loyalty to your country

[Shdo]

a recent case have troubled me, as the violance in gaza continue there was a rally in israel of israeli arabs(full citizens) calling for the murder of other israelis. the rally was supported by israeli parlament members of arab nationalism.

a few days later there was a shooting in a religious center in jerusalem, the one who did it was israeli arab with israeli paper and resident of the city.

what do you think should be done in such a case? where parlament members support a rally that call for murder and a few days later 8 teenagers are killed, all is being carried by citizens of the same country?

example, a senator join a rally of rednecks or something that eventually grow into a hate rally to black people, a few days later a church is attacked and 8 black citizens are killed, what is the reaction to such turn of events?

the same can be asked about this incident where people burned a doll of an american soldier and singed 'G I you gonna die' all on american soil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecp8ZCC3tB8

[mechaqua]

I am a Canadian and United States citizen now i know Canada and the US have a good relationship (the governments do but a lot of Canadians do not like George) but what about those with the dual citizenship? were do their loyalties lie? I have friends who have dual citizenship in Israel and the US and go over to serve in the IDF, (i belwell these are bad examples beacuse these goverments have good to excellent realtionship) but what about people who have dual citzenship with goverments who have bad realtionships, rare but it happens.

[Shdo]

there is only one answer, you should be loyal to the country you live in. if a friend of yours join the IDF instead of the US marines its a matter of choice (both are) but if there is a draft in america (big war or something) and they chose to join the IDF instead i dont think its right.

if the relationship between two countries dettiriorate then you should make a choice, move to the one you are loyal to or stay and stay loyal.

[Rain]

Im pro- country loyality, but like everything, it isn't a direct yes or no

Blind loyalty, ie being loyal for no reason other than its your countries view, is a mistake

for instance, the US war in iraq

Whether i support the war of not isn't important, its why its supported. Do I support it just because the country says we should do it, hell no.

Countries make mistakes, and it must rely on its people to stand up and voice their opinions no matter what they are

[Shdo]

well if you lives in a democracy its your obligation to say your POV but lets say you are against the war, would you help insurgents with info that will kill american soldiers in order to force the gov to pull out? this is disloyalty and treason. saying that the war is wrong isnt disloyalty.


to me the example i brought in the first comment is also a sign for disloyelty.

[Rain]

Thats true, what i brought up wasn't disloyalty, but many political figures have made it seem that way in many scenerios

thats why i used that example


as for the example you posted, i personally wouldn't do it, but i can understand why some people might

I think going that far, as to turn on fellow members of the country (who just so happen to have a different view) that i see as wrong

[Thumblord]

I am proud of my nation (Scotland) but feel that as a country. The Uk should no longer be united.

Scotland is still a growing power. While we may be small in land, we are strong willed. During the first and second world war, the scottish were reffered to as "The Ladies from Hell" (Because we fought in Kilts(which are NOT skirts)).

I think that the foreign stereotype of Scottish culture is extremely uneducated. I could claim that the Americans were sheep. Is to the degree of what a ridiculous stereotype the Scottish have.

I don't support the "War on Terror". I never had. When I was younger(Six or seven years ago? I would've been 7-9) , when it started, I realise I wasn't old enough to understand the full point of it.

I understand it now. And I understand it's wrong.

Sadam has been found. Sadam has been killed. The countries have to sort themselves out.

The currently "developed" (For lack of better word) managed on their own. And we are no different to the Middle-Eastern nations.

I say that we retreat from Iraq and Isreal. There's no point. And innocent lives are being taken

[mechaqua]

Rain the founding fathers of the US would prefer to question the government they did and your are expressing your fundamental rights as a US citizen and guaranteed to you by the bill of rights Thumblord though I agree Scots are far from backwards i have to say that i doubt the UK will ever allow complete Scottish independence even Canada isn't fully independent( from the UK (well we are a sovereign government but our head of state is still the monarch of the England)
i don't think withdrawal from Israel is a good idea first of all there are no foreign nations in Israel second of all Israel has its problems but it is the only real democracy in the middle east and is the most liberal country too I don't think the west should withdraw anymore support from Israel then it already has

[IngenuityGap]

I say that we retreat from Iraq and Isreal. There's no point. And innocent lives are being taken

Iraq has three distinct segments (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd) that all wish for their own rule. At the moment, they are starting to work together and are developing a more cohesive view of governing Iraq (as opposed to 2003-2006 or so when they were seriously at each others throats). To pull out now, with no plan for Iraqi's taking over the current commitments being filled by coalition troops would flush all that progress down the drain. These three groups need more time working together in order to avoid fragmentation of the country.

As I've said before, the invasion was not right. Should not have been done. And has taken focus away from Afghanistan (the real mission) for 5 years now. However, it is equally irresponsible to go "oops, your mess. We're out now."


Now, as for Israel, there is nothing for us to pull out of. Other than the usual exchange of soldiers that happens regularly between NATO countries, there are no US, UK, Canadian, etc troops stationed in Israel. So what are we retreating from there? Our best ally in the Middle East, and the only stable democracy, has no rights to be abandoned. It was bad enough Jews were turned away en masse during the lead up to WWII (all over North America, neither the US nor Canada [then under British Dominion] wanted anything to do with those refugees). But to abandon the commitment made to Israel post WWII would be sick.



I understand you are young, but you've taken a very simplistic view of things. Please do some background research before suggesting something so repugnant.

Rain the founding fathers of the US would prefer to question the government they did and your are expressing your fundamental rights as a US citizen and guaranteed to you by the bill of rights Thumblord though I agree Scots are far from backwards i have to say that i doubt the UK will ever allow complete Scottish independence even Canada isn't fully independent( from the UK (well we are a sovereign government but our head of state is still the monarch of the England)
i don't think withdrawal from Israel is a good idea first of all there are no foreign nations in Israel second of all Israel has its problems but it is the only real democracy in the middle east and is the most liberal country too I don't think the west should withdraw anymore support from Israel then it already has

The Monarchy is only a figurehead in Canadian politics. The only connections left are through the GG and the LG's of the provinces. We have even replaced the last of the war medals that was awarded by the UK. Recently the Canadian version of the Victoria Cross was released.

The Monarchy has no say over how we currently govern our country. No say on our elections. No say on our internal affairs. Canada is independent, but a part of the Commonwealth (former members of the Dominion).

And, now for my actual reply to the topic. lol

Loyalty for your country is incredibly important, but within the framework of a democracy. This means questioning the ruling parties, questioning decisions of foreign policy as well as domestic policy. Always questioning, but most importantly keeping the loyalty to the ideals of your country (which in a place like Canada is hard "We aren't the US." WTF is that?).


Something that disgusted me personally was members of the opposition (Liberal party, New Democratic Party, Green Party) were marching beside Hizbollah supporters during the war. Elected members of parliament walking hand in hand with terrorist supporters, truly a disgusting sight and a betrayal of all values Canadians hold dear. Worse still, the Liberals turning a blind eye to LTTE fundraising that went directly to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, because the Tamil community voted heavily Liberal. Giving up your morals for minor political gain... sad.

[mechaqua]

lol :D i realize that i am not stupid i know the queen has no real say in how the Canadian government is run i was just saying we are not completely independent of the UK we still have ties to the UK like most other members of the commonwealth its a tradition it has nothing to do with are a politics sorry for the confusion on my statement i should have been more clear


and

Something that disgusted me personally was members of the opposition (Liberal party, New Democratic Party, Green Party) were marching beside Hizbollah supporters during the war. Elected members of parliament walking hand in hand with terrorist supporters, truly a disgusting sight and a betrayal of all values Canadians hold dear. Worse still, the Liberals turning a blind eye to LTTE fundraising that went directly to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, because the Tamil community voted heavily Liberal. Giving up your morals for minor political gain... sad.

Wasn't happy with this but they belive that supporting these orginzations is way to say we are not with the US on the war on terror but what pissed me off is that these groups are supposed to be the left which is the side i tend to be on supporting Hezzbollah which is actuall more of a consertive orginzation if you support religon with poltics and tardtional shari law you are consertive techniquely

[IngenuityGap]

lol :D i realize that i am not stupid i know the queen has no real say in how the Canadian government is run i was just saying we are not completely independent of the UK we still have ties to the UK like most other members of the commonwealth its a tradition it has nothing to do with are a politics sorry for the confusion on my statement i should have been more clear

Ok, cool. Felt the need to clarify since some people do actually believe the Queen is still in charge. lol

[mechaqua]

i agree with you on the incident with the position parties but they did it so they could say we don't support the US and George but as a liberal i was pissed that the party that is supposed to be on the left is supporting a right wing terrorist origination

[Shdo]

many times groups support one another without any real connection between one another, and somehow extreme liberals seems to get along pretty well with fundamentalists. why? its more like my enemy enemy is my friend.


also, there are no nato troops in israel, since israel isnt a nato member and will never enter nato, we are a major non nato ally which means that we do have joint exercises with nato, us and turkey forces (mostly air and sea mock battles) this is more of a partnership of mutual intrests and in the end no foreign troops guard israel borders (we dont want to relly on others and frankly we dont trust others to take the job seriously, especially the UN)


as for the specific example you gave about the parlament members walking hand in hand with hizzbullah, i actually dont have a problem with that. this is not what i consider a treason or disloyalty. if it was israeli parlament members (which there were several who did such things and worst) i would have a problem with it.

[mechaqua]

Yeah but if your a Canadian Jew who tends support the liberal ideals that party is supposed to represent and a supporter of Israel your ideals walking with people who would prefer to see you dead it would make you angry but you are right it has nothing really to do with loyalty

[IngenuityGap]

i agree with you on the incident with the position parties but they did it so they could say we don't support the US and George but as a liberal i was pissed that the party that is supposed to be on the left is supporting a right wing terrorist origination

My main point is there is no reason to push that separation, especially to the point where you are in a terrorist camp. It doesn't matter which "wing" you support, ignorantly applying your support to a terrorist cause is.. blech. Anyway. I'm firmly a conservative, but very open to other points of view. Actually, I'm mostly a fiscal conservative and would be libertarian if such a party existed in Canada. If Conservative MPs were in the position of the Liberals who marched, I would be as disgusted. It's simply wrong at the core.


Now, there are two or three other points I'll make away from the central topic. Please debate them!


1) My core issue with the current Canadian identity is that there is no identity. Since Trudeau it has been in vogue to say "We are Canadian because we aren't Americans." Our entire identity as a society is based off not being the US. Multiculturalism as a concept has helped to dilute the Canadian identity. One of the big Trudeau era myths is that we are better than the Americans because Canada is "multicultural" while the US is a "melting pot". In reality there is no difference between the two statements, except that we (as a culture) keep highlighting the differences.

In both countries we welcome immigrants from nearly every country in the world, and it is impossible to go to even a medium sized city without seeing a strong blend of immigrants. This is what Canada has always been built on, and what provides an appeal. We are tolerant of other cultures and religions, we do not oppress people for these differences, and the only requirement is that you work hard in order to succeed. However, the need to "distance" ourselves from the US led to the creation of the multicultural myth. Which, in turn, highlights the differences between the people of Canada instead of the similarities.

2) The Liberals, as a federal party, need to go through the same kind of purge that happened with the Conservatives in the early 1990's. There is a lot of "old boys" as they are termed in politics, and a lot of people out for serious personal gain that are dragging the Liberal party down. I mean, look at the last leadership convention. Everything from opponents of Bob Rae telling people at the convention not to vote for him because his wife is a Jew (an unfortunate story that was confirmed when a supporter of Rae was told this by a supporter of Ignatieff.) Politics were played and the 4th place choice for party leader (Dion) ended up winning because it was the idea of "at least he isn't Rae/Ignatieff".

Compound that with years of "found money" through huge surplusses (which only occur through over taxing the people), the institutionalization of Liberals in the bureaucracy, and current ineffective opposition. A severe crash of the party as a whole would be healthy in the long run. It has really cleared thing out in the Conservative Party, and gotten rid of the same problems that currently plague the Liberals (the Progressive Convervatives were no better).


3) There is too much partisan division and outright hatred flung from both sides. We work better together and the demonization of political opponents is good for no one, just leading to disillusioned attitudes from the general public. It'd be nice to see contrasting views working to make Canada stronger, not fighting over who has the stick this week.

many times groups support one another without any real connection between one another, and somehow extreme liberals seems to get along pretty well with fundamentalists. why? its more like my enemy enemy is my friend.

That is exactly it. In a rush to fight off their political enemy, they run into bed with something worse.


also, there are no nato troops in israel, since israel isnt a nato member and will never enter nato, we are a major non nato ally which means that we do have joint exercises with nato, us and turkey forces (mostly air and sea mock battles) this is more of a partnership of mutual intrests and in the end no foreign troops guard israel borders (we dont want to relly on others and frankly we dont trust others to take the job seriously, especially the UN)



I didn't think there were any official partnerships, but I wasn't sure. Franky, I think Israel is better off as a partnership of mutual interest. I'd rather have Israeli troops at my back than UN ones.


as for the specific example you gave about the parlament members walking hand in hand with hizzbullah, i actually dont have a problem with that. this is not what i consider a treason or disloyalty. if it was israeli parlament members (which there were several who did such things and worst) i would have a problem with it.

It was definitely a disloyalty, but not in a treasonous sense. It's more of a galling issue than anything else. Once again, walking into bed with something worse.

[Shdo]

well UN troops are a joke, they caused one war in this region only by not even trying to do their job, the reason is that most of the troops that compose the UN forces are coming from all kind of third world countries and dont enlist to protect anything but to get the well paid paycheck from the UN. the result is soldiers that dont give a damn about their mission. its better to be without them then to have them around. well the UN is a shame on this world, a place where countries that commit open genocide and religious or gender apartheid are composing the UN human rights commissions.


a good example for loyalty is the druze minority in israel. basically the weight of the service in the IDF fall only on secular jews, they alone are forced to serve while religious ones have this annoying law where they learn in a yeshiva and postpone the service by years until its not relevant. arabs dont join the army unless they ask to. the same law was on the druze(they are arabs but their religion isnt muslim or christian, its very...unknown but related to the abrahamic religions) and they could have just give up on army service and move on with their lives. that is until their elders decided that they will not agree to it and decided that if they are citizens of israel they will share the burden just the same. today every druze have to join the army or civic service just like any other soldier and that meant that druze from israel fought druze from syria during the wars yet they chose that because they believe in loyalty.

[kiera2]

Loyalty to a country seems a little ridiculous to me - why be loyal to a place simply because it's where you happened to be born?

What it comes down to: I like my country because I think it's a good country. I don't think it's a good country because I like it.

[Shdo]

loyalty to a country means not trying to harm it, if people try to hurt the country that they live in they shouldnt be citizens, they should leave if they see their country as something that need to be destroyed or harmed.

[kiera2]

...they should leave if they see their country as something that need to be destroyed or harmed.
I disagree. If I saw my country turning into something that needed to be changed or even destroyed, I wouldn't just walk away or ignore it. I'd want to work towards making it better.

[Shdo]

by what means? destroying it? if so you are a traitor.

my country is a democracy, i belive yours is one as well, there is a way to change the way the country behave which is by voting.


years ago there was a PM over here that wanted peace, he was willing to give land for that dream, but many disagreed with him. one man decided that he dosnt agree with what the country is becoming, he didnt agreed for the peacful solution so he got a gun and murdered the PM, the peace process soon stopped and in a way that man achived what he wanted, he achived it by murdering his elected leader. this is treason, this is disloyelty, this is one example out of many people who hurt their own country and cause the death of fellow civilians to achieve their own 'ideals' and 'morals' those men sicken me for how far they will go to reach their own dream on the backs of others.

[Hiraeth]

Shdo: why does she have to mean in a violent manner? There are ways to protest the actions of a government that don't involve killing people.

[Shdo]

since she said

"If I saw my country turning into something that needed to be changed or even destroyed, I wouldn't just walk away or ignore it."


destruction is violant and does cause death, especially when its country sized.

[Hiraeth]

She then said 'I want to work towards making it better'. I don't know, maybe I just interpreted it differently. I don't want to get into an argument about it, if there's a problem then she can clarify it herself.

[Shdo]

perhaps.


anyways, i never said that trying to change the country is wrong, in earlier posts i did said its your obligation to say what you think and protest and so on. but destroying your country Establishments or hurting the state employees is simply wrong by any means and is treason which to me is one of the worst thing that one man can do to his people.


but again, different countries have different perspective, here where war is reality a treason means the death of many, where in another country treason means that someone stole some new fancy tech, no actual death.

[Ninira]

oyalty to a country means not trying to harm it, if people try to hurt the country that they live in they shouldnt be citizens, they should leave if they see their country as something that need to be destroyed or harmed.

So if there's a dictator in the country and the people want a revolution, they're being disloyal to their country? It's sort of confusing by the way you say it because the dictator is technically working for the state. Or maybe the country is being controlled ala imperialism. (I'll use India as an example.) Was Gandhi's civil disobedience disloyal to his country or more loyal because he wanted Indian independence?

[Shdo]

how did that dictator came to power? if not by treason? either was it by a militery coup or he was elected.

and ghandi wasnt killing people to get what he wanted, kudos for him!

[mechaqua]

its a little different in a democracy you see in democracy you usually have freedom of speech and assembly peacefully in a brutal dictatorship, were the people are usually denied freedom according to Locke (i am pretty sure its Locke eh might have been Voltaire it was from the enlightenment period) that if a government is no longer serving the majority of the people the people have right to change it in a democracy you can have an election in dictatorship you have to talk more drastic measures Gandhi took drastic measures he instead of using violence used peaceful resistance he is a benchmark fro a all revolutionaries and those who wish for change. What Shdo was talking about earlier is about Arab Israelis who were basically wanting to violent disestablish the government, Arab-Israelis are citizens of the state of Israel they have been victims of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups attacking Israel they have representation many hold government positions and the are more free then many other Arabs in the middle east sure there is prejudiced against them but no more then the black and Latino population have in the United States today they however are being disloyal to the government of Israel, who is a democracy though they probably do have a right to stay this under the constitution, because the I don't believe the Israelis violent crack down on it, but nonetheless if they acted out (which apparently one did) Israel has enough enemies outside its borders is doesn't need to have to worry about its own citizens attacking other citizens its like if French Canadians Quebec decided that they wanted to start killing non french Canadians, in order to gain independence, and if they carried it out that's disloyalty however the french Canadians don't act like this (as far as i know)

[earthforge]

Hm, responding to the original topic loyalty to your country is something that is important in the times where it is doing the logically right thing. The only time when loyalty is doubted is in dealing with extremists such as traitors to the country as well as traitors in the country. A very touchy subject, though. You cannot generallize the categories. There are those who do show loyalty, those that are merely accused, atc.

In the case of Israel, it is a stupid conflict. The difficulty is partially that they have based a country of of a religion. In a global world, this is becoming less of a problem but as Israel holds onto its concepts firmly it can easily become more extreme. So then another extreme walks up and they start fighting. The people in Hezbollah are criminals in my opinion, but there are also huge extremists in the Israelli government to. There is no easy way to solve this conflict.

And in the case of democracy, it's just that people have the right to choose. That also means people can make the wrong choice sometimes, because they are "captivated" or want war. Three types of groups are the Maoists (in Nepal), the militarists (Burma), and the Monitorists (199x England.) Maoists are a left extreme, Militarists are a right extreme, and Monitorists are in the middle.

[Shdo]

israel isnt based on religious basis. religion have great importance in israel (any religion btw, including islam and christianity) when some1 saying 'the jewish people' its not just a general saying, jews are a people, as a nation and so on, with distinct cultural aspects and so on.


its true that religious jews have much power in israel but that is given to them thanks to democracy, their power is given to them because of the fragmantal system in israel (the currently rulling party have less then 25% of the parlament seats) that gives small parties much power since the big parties need them to stand against the opposition (also the reason that many govrement fall before time, they lose their coalition and since rabin death there wasnt a single gov that finished its mandate)


as for the extremists in israel, as much as they are talking about crap they are still a part of a democracy and in the end their choices are limited to the same choices the extreme liberal have, protest? yes, vote for another party? yes, harm the country? NO.

[ShuiMei]

M
1) My core issue with the current Canadian identity is that there is no identity. Since Trudeau it has been in vogue to say "We are Canadian because we aren't Americans." Our entire identity as a society is based off not being the US. Multiculturalism as a concept has helped to dilute the Canadian identity. One of the big Trudeau era myths is that we are better than the Americans because Caada is "multicultural" while the US is a "melting pot". In reality there is no difference between the two statements, except that we (as a culture) keep highlighting the differences.

In both countries we welcome immigrants from nearly every country in the world, and it is impossible to go to even a medium sized city without seeing a strong blend of immigrants. This is what Canada has always been built on, and what provides an appeal. We are tolerant of other cultures and religions, we do not oppress people for these differences, and the only requirement is that you work hard in order to succeed. However, the need to "distance" ourselves from the US led to the creation of the multicultural myth. Which, in turn, highlights the differences between the people of Canada instead of the similarities.
Rather than arguing that multiculturalism has diluted our identity I would argue it has helped make Canada more cohesive, especially in the face of globalization. I know it's become increasingly popular to point at multiculturalism as a hindrance, a policy that has prevented the creation of a modern, cohesive Canadian identity, but I just don't feel that way. Multiculturalism is a fact of Canada and of the global world; moreover, as an ideology that promotes cultural exchanges, integration and equality, I think it's an admirable ideal for Canada to center itself on. I don't know if multiculturalism so much defines us as it tells us what we want to be: an inclusive and diverse people.

For much of Canadian history, our identity was heavily defined and divided by biculturalism, which greatly ignored the place and contributions of non-French/English Canadians. Though largely symbolic at first, official multiculturalism has since helped focus on breaking down institutional barriers and discrimination for ethnic minorities, as well as foster greater integration and participation in Canadian society. For once, rather than defining ourselves through the French/English relations, multiculturalism, in my opinion opened up what it meant/who could be a Canadian.

Indeed, it was not until I learned and read about M. Trudeau and multiculturalism policy that I really started to feel an affinity for this country and my place in it. Growing up I never really felt a sort of attachment with Canada. I knew I was Canadian, I was born here, but did I feel "Canadian?" I grew up in a very Chinese household, and like many immigrant children, I felt conflicted growing up, was I Chinese or was I Canadian? I encountered racism from other children and sometimes felt that my culture/ethnicity was a burden, that even if I did not want to identify myself as Chinese, that other people would. However as I grew up and learned about M. Trudeau, I realized that I did not have to pick and choose identities. The beauty of multiculturalism for me is that I can be Chinese and Canadian, and for the first time I really started to feel pride in my Canadian identity and grew a real attachment towards Canada and its institutions.

Moreover, long before Trudeau it was fashionable to say "we are Canadians because we aren't Americans." I know it's also in vogue to blame everything on Trudeau, but constructing Canadian identity by comparing ourselves to our American neighbours is hardly a recent phenomenon. Indeed, it started long before then, even during Confederation, John A. Macdonald had concerns about Canada having a federal system as opposed to a unitary one because he did not want to replicate the situation in the US.

Even without multiculturalism, Canadians would still define themeselves in comparison to the United States, it's inescapable, they are the giant next door and we are forever destined to compare ourselves with them. Other than the "cultural mosaic" vs. the "cultural melting pot" Canadians also like to shout about how "peaceful and modest" we are in comparison to the US, how they were found on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while Canada was found upon the principles of "Peace, Order and Good Government." The United States is the most powerful country in the world, as a comparatively (demographically) small nation of modest power and influence, Canadians are always going to feel a little insecure about who we are with the US as our neighbour.

Furthermore, what kind of identity would one propose instead of multiculturalism? I don't think a definitive, cohesive, pan-Canadian identity that applies to all is necessarily something that we should aspire towards, nor is it even possible. Canadians aren't homogeneous, and Canada is a richly diverse country with many regional differences. My experience a "Chinese-Canadian" living in urban Ontario is going to be different from someone who grew up in the Prairies, the Maritimes, or even a few hours away in rural Ontario. Like I said before, multiculturalism is a demographic fact in much of urban Canada, as government policy it acknowledges this fact and has since shifted it focus on integration and equality. Moreover, as an ideology I think it's a noble goal, it is certainly not without its issues, but I really don't think it's this demon of Canadian identity that many have made it out to be.

[kiera2]

by what means? destroying it? if so you are a traitor.
Isn't the whole reason the USA has the right to bear arms so that the people can rise up and rebel against a corrupt government, if the need arises?

[Shdo]

you will need to ask an american about that.


but if its true then its also flawed, lets say the govrement is social and help the people and stay away from wars and improve the living standarts of everyone but the very rich people are pissed about that and consider the govrement corrupted so they attack it.
maybe that is the reason there are so many cult holdup in america where they bonker up and stockpile weapons, because everyone can decide that the country is curropted.


the best example i can give is the case of rabin where the liberal person who had control over the parlament and tried to bring peace, was considered a threat to the country and someone decided to take the laws to his hands and to kill rabin. sometimes the destroying can be done even on liberal or democratic establishment. so what? this is good destroying and this is bad? how can you chose that? only because this group or the other is closer to you? this is unfair and hypocritical, no matter what, one must not try to harm his own country, the excuse of doing that for "the good of the people" is nothing but a lie, its for the good of this group or this group.

[kiera2]

Despite the fact that I phrased that as a question, it is indeed true. From what I've seen, Americans regard it as one of the most important parts of their democracy. Their country was built with an inherent mistrust of people in power, and so their constitution makes provisions for the people to take that power away if it is abused.

[bradc]

Isn't the whole reason the USA has the right to bear arms so that the people can rise up and rebel against a corrupt government, if the need arises?

Sadly, poor _bear arms_ is not enough to keep stupid politician at bay from corrupting their own government system, and their own people. >8( More dumb bills of these laws keep getting passed; it's ridiculous... US is not the Middle East where it's okay to park a camel outside without hindering traffic, if you get what I mean?

[Shdo]

each country have its quirks.

for example turkey, the army is allowed to take out the govrement if its trying to harm the democratic or secular nature of the country. its a thing that was criticized by europe while its the only thing that keep turkey the way it is, democratic.

[bradc]

each country have its quirks.

for example turkey, the army is allowed to take out the govrement if its trying to harm the democratic or secular nature of the country. its a thing that was criticized by europe while its the only thing that keep turkey the way it is, democratic.

There has been some ridiculous laws passed in the US, including camels... and elephants; if you have read about them... Canada is now trying to ban fire arms now, where people take responsibility where shooting ducks as a hobby. Apparently, it doesn't change anything or stop criminals from committing crime... Any person can loyal to their country, but the _person_ who becomes the next government becomes a question for their actions; people believe what a person does and not what they say. Actions speak louder than words...

[IngenuityGap]

There has been some ridiculous laws passed in the US, including camels... and elephants; if you have read about them... Canada is now trying to ban fire arms now, where people take responsibility where shooting ducks as a hobby. Apparently, it doesn't change anything or stop criminals from committing crime... Any person can loyal to their country, but the _person_ who becomes the next government becomes a question for their actions; people believe what a person does and not what they say. Actions speak louder than words...

No, Toronto is pushing a hand gun ban. There is already a long gun registry in effect. Canada is not banning firearms.

[bradc]

No, Toronto is pushing a hand gun ban. There is already a long gun registry in effect. Canada is not banning firearms.

Why do I feel no matter what there is some kind a mix message given by the government I cannot seem to understand... How this answer about the Canadian military station in Afghanistan? They have much bigger toys than handguns :confused:


ETA: England tried gun ban... but it backfired (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec) and Canadian backfired (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw&feature=related) version

[IngenuityGap]

Why do I feel no matter what there is some kind a mix message given by the government I cannot seem to understand... How this answer about the Canadian military station in Afghanistan? They have much bigger toys than handguns :confused:


ETA: England tried gun ban... but it backfired (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec) and Canadian backfired (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw&feature=related) version

What the Toronto municipal government decides to do or not do has nothing to do with the federal government. The proposed hand gun ban is a lazy reaction to an increase in gun violence from Toronto. Weapon bans, in general, are ineffective. Australia, UK, and the Canadian long gun registry are all marked failures in gun control. All brought in by socialist driven parties within those countries.

I'm really not sure why you are confused.

[bradc]

What the Toronto municipal government decides to do or not do has nothing to do with the federal government. The proposed hand gun ban is a lazy reaction to an increase in gun violence from Toronto. Weapon bans, in general, are ineffective. Australia, UK, and the Canadian long gun registry are all marked failures in gun control. All brought in by socialist driven parties within those countries.

I'm really not sure why you are confused.

Meanwhile, how do you explain said criminal get their handguns? Whether it be Federal or Municipal, it's still under the government... I guess is time to put more fears into people's lives...