  1. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    on the subject

    since gun ownership may play a part in freedom let me make a few points.
    first let me say i do not belong to any gun group at all. i do own guns and stand ready to use them in self defense.
    its only been the last few years that we have started to see good quality studies being done in a serious attempt to gage the true effects on gun ownership and concealed weapons carry. what they show is suprising in light of the conventional wisdom. note- the following does not include gun use outside of the law. in other words only good shootings count.
    1- there are more bad guys shot by citizens every year that by cops. often a fairly large margin
    2- there are at least several million crimes stopped each year by the simple display of a firearm by a citizen. reported numbers range as high a 2 or 3 million with only about 1 in 6 reported.
    3- there is no relationship between numbers of legal CCW guns and an increase in gunfights, suicides, or accidental shootings
    4- there is a direct and trackable link between a increase in CCW use and a drop in the types of crime where running into an armed victim would be a bad thing. [ robberies, rape, home invasions, muggings, carjacking.]
    5- there is a related increase in safe crime that tracks the decrease noted above. the crooks choose to commit crimes where they run little or no chance of being shot.
    6- prison interviews show that the biggest fear for crooks is the armed citizen. most are much more afraid of them than of the cops. they know bullet holes hurt and many that hold CCW permits are often better with their weapons that the cops.
    7- in the USA the courts have held that the cops have no duty to protect you from a precived threat no matter how grave unless the officer is present and even then he may not have a duty. if you know someone is coming to harm you the cops do not have to come
     
  2. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    Lynn;
    All the gun rights stuff has already been argued. Basically, we have our side and they have theirs. Nobody will change the other's minds.

    BTW, I have 24 guns and still collecting. I like guns so much, I got a dealer's license. :D

    All;
    Here's something I have wondered. Does Europe have anything similar to Miranda Rights? That's where the police have to tell you all of your rights when they arrest you and make sure you understand them. Also, what about unwarranted searches and seizures?
     
  3. Wspauldo12

    Wspauldo12 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    What about Habes Cropus 9or what ever its called). The thingy that says you have to produce the person you arrest within 24 hours before a judge and tell what they are charged with. We hae that in America, but it isn't exacly what I call a right because Abraham lincoln removed it during the Civil War to help keep border states in line. He used the presidential power to act severly in times of clear and present danger that demand unforseen measures. He used his right to take away ours.

    Do they do that in europe or where ever else you may come from?
     
  4. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Does Europe have anything similar to Miranda Rights? That's where the police have to tell you all of your rights when they arrest you and make sure you understand them. Also, what about unwarranted searches and seizures?

    Can't say for the rest of Europe but Britain does, almost identicle. And an unwarranted search or seizure by the police is illegal and therefore actually a crime!

    to depend on a military disobeying orders to protect your rights is a thin reed to support your need.

    Two points, a) The military would not be disobeying orders, they would be following them, b) I don't think it's a thin reed at all I think permitting small-arms to the whole of the population against a modern hi-tech army is a thin reed. I can't see your militias getting far staring down an Abrams tank with a hunting rifle!

    i am a free citizen and subject to no man because here we have loaned power to the government to use within the limits we have set. the government has no power of its own beyond that which we have loaned it.

    This does not make sense. You have no more power to disregard the laws your nation sets than I have to mine. If you travel at excess speed down a freeway it's not going to work explaining to the policeman that you didn't think it was a fair law so you withdrew the power you loaned the government to enforce it!

    Your people are subject to your laws, we are subject to our laws. The Laws are enacted by the goverment therefore we are both subject to the whims of our governments (Note I say subject, not subjects).

    the ability to drive could be revoked by a simple law change and thus is not a right.

    ...and the right to bear arms could be revoked by a simple change to the constitution, so is not a right it is a licence.

    All rights are protected or restricted by laws in every civilised country, in any country with any meaningful constitution and legal process this does not mean that they can be suspended at the whim of respective governments.

    but i cannot consider someone who has only license to be truely free. at best it is the freedom of a child to act as his parents allow him to instead of the right to act as he sees fit.

    ...and this is why America seems in Wspauldo's words "arrogant". Look, we are not simple, childishly ignorant slaves of our governments awaiting the glorious day that we are liberated by US style constitutions and freedoms. Many of us, myself included, may see faults in our own laws and governments, but speaking for myself with the weaknesses I feel are there I would not exchange Britain's constitutional monarchy and parliament for the US system even for a moment.

    What about Habes Cropus 9or what ever its called)...Do they do that in europe or where ever else you may come from?

    We have a right to Habeas Corpus in the UK, yes, I don't think it's identical to the US law though.
     
  5. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The short answer is yes, we have right which must be understood and the police must have an invitation or warrant to search or sieze, or have a good reason to think so. The latter means that they can stop and search but if they find nothing they can be in the s**t.
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Now, I have learned something of the US Constitution & how it applies from Grieg.

    Essentially, the Constitution is there to limit the power of the Government over the population. It outlines certain "inalienable rights" of the population (like the right to life, IIRC), then states that the government should protect all other rights.
    However, it is the government who sets these other rights...

    And as far as I can see, successive governments have amended bits of the Constitution many times. No problem there - it has to stay relevant - but what input does Mr Citizen have in that?

    Now, a few catch-ups.
    The Magna Carta. I'm not sure why this is always championed by many as a charter granting freedoms. As lynn1212 pointed out, this was simply a charter approved by King John at swordpoint, removing much of the royal control from the nobility. As far as I know it has no relevance at all to me, Mr Middle Class, in the 21st Century.

    Subjects vs citizens. What's in a name?
    The Democratic Republic of Congo was neither Democratic nor a Republic.
    :wink:
     
  7. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    history lesson time

    perhaps the reason some are missing my point is a lack uf understanding about the differences between simple laws and a constutional change. our true rights stem from the constitution while our licenses stem from laws. to change a law requires only a simple majority vote of congress and a penstroke from the president. to amend the constution requires much more. any amendment must be voted on by 2 seperate sessions on congress and then approved by either three forths of the state governments or by two thirds of the citizens. in the 200 years our constution has been in force we have done this less than 20 times. [ not counting the first ten which form our bill of rights and were enacted as a part of the orignal constution.] lacking a constutional amendment the government cannot abridge our rights and since the road to such an amendment is so long and hard it is very unlikly that it could happen. in short the government can change laws but it is the people that change rights.
    i would ask that you all go back and read all my posts on this subject to get a complete picture of what i'm trying to say here. some of it may seem pointless and indeed may be in practical effect but what i'm talking about is root differences that may be hundreds of years old. the foundation of a government rests on its basic documents and the traditions of its people. a people that think of themselves as free and that may be willing to rebel to protect their freedoms are a different group than a people who simply believe that their government would never harm them. in the end true freedom depends on its being enshrined in the basic foundation of a government and on the unwillingness of the people to surrender it. lacking either freedom can be lost.
     
  8. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: history lesson time

    [
    Exactly the same as in France.


    In France there are 2 ways of changing the constitution:

    -If parliament wants to change it, a referendum is organised where the majority of the population must agree.

    -If the president/governement wants to change it, a referendum is not necessary, but three fifths of the congress must vote the change.(senators+members of the national assembly together).

    Also, if I remember correctly, some points of the constitution cannot be changed at all, like the declaration of human rights, or the republican form of governement.
    Also the constitution cannot be changed in case of foreign invasion.

    So I cannot really see what makes the US constitution so superior.
     
  9. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Correct me if I am wrong (you all know that I often am!).

    The US revolution was (arguably) inspired by the success of the French revolution.

    The US Constitution was inspired by the French Constitution.
     
  10. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    I'm afraid, that's not really correct.
    The US revolution was in 1779 if I remember correctly, which means it is 10 years older than the french revolution(1789).
    One could argue that the french revolution was inspired by the sucess of the US revolution altough it's probably not really true.

    But undoubtly, the US constitution is inspired by the thinking of french philosophs(Descartes, Montesquieu....)
    Thousands of frenchmen volunteered for figthing for US independence, because they had the same republican ideals.

    All this lead the great Benjamin Franklin to say "Every man on earth should love two countries, his own and France".(Sorry if that sounds some bit chauvinistic coming from me).
    A former US president also said:"The USA have 2 parents, Britain and France.
    From Britain we have our language, our customs, but our soul, our ideas come from France".
     
  11. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Told you! :wink:

    Thanks Castelot...
     
  12. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    There's a school of historians who adhere to the idea of an Atlantic revolution, closely linking the ones in America, France and the Netherlands (1784) together. However it seems like the only thing that connects them are the basic ideals: freedom from nobility and layered society, and a cry for universal human rights. In France and the US these were enacted and usually kept more or less intact (though France went to and fro for a while), while in the Netherlands the revolution, inspired by patriotic sentiment after the war with England was smothered in French occupation after 1795. Upon being liberated in 1813 the Dutch drafted a reactionary constitution with a horribly autocratic King at the head of government (the first King to rule the Netherlands since 1581*). This constitution was subsequently adapted to more modern demands by the people in 1848; the new constitution limited the powers of government in general and put the monarch under control of parliament.

    I must admit that I'm unaware of the actual content of the Dutch constitution, so I can't say whether we are subjects to the government or the government rules with our permission. I'm guessing on the latter, however. In any case it seems useful for you, lynn1212, to gather some information about European governments before making statements like that we have no rights, only licenses; just about every constitution I know has the rights of the French "DĂ©claration Universelle des Droits de L'Homme" embedded in them. After all these are the universal rights of man; being a member of the UN means respecting them, for one thing. Most of the things you ask about do exist in Europe as well, such as limited rights of the police and the ability of a national court of law to overrule government decisions. In fact, an international court has been established in the Netherlands which judges international cases, overruling international governments; the only country not willing to allow its citizens to ever be judged by this court was the US.

    *In 1581 the seven Netherlands provinces soon to form the Republic of the United Provinces declared that their King Philip II of Spain had violated the privileges he had sworn to uphold, and that the provinces therefore rejected him as their king and would choose another to rule them. They stumbled about a for a few years looking for a suitable king, and in 1588 decided they were better off without one and declared themselves a Republic.
     
  13. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    if you reread my posts i never stated that you had only license. i realize my knowledge of other government systems is incomplete. my whole thrust has been to point out the differences between rights and licenses and not to compare systems. i did note what i think is a difference between a citizen and a subject but i never claimed a lack of rights for anyone. i simply do not know enough about other systems for the most part.
    most people do confuse rights and license. in part this stems from the misuse of the word rights. you may have what is called rights under a certain law but since the law may be easily changed what you have is really license. again rights are not easily changed while licenses are. do you see my basic point?
     
  14. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    [/quote]


    Arguably, the US constitution showed more stable than any european constitution in the 18 and 19th centuries.(The main reason for this is probably that the US are not located on the restless european continent, but far away....)
    France had innumerable different political systems sine 1789, including 1 Kingdom, 2 Empires, 5 Republics, as well as the ill defined"Etat"in 1940-1944.
    But the ideals of 1789 were always around....

    The main difference I see between the US constitution of 1779 and the french constitution of 1789 is that the french declaration of human rights claimed to be universal, which means that it not only was to be applied on frenchmen, but on all humans.
    In the US, for example, even after 1779, native americans and slaves still had no rights.
    In France, slavery was ended in 1789(tough later reinstaured by Napoléon for needs of war) and the leaders of the revolution were convinced that the benefits of their revolution should be brought to all peoples in Europe(and possibly in the world), if necessary by military means, which among others led to the 25 years of revolutionnary/napoleonic wars.
     
  15. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    no doubt

    there is no doubt that freedom loving people were is close touch at the end of the 18th century. that amercians and frenchmen shared ideas that were used to write both constutions should not suprise anyone. in spite of our current differences we owe much to each other and share much history. just how closely linked our revolutions were may be debated but the linkage is clear.
     
  16. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, I do.
    However, As far as I know, all European nations (and most world-wide) officially recognise the 'right to life' and all the other 'rights' promoted by the UN etc.

    In terms of licence, all the more 'frivolous' freedoms come in here, like owning a car.

    All of which I think you have already pointed out...
     
  17. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, and I do feel it helps this debate. However I thought you were presenting it in a comparison between Europe and the US, in which case it would be incorrect. My mistake...

    The American Declaration of Independence was issued in 1776 by the way (IIRC). The Bill of Rights followed in 1788.
     
  18. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    most people do confuse rights and license. in part this stems from the misuse of the word rights. you may have what is called rights under a certain law but since the law may be easily changed what you have is really license. again rights are not easily changed while licenses are. do you see my basic point?

    Yes, and this is just the kind of clarification I was after, thank-you.

    I still disagree however that this difference necessarily makes a US citizen somehow more free than a UK citizen, and that the practical differences are really that different. Constitutions can afterall be altered, I guess your nation's constitution has scope for emergency legislation, in which case it is open for abuse too, OK, no-one can see a president having quite that sort of power now but then neither could anyone see the Chancellor of the Weimar Republic being in the position to abuse those sort of powers...

    The implication in your posts and the wording of them was that we were worse off for not being under the US system, the use of the words "Serf" and "Subject" (Yes I am a Subject of Her Majesty's government but I am also a Citizen of the United Kingdom) seem derogatory, especially the former. "Serf" is as appropriate to modern Europe as "Colonist" is to the modern US, probably less so.

    If I am being over-sensitive then I apologise, but in that case I ask you to word your posts more carefully in future, I was not the only one to misunderstand you and believe you were suggesting that only in America was a person truly free. Europeans have freedoms, probably more than many nations on Earth, perhaps not as Americans understand them but we are basically as free as you are, in every practical respect.
     
  19. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    The American Revolution started in 1775 at Lexington and Concord. The war was ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789 but only after the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were added.

    The USA is the only nation to win it's independence from Great Britain by force. I believe this is the reason why the USA is not a part of the Commonwealth of Nations.

    Imperial France was a US ally in the Revolution. It's believed by some that Benjamin Franklin was the inspiration of the French Revolution. He was the ambassador of the US to the King of France and became quite a celebrity there. Ironically, his views and ideas on liberty spread through the commoners.
     
  20. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    sorry

    if i offended anyone. when i used the word subject i was trying to show a what i percive as a difference of mindset. most if not all amercians would get quite upset if you called them a subject and we still view people that think of themselves as such as suspect.
     

Share This Page