That's probably true, though it's a damn sight easier in a country that has over 3m of them kicking about.
Mix of both. After reading the Geneaology of Morals by Nietzsche I realised freedom and equality cannot coexist in an absolute sense. After studying a module on American history at uni, my tutor seemed to argue the same thing. A slave-owner in early 19th century Louisiana had the freedom to purchase and sell slaves but the slaves themselves were denied freedom and equality. Two of the French Revolution's important principles, liberté and equalité, directly contradicted each other as the authoritarian First French Republic had to enforce notions of equality onto the populace, meaning nobody was truly free. Going back to Nietzsche, the concept of freedom is wholly subjective. Freedom only exists for the strongest in society (for Nietzsche, that would be the Übermensch) as they can assert their freedom at the expense of others. Equality is an idea the weaker in society aspire for as they wish to be on the same footing as their 'social betters'. Nietzsche refers to it as the Master-slave morality. If a US government imposed gun control, it would directly violate the second amendment. The bigger question would be: should owning weapons, particularly firearms, be a right or a privilege? It also poses another question, should the state intervene and legislate what substances you can legally obtain or produce? Someone arguing for gun control but also argues for marijuana legalisation/decriminalisation are arguing for one freedom to be allowed and one freedom to be revoked.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...GUES-brought-homes-European-missionaries.html Native Americans were wiped out by PLAGUES brought to their homes by European missionaries New research suggests population decline occurred dramatically after 1620 This coincides with establishment of missionary churches in Southwest US Depopulation spurred forest regrowth and led to spread of forest fires European settlers brought infectious diseases including smallpox, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, diphtheria, typhus, cholera, scarlet fever, chicken pox, yellow fever, and whooping cough I didn't know anything about this before googling. Perhaps 95% of the native American population were wiped out before whites began to settle significantly the interior. The locals has never faced these plagues before so their population hadn't developed any natural resistance.
Same happened in South America. The Spanisrds slaughtered plenty, and don't beat themselves up,about colonisation like we do, they have statues celebrating the ones responsible. But as in North America disease was responsible for more deaths.
Absolutism is a very high bar to achieve in any field. Even Domestos only kills 99.9% of germs. Surely the impossibility of achieving perfection shouldn't be held as a barrier to attempting something? It makes far more sense if you leave out the "absolute". Freedom for all would preclude the denial of the freedom of others. As for any requirement for a "higher power"? There is no legitimate higher power over an individual who recognises and demands their own right to freedom. I am beginning to suspect it may be part of the job spec. It would certainly be most unlikely that someone with a six shot handgun could kill and maim over a hundred. .
Freedom in that sense is subjective. Freedom to own a slave is denied in favour of freedom to not be enslaved. International law ensures that. International law being the higher power.
There are still slaves in the world, just as there were slaves for centuries before the USA came into existence. As for freedom, to quote the old question, does freedom include the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre?
I thought America had banned automatic assault weapons in the recent past and reviews determined that the ban didn't breach the ammendments?
We had an assault weapons ban that went into enforcement in 1994. It was a ban that was only to last 10 years and it wasnt extended and it only covered new assault weapons. It was perfectly constitutional and all challenges to it were rejected by the courts. In 2004 it expired and there has been no serious effort to get a new ban passed. The 2nd amendment does not stop restrictions to firearms. Background checks, assault weapons bans, waiting periods etc are perfectly constitutional. There were a combo of incidents that contributed to the assault weapons ban passing in 1994. In Stockton California, the worlds biggest **** hole, where on my local news people are killed freaking every day 38 children and adults were shot with 6 of them dying by a shooter with an assault rifle. Later also in Cali another shooter shot 15 people and 9 died from a shooter with an assault rifle. There was a strong movement to get a ban in place with about 80% of Americans supporting that ban. Which is actually about the same % that currently supports such a ban. Even NRA members support it with 80% of NRA members supporting gun control legislation and 60% supporting a ban on assault weapons. But the NRA and the gun industry lobbyists have effectively stopped such legislation from even being seriously discussed in congress.
Its important to understand that we are not a democracy. To get elected right now as president it takes about $1 Billion dollars including party money, super pac money etc. That type of cash comes with certain understandings. We are really an Oligarchy that hides behind the vale of a republic. So the fact about 80% of Americans support a ban on assault weapons is really inconsequential to whether or not a ban on assault weapons can be passed.
Yes, precisely what I was saying. The absence of the freedom to enslave others being the dilution of absolute freedom I was referring to. Without the reference to "absolute" though I don't see why individual freedom, as the prime and most inalienable right of everyone, should not be, at least theoretically, attainable. We only need to collectively assert it. There is no scientific or philosophical reasoning, and no "higher power" that could deny it.
It should be locked then. Although that only seems to happen if someone is critical of Labour or Islam.
