News Stories

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

That may be, but the point is that while the government can't be trusted according to the constitution, the military can be trusted because the people's rights and safety is placed above that of the politicians. Also, how would owning a gun help an average person when politicians take their rights away by changing certain laws?

Someone would have to enforce those laws. And they might not be interested in doing that if it ends up costing them their life. There are over 200 million guns in the hands of non-criminal citizens. Including police, soldiers, and ex-soldiers. If you think that the majority of Americans would just hand over their guns because some politician passed a law, you dont know how Americans with a strong belief in personal freedom and American ideals think...

For people who seek to ban or restrict guns here in America, how about explaining how well that is working out in Mexico? Or to make it local, places like Chicago, or Los Angeles, or Washington D.C. where it is almost impossible to own guns legally? D.C. was the murder capital in America up until recently. Ever seen videos of gangs roaming the streets at night in some of the major cities, with the police being almost powerless to stop them?

The courts have already ruled that it is not the job of police to protect us. And anyway, it should be the responsibility first, for someone to be able to protect themselves, and not be forced to rely on someone else.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Fahd

In any case, you have to understand: The city of London provides more revenue in tax for the UK than we spend on defence, and about as much as we spend on education. There was not a snowflakes chance in hell Cameron was going to agree to anything that would risk that tax intake without safeguards in place.

It was already accounted for that Cameron would not agree, hence the new agreement going outside of the EU. The "anger" at the UK is just the usual ritual posturing. All the mayor players got what they wanted:

Cameron effectively got an opt-out of the new rules without having to renegotiate the EU treaties. His backbenchers have completely unrealistic expectations of what the UK could get out those and this route allows Cameron to save face. Whether the City is ultimately saved or doomed by these actions is irrelevant. It's about political survival.

Sarkozy got the two-speed Europe he wanted and greater intergovernmental influence at the expense of the institutions.

Merkel is happy with the strict balanced budget rules under the supervision of the commission and the courts.

Originally Posted by Fahd

(#) Assuming budget vetoing is a part of the deal - I heard it being mentioned before the negotiations started, but I can't seem to find any reference to it other than here.

Yes, it is. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc.../ec/126658.pdf 3rd page, bullet points 2 and 4.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by Fahd

I find it rather astonishing that people (or at least their governments) on the continent are happy to keep throwing away their national sovereignty.

I will only answer to this point, because on the others I can understand Cameron : He can't let the City get taxed, I know this, I understand this, but I disapprove this.

Anyway, national sovereignty, is something either for nationalist fools or for extremist parties. It's something retarted, we could do by far better if we were willing to decrease it, as long as the European institutions were more democratics ... unfortunately they aren't.
Thus it's as you and I said, the difference of mentality between an island and the continent. It's not a bad thing, it's simply a difference of mentality, nothing more.

In the end, it will be done without UK you know, too bad that everything built since 1975 (I believe) will be swept by the reverse of the hand.

[Ithekro]

The Military is not suppose to defend the interior of the country, nor inforce laws against civilians. That would be Marshall Law, which is illegal under the Constitution in most cases. They are there to defend the borders and protect intrests on foreign soil. At is why we have a National Guard (the replacement for the state militia).

A large standing army is not something the country is suppose to have for the most part, under the Constitution. But alliances and remains of the Cold War deturming otherwise. A standing Navy and Air Force are the main defense of the borders these days.

[Reckoner]

This story is 3 weeks old but thought some might appreciate it.

If you needed anymore evidence that congress is a bunch of corrupt corporate pawns. Congress members getting rich with insider trading.

[Ithekro]

My question of the EU was exactly what was it trying to do? As more and more national sovereignty is given up, the less and less it is like a group of independent contries in an economic alliance and more like a bunch of lands under the sovereignty of one larger country. The country of many nations, but still one country...not 27 countries. Basically a new form of the United States of American as it was around the beginning. A collection of sovereign states under one national government. Techically we still are than, but more power has been given to the Federal government than there was at first. States still operate independently on many things, but the Federal government handles foreign affairs, national defense, and policies that will effect the whole of the lands.

If Europe follows this model...will NATO, minus the United States, Canada, Iceland, and Norway, and adding in the remaining EU members, become the defacto defense force for Europe? As an orginizational model that is in place and its original purpose is gone...yet its purpose was to defend Europe.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Yeah good luck with that. Won't happen in our lifetimes fortunately.

And thanks to people like you, I think I'll go down to my local gun store in Havasu and pick up a new evil black rifle.

I am not against the ownership of guns, in fact I do support it being a gun enthusiast myself. The problem is that there is no vetting system to prevent nutjobs from getting weapons in theie hands.

[Ithekro]

Actually there is, but it is not very well enforced. They just keep trying to put laws on top of laws, and get "kneejerk" laws that mean nothing into place. They fail to enforce the laws they already have, and continue in pursuit of useless laws that make people think they are doing something. Usually "for the children".

They also invent broad and useless blanket terms into these laws that tends to get the 2nd ammendment crowd really upset. Like "Assault Weapons".

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

My question of the EU was exactly what was it trying to do? As more and more national sovereignty is given up, the less and less it is like a group of independent contries in an economic alliance and more like a bunch of lands under the sovereignty of one larger country.

Difficult to say. The (people in the) member states in the EU have very different views of what Europe should become. It also varies between political parties within these countries. On average views vary somewhere in between the two extremes:

Federalists who want a United States of Europe versus nationalists who only want a common market with as little loss of national sovereignty as possible. Some of the latter want to leave the union altogether.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If Europe follows this model...will NATO, minus the United States, Canada, Iceland, and Norway, and adding in the remaining EU members, become the defacto defense force for Europe? As an orginizational model that is in place and its original purpose is gone...yet its purpose was to defend Europe.

Defense is seen as little more than an employment project for most member states. There is non of the veteran worship like in the US. Only the UK and France take their conventional military seriously. There have been some initiatives for a EU army but so far its mostly symbolical.

The cornerstone of Europe's defense against (future) large threats is nuclear deterrence. Outside of France and the UK, several other NATO-members have access to nuclear weapons which are nominally under US control. These weapons can be turned over to those members on a moments notice. So NATO will remain the cornerstone of Europe's defense plans for the foreseeable future.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

My question of the EU was exactly what was it trying to do? As more and more national sovereignty is given up, the less and less it is like a group of independent contries in an economic alliance and more like a bunch of lands under the sovereignty of one larger country. The country of many nations, but still one country...not 27 countries. Basically a new form of the United States of American as it was around the beginning. A collection of sovereign states under one national government. Techically we still are than, but more power has been given to the Federal government than there was at first. States still operate independently on many things, but the Federal government handles foreign affairs, national defense, and policies that will effect the whole of the lands.

There is also the issue of the National Sovereignty being giving up by politicians with no input form the voters. I can see being a increasingly big issue if the economy doesn't pick up, austerity sticking around longer and the richer countries keep sending more and more money.

Also since Ireland needs voters to ratify the new treaty. What happen if the voters vote no, are they going to push for vote are vote then the Irish voter gives up?

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

My question of the EU was exactly what was it trying to do? As more and more national sovereignty is given up, the less and less it is like a group of independent contries in an economic alliance and more like a bunch of lands under the sovereignty of one larger country. The country of many nations, but still one country...not 27 countries. Basically a new form of the United States of American as it was around the beginning. A collection of sovereign states under one national government. Techically we still are than, but more power has been given to the Federal government than there was at first. States still operate independently on many things, but the Federal government handles foreign affairs, national defense, and policies that will effect the whole of the lands.

If Europe follows this model...will NATO, minus the United States, Canada, Iceland, and Norway, and adding in the remaining EU members, become the defacto defense force for Europe? As an orginizational model that is in place and its original purpose is gone...yet its purpose was to defend Europe.

That's what I find so scary about the EU's situation. It's looking more and more like the United States of Europe than a common market with a common currency, which is what the EU was originally intended to be. The EU hasn't worked exceptionally well either with the onset of the Euro. I can't see a USE working very well when every country within the EU already has such a rich history and an economy of its own. The difference between Europe and the US is that the states in the US were still relatively young compared to the European countries when the US was in the making. Creating a USE is much more risky because of this imho. I can't see the sacrifice of national sovereignty by the politicians as a good thing.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The 2nd Amendment kind of nullifies your plan Don. Until you find a way to repeal it, you wont be able to legally eliminate guns to the extent that you are advocating. And at this point in American history, the middle class American wont surrender their firearms. I know I never will. Amd the military would never go along with it either considering their background. So good luck with that.

I said it was practically feasible, not politically feasible. I was just contradiction the sentiment that it would be impossible to do. It would be possible if the political will and popular support was there for it.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Someone would have to enforce those laws. And they might not be interested in doing that if it ends up costing them their life. There are over 200 million guns in the hands of non-criminal citizens. Including police, soldiers, and ex-soldiers. If you think that the majority of Americans would just hand over their guns because some politician passed a law, you dont know how Americans with a strong belief in personal freedom and American ideals think...

All I know is that the police in my country don't have to carry guns around with them, only batons. Gun control works.

For people who seek to ban or restrict guns here in America, how about explaining how well that is working out in Mexico? Or to make it local, places like Chicago, or Los Angeles, or Washington D.C. where it is almost impossible to own guns legally? D.C. was the murder capital in America up until recently. Ever seen videos of gangs roaming the streets at night in some of the major cities, with the police being almost powerless to stop them?

It has to be all or nothing. If you simply ban guns in one locality, then they can simply drive to another locality and obtain them illicitly from gun dealers. The illegal trade can only be eliminated when the legal trade is eliminated.

The courts have already ruled that it is not the job of police to protect us. And anyway, it should be the responsibility first, for someone to be able to protect themselves, and not be forced to rely on someone else.

What? Of course it's the police's responsibility to protect the common citizen. That's their job, to keep the peace.

Originally Posted by Zakoo

Anyway, national sovereignty, is something either for nationalist fools or for extremist parties. It's something retarted, we could do by far better if we were willing to decrease it, as long as the European institutions were more democratics ... unfortunately they aren't.
Thus it's as you and I said, the difference of mentality between an island and the continent. It's not a bad thing, it's simply a difference of mentality, nothing more.

In the end, it will be done without UK you know, too bad that everything built since 1975 (I believe) will be swept by the reverse of the hand.

While I would consider myself far from being a nationalist (I'm an anti-nationalist), I'm not in favour of excessive centralisation of power in the EU. I'm in favour of power being kept in constituent states, unless it explicitly benefits the states to submit that power to the EU. In that sense, I'm in favour of the new treaty, but I'm not at all in favour of the EU being the de facto governing entity of Europe. The smaller the population of a country, the more responsive that government is to it's countries needs. I don't think it's only nationalists that want to prevent too much power being accumulated in Brussels.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

My question of the EU was exactly what was it trying to do? As more and more national sovereignty is given up, the less and less it is like a group of independent contries in an economic alliance and more like a bunch of lands under the sovereignty of one larger country. The country of many nations, but still one country...not 27 countries. Basically a new form of the United States of American as it was around the beginning. A collection of sovereign states under one national government. Techically we still are than, but more power has been given to the Federal government than there was at first. States still operate independently on many things, but the Federal government handles foreign affairs, national defense, and policies that will effect the whole of the lands.

If Europe follows this model...will NATO, minus the United States, Canada, Iceland, and Norway, and adding in the remaining EU members, become the defacto defense force for Europe? As an orginizational model that is in place and its original purpose is gone...yet its purpose was to defend Europe.

The purpose of the EU is not to defend Europe, but to render it impossible for Europe to tear itself apart in another world war. The EU is a collection of sovereign countries. We are not creating a new state, but we are creating a new way for states to work together. When states come together to harmonise their rules, then that enables people to work together more efficiently, and also renders it impossible for those countries to go to war with one another (due to how interconnected their industries are). But most of us don't want the EU to become some super country. Instead we want it to be a forum facilitating people from different countries to work together, due to harmonisation of laws and regulations. When there's little difference between doing business in one country and doing it in a neighbour, and when citizens can move anywhere and live anywhere, then national borders become quite meaningless. Alsace Lorraine being French matters relatively little when Germans can go to live and work there as they please.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am not against the ownership of guns, in fact I do support it being a gun enthusiast myself. The problem is that there is no vetting system to prevent nutjobs from getting weapons in theie hands.

Doesn't work, if guns are widely available to "normal" people, then it becomes easy for guns to fall into the hands of nutjobs and criminals. Either no one has a gun, or everyone can have a gun. I prefer the former. In Ireland, only farmers have guns, and not handguns either. Just hard to conceal hunting rifles. Heck, not even our police officers have guns. Nor do the police in the UK have guns. Gun control works. Of course we are Island nations, but hey, smuggling goods over the english channel is piss easy. Some people do have guns, but it takes a lot of determination and contacts to do so. It's certainly not something your average headcase can manage.

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

That's what I find so scary about the EU's situation. It's looking more and more like the United States of Europe than a common market with a common currency, which is what the EU was originally intended to be. The EU hasn't worked exceptionally well either with the onset of the Euro. I can't see a USE working very well when every country within the EU already has such a rich history and an economy of its own. The difference between Europe and the US is that the states in the US were still relatively young compared to the European countries when the US was in the making. Creating a USE is much more risky because of this imho. I can't see the sacrifice of national sovereignty by the politicians as a good thing.

I agree. Obviously the term used is "national sovereignty", my main argument is the superiority of devolved government. Brussels is very distant, it's not going to know what's best for Ireland. Power must flow from the people, not Eurocrats. That said, I'm all for brussels giving oversight, and implementing rules for member to states to follow. So long as they're not actually doing the decision making. EU power should always move through it's national governments, I'm not in favour of it having a substantial set of power of it's own.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

All I know is that the police in my country don't have to carry guns around with them, only batons. Gun control works.

Ireland is a small country with strong borders... meanwhile, Switzerland has plenty of guns and little problem -- it's a cultural issue.

It has to be all or nothing. If you simply ban guns in one locality, then they can simply drive to another locality and obtain them illicitly from gun dealers. The illegal trade can only be eliminated when the legal trade is eliminated.

The huge borders, the tremendous amount of cargo (too much to scan), plus the tremendous number of guns already here. Couple that with at least half the country firmly against you and its the Prohibition-failure again.

What? Of course it's the police's responsibility to protect the common citizen. That's their job, to keep the peace.

You're thinking Irish law. US law has set firmly in stone that the police are under no obligation to protect you or to prevent crime. Their function is to record the crime and capture *afterwards*. Too late for the home invasion victims.

Doesn't work, if guns are widely available to "normal" people, then it becomes easy for guns to fall into the hands of nutjobs and criminals. Either no one has a gun, or everyone can have a gun. I prefer the former. In Ireland, only farmers have guns, and not handguns either. Just hard to conceal hunting rifles. Heck, not even our police officers have guns. Nor do the police in the UK have guns. Gun control works. Of course we are Island nations, but hey, smuggling goods over the english channel is piss easy. Some people do have guns, but it takes a lot of determination and contacts to do so. It's certainly not something your average headcase can manage.

Frankly, if there were a magic wand to make all guns go poof, people could manufacture them in 'prohibition speakeasy' cellars... I'd be utterly fine with no guns (I know how to use other weapons for self defense) ... but no one is willing to disarm the public *first* and leave the criminals armed.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Frankly, if there were a magic wand to make all guns go poof, people could manufacture them in 'prohibition speakeasy' cellars... I'd be utterly fine with no guns (I know how to use other weapons for self defense) ... but no one is willing to disarm the public *first* and leave the criminals armed.

That would make anyone who owned weapon a criminal. Nice legislation but who is going to protect them? There isn't enough policemen to go around.

Hence the reason why I carry a metal fine tip pen with me wherever I go as the influx of foreigners incrase in my country......when the local police force is overstretched, I am not going down without putting that thing into someone's kidney or jugular.

When my mum plans to throw my mattress, I am going to dig out a bedspring and turn that thing into a spetznaz weapon.

[Ithekro]

Well Ireland has a little over 6 million people in it.

Califoria has over 37 mllion people at about half again the density. And heavy concentrations in the cities.

[ganbaru]

Goodbye to the myth of Iran’s “Mad Mullahs”?
http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusm...s-mad-mullahs/

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Goodbye to the myth of Iran’s “Mad Mullahs”?
http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusm...s-mad-mullahs/

We don't call them mad mullahs now, we call them psychopathic because their policies are calculated but still unethical.

Once they gain military might, and they start building stealth drones, they would no doubt cast China aside like a rag. Then seek alliance from other Muslim states, destroy Israel, then export their "jihad".

[ganbaru]

^ Wouldn't that be rather hard as the arabes are said to distrust ( at the very least) or even be scared of Iran ?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

That's what I find so scary about the EU's situation. It's looking more and more like the United States of Europe than a common market with a common currency, which is what the EU was originally intended to be.

Depends who you ask. Plenty of politicians who built the EU thought that if there was a common currency, the rest would follow. Part of our problems could be blamed on the fact that it hasn't. Half-measures generally get you the worst of both worlds.

(Personally, I don't care all that much if the ones making the call are national politicians or European politicians.)

[Ithekro]

The Arabs and the Persians rather do not like each other. I can't say for the other Muslim counties that are niether Arab, nor Persian...like say Indonisia.

--------------------------------------

Back when I was in college, which was around the time the Euro was coming into effect, we figured Europe would united as a super nation to counter the United States and China. At least that was what we figured in Political Science classes.