Why are you staring at my ass?

 

What's with the fan, are you trying to cool down your herpes flare-up?

 

Run along now and troll elsewhere...

"Who are you talking about, and what particular comments are you referring to? I hate all this snidey insinuation and hugger-mugger stuff."

 

Who says Flanders Fields was referring to you? I suppose if you were in a crowded room and someone at the back yelled: "Hey stupid!," you would turn around.

I don't know. Both mean the same to me.

what's the best word to use ?

George, you and I know that leftists really don't know or care about anything American, especially anything constitutional.  They just want to justify their personal view that anything American or anything protective of Western culture is wrong.  They boast of being protective of individual rights as if they are going to be the bastion in the vanguard of protecting you from encroachments of unjustness from the overbearing state.  They will write lengthy treatises explaining how they will accomplish that much better than you, I, or a US constitution ever could.  They then turn around and abandon any individual who doesn't conform to the collective code of conformity for the day.

 

You might even find examples of writings of some of their lower level hanger ons in the Brussels Journal.  They write as if they are submitting an encyclopedic reference for their leftist professors and make it apparent that they have no love for anything American, particularly the constitution.  They make clear their ignorance about either the US or  constitutional protections afforded by it's constitution, which when questioned provokes another lengthy missive extolling their own viewpoint as superior to protections provided by any mere document from that repressive society. 

Nazis raised their right arm to the Führer and the Party. Lefties raise their right midfinger against anything remotely American. Forget about starting a debate about something as American as the right to bear arms. Forget about democracy.

"Murder is illegal everywhere, the issue here is weather [sic] this was a justifiable use of force the perpetrator isn’t even dead."

 

This statement makes no sense either grammatically or logically; neither myself nor Amsterdamsky was debating the legality of murder or murder in self-defense.

 

"Were he killed and the force justified it would be justifiable homicide, not murder."

 

As Danish law forbids the private possession of firearms, then homicide in self-defense might not be justifiable in Denmark if committed with an illegal weapon.

 

"Also I didn’t see anyone suggesting that the state doesn’t have a monopoly on coercive power as it surly does through the courts. "

 

Amsterdamsky was sarcastically implying that the state was either unwilling or unable to protect its citizenry and their property. The alternative would be the legalisation of private firearm ownership and one's right to use these arms in self-defense of person and property, therefore ending the state's monopoly on coercive power or the use of deadly force.

 

"Throughout the whole thread you are the only one mentioning the U.S., perhaps you are obsessed with the U.S. and projecting your views onto others."

 

Many posters on this forum are either American or enamoured of the United States, particularly its individual liberties including the right to bear arms, and its free market outlook.

 

"Were the police omnipresent then it would be an Orwellian state, how is that better than a Hobbesian state?"

 

Clearly Amsterdamsky finds such armed robbery completely unnacceptable, and therefore, the solution is either vast law enforcement (e.g. the Deutsche Demokratic Republik) or anarchy as armed individuals are their own judges, juries and executioners. However, I am prepared to both accept that crime cannot be totally eradicated and that deadly force should remain the perogative of the state. The state is not an abstract concept, for people from the very community it governs staff its bureaucracies, are elected as representatives, serve as police officers and elist in its armed forces.

"As an aside:

Is he entitled to a jury trial? Would a jury convict him?

Ultimately free peoples live in the communities they deserve"

 

Again, the grammar and logic is nonsensical: are you referring to the would-be theif or the watchmaker who fired upon him?

Murder is illegal everywhere, the issue here is weather this was a justifiable use of force the perpetrator isn’t even dead. Were he killed and the force justified it would be justifiable homicide, not murder. Also I didn’t see anyone suggesting that the state doesn’t have a monopoly on coercive power as it surly does through the courts.

Throughout the whole thread you are the only one mentioning the U.S., perhaps you are obsessed with the U.S. and projecting your views onto others.

Were the police omnipresent then it would be an Orwellian state, how is that better than a Hobbesian state?

As an aside:

Is he entitled to a jury trial? Would a jury convict him?

Ultimately free peoples live in the communities they deserve.

Your post was alarmist. History has demonstrated that so long as individuals reside in communities as opposed to anarchy or the Hobbesian state of nature, the community through its organisational structure the state, must have a monopoly on the use of coercive power if the laws enacted by that community are to have any effect. Even in the United States, it is illegal to murder a police officer and in many states burglars also.

 

Like others here, you are under the delusion that the United States comprises the 'West' or that it is the epitome of Western civilisation, when in fact the West also includes Western Europe, which existed prior to the United States and whose laws have always differed greatly in many areas.

 

Furthermore, no police force can be everywhere at once, and even expanding the force often brings criticism from classical liberals and neo-conservatives who dislike the increase of the state's power and the added expenses to public finances. If they truly would rather see crime solved by private rather than public means than they should create their own zone of anarchy and trouble us pragmatists no more. If, however, they just want to hold on to guns to feel powerful and not pay taxes for the benefits they receive from their fellow citizens, than, to quote Sean Penn again, they can "f*ck off and join Al-Qaeda."

Firstly, there is nothing amiss with the watchmaker in question going through due process with regards to his shooting of the criminals; in any event he will no doubt be cleared. Even if he shot them in the back as they fled with stolen goods, he was under the impression at the time that these men possesed real firearms and that they were violent, and therefore was trying to protect his community.

 

Secondly, the compensation suit is purely a civil one and as Danish authorities noted later in the Copenhagen Post article, which was oddly omitted from this posting, such suits fail e.g. not unlike the suit regarding a broken nose received during an attempted rape.

 

Thirdly, the watchmaker's vigilante heroics, while lauded by the average citizen, do not negate his contravening of Denmark's laws with regards to firearms. One cannot break the law because one disagrees with it, and until Danes elect a government that will allow firearm possession as in the United States, it is against the law for private citizens to carry them.

 

Lastly, while the original article was amusing, I am surprised that this is even in a Brussels Journal posting, unless of course it is to ignite gun ownership debates and elicit anger at Danish laws. There is nothing "rotten in Denmark" here...

The man was fully in his rights to shoot the criminals, they deserved more lead than they got. 

The government acts the same way and does not want anybody getting any ideas.

If anything, the watchmaker should be hailed as a hero

Does the robber's "loss of work time" complaint refer to his being prevented from robbing other people?

That French citizens have no need to have guns, the police will protect them.  Gee, French police is too scared to venture in some areas of Paris where they can't even protect themselves.  Thousands of cars were burned.  Yet, no self defense via gun allowed.  

 

Can a martial art expert fight against a "youth" gang?

It's kind of hard to call the cops when you are being held at gunpoint, ASky..Especially if the gun is being held to your chin.....Alas, the robbery victim is the one who will be persecuted for attempting to defend himself from these morons.....Thank God (and the founding fathers) that we have the 2nd amendment to our Constitution here......Compensation for the perpetrator?...Have him come see me for some "compensation!"........

The police will protect you! Don't worry! He should have called the police and not tried to take action to defend himself and his property! How did the west ever come to this?