1. as a former student of political science and contemporary history, such topics naturally interest me. Wether I am informed enough or not is irrelevant, as far as my right to discuss these issues is concerned. After all, I am not doing so in some form of official capacity. If you feel that I am factually incorrect in one or more of my statements, feel free to point it out to me. That's part of a decent discussion.FEOS wrote:
...As to your second point: What I don't understand is why you even care about interpretations of our 2nd Amendment. It has zero bearing on your life and the lives of your countrymen and fellow Europeans. I don't believe it is taught in any of your schools prior to University...yet you are all informed enough on the topic to discount out of hand the opinions of US citizens on the same topic?
Opinions, however, are just that. Opinions. Mine is not better than yours, and vice versa. After all, even if it sometimes resembles one, this is not a debating class.
Personally, I have always found it interesting to listen to the opinions of those outside of my own cultural subgroup, as they often represent views and chose approaches that are not blurred by cultural indoctrination.
Recently, however, I have found it increasingly difficult to discuss such matters with american citizens, as they do not seem to embrace this concept, and often chose to be defensive when I offer my opinion. this would include such topics as gun control, foreign politics, abortion, death penalty, etc..
Consequently, these discussions often end with the other guy saying s.th. like "what the hell do you know/care ? You're not even american".
See a pattern here ?
2. as someone who intends to visit your country, and who knows many others who have visited the US as tourists, I feel a certain need to adress issues such as public safety, gun control being one of them. A lot of exchange students go to US universities. a lot of german high school kids visit UU high schools in exchange programs. One day, my son or daugther could be one of them. See how even foreigners might have an increased interest in gun control in the US ?
your point being ? Where did I say I was ? All we do is exchange opinions here, based on the topic given in the OP. If you feel my point of view and arguments are negligible (sp?), just disregard them. Or is the mere fact, that I dare speak about the 2nd amendment enough to make you mad ? Maybe my opinion on the issue contradicts with you opinion, but is that so unusual ? Different people having different opinions on a specific issue ?FEOS wrote:
...You are no more qualified to talk about the US 2nd Amendment than I am qualified to talk about any part of German domestic law. That's why, in my previous posts (since you apparently went back and read every one of them), you won't find me commenting on other countries' internal policies unless I have specific experience with them. And believe me, if I were constantly spouting off about your country's policies, telling you what your country's policies really mean, and discounting what you have to say based on your first-hand experience living in your own country...you'd get a bit frustrated too, don't you think? First-hand experience trumps purely academic experience every single time, regardless of topic.
If you feel compelled to discuss german constitutional law, go ahead. It surely will be a pleasant experience for both of us. However, I am afraid since our constitution only dates from 1949, there would be less interesting topics to discuss, especially since the right to bear arms isn't included.
But I am sure you'll find something worth discussing, and if you do, I'll be happy to engage.
In the meantime, I'd like to hear your opinion on this:
I am merely asking this, because the idea that any man-made document or concept should be totally free from error, seems..well, unlikely to me, if not outright absurd. If mankind has proven anything since we learned to walk upright, it would be that man can fail, and does so routinely.me wrote:
...As far as I know, your constitution was written by humans. Intellectual, maybe. Wise, surely. But still humans. It represents their opinion about what they thought would be a good constitution for the newly founded US. Those "inalienable rights" are their perception of what they thought basic human rights would be.
They made some good choices, I'll give you that, but they were still human, and thus not free from error.
I ask you, how can you question my logic, when your argument is based on religious beliefs ?
In fact, this is one of our biggest strenghts, if you ask me. We learn from our mistakes, make changes, and improve.
Why this should not include a legal document from 1789, is beyond me, tbh.
But maybe I am just not american enough to understand it.
No offense intended.