Following the Oslo attacks, Germans are in "ban-mode"

[dead0man]

I'd just like to point out again that Germans hate guns more than Nazis.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'd just like to point out again that Germans hate guns more than Nazis.

Thanks for that relevant information.

[Zarn]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

I bet the government itself is a bigger threat than guns. Maybe the German government should ban itself.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

IIRC, nobody made such claim.

[minionofmidas]

Nor is there anything in the poll about "banning guns"... but go on believing Germany is Britain, if it makes you feel smug. The sentiment was born on the same vile scrapheap as the one about the nazis somehow being pro-abortion despite being the most "pro-life" government Germany's ever seen in the modern age. Reductio ad Hitlerum done ad Absurdum, safe in the knowledge that the recipients of the message couldn't tell Canada from their granduncle.

[Zarn]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

IIRC, nobody made such claim.

That's the entire purpose of having a republic.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

IIRC, nobody made such claim.

That's the entire purpose of having a republic.

The purpose of a republic is that you don't have a monarch. Which isn't what these polls were about either...

[Zarn]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

IIRC, nobody made such claim.

That's the entire purpose of having a republic.

The purpose of a republic is that you don't have a monarch. Which isn't what these polls were about either...

Oh, so Germany was still a republic under Hitler? Was France a republic under Bonaparte?

It's a knee-jerk reaction to restrict liberty. Norway isn't exactly Switzerland, either. The direction of such a law wouldn't even make any sense.

The United States restricted liberty with the Patriot Act. A lot of good that did us.

These types of laws only serve to hurt liberty. Loss of liberty leads to the loss of free government (republic, despite your lazy terminology, means 'rule of law'). This means tyranny, where liberty is substantially even less.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Oh, so Germany was still a republic under Hitler? Was France a republic under Bonaparte?

In a strict sense, they were. So is currently China.

A democratic republic is merely a sub-category of the republican form of government.

These types of laws only serve to hurt liberty. Loss of liberty leads to the loss of free government (republic, despite your lazy terminology, means 'rule of law'). This means tyranny, where liberty is substantially even less.

Even if "republic" would mean "rule of law" I don't see how stricter gun control would violate or negate the rule of law provided that this stricter control was adopted through a democratic and constitutional process and could in theory be reversed through the same democratic and constitutional means.

[batmacumba]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

IIRC, nobody made such claim.

That's the entire purpose of having a republic.

The purpose of a republic is that you don't have a monarch. Which isn't what these polls were about either...

Strange. I used to think that the purpose of a 'Res Publica' was to make issues 'Public Things', than an overpowered individual could not enforce one's sole desires and auspitions over the others, owning and controlling everything under one's power on the process. Clearly, this will make some people freer (those who control the public issues). Sure, not having a monarch (and aristocrats) that sees the State (and obviously it's gentry) as his/her property is a really good beginning.
In a democracy, citizens control those issues and, when you restrict that control (or disenfranchise citizenship, somehow), then you're putting degrees of autoritharianism. But not of non-republican system. Yet, you can have democracies with non-republican aspects, if you let private interests pass over the public ones. The main issue is on what is a public interest, what is not, and how is the interaction between a putative public interest, a private interest, and the various shades of interests of partial groups. That's why republics always have assemblies and selfcorrecting law systems.
But I can't see too much conceptual differences between modern parliamentarian monarchic democracies and republican democracies, except the formers having an extremely expensive kind of public servant.
Gun banning, on the other hand, can result in a pretty public benefit, but I wouldn't make an issue over this. A responsible armed population may also be.

[Zarn]

Oh, so Germany was still a republic under Hitler? Was France a republic under Bonaparte?

In a strict sense, they were. So is currently China.

A democratic republic is merely a sub-category of the republican form of government.

These types of laws only serve to hurt liberty. Loss of liberty leads to the loss of free government (republic, despite your lazy terminology, means 'rule of law'). This means tyranny, where liberty is substantially even less.

Even if "republic" would mean "rule of law" I don't see how stricter gun control would violate or negate the rule of law provided that this stricter control was adopted through a democratic and constitutional process and could in theory be reversed through the same democratic and constitutional means.

You cannot have the rule of law and rule of the people at the same time.

[batmacumba]

Oh, so Germany was still a republic under Hitler? Was France a republic under Bonaparte?

In a strict sense, they were. So is currently China.

A democratic republic is merely a sub-category of the republican form of government.

These types of laws only serve to hurt liberty. Loss of liberty leads to the loss of free government (republic, despite your lazy terminology, means 'rule of law'). This means tyranny, where liberty is substantially even less.

Even if "republic" would mean "rule of law" I don't see how stricter gun control would violate or negate the rule of law provided that this stricter control was adopted through a democratic and constitutional process and could in theory be reversed through the same democratic and constitutional means.

You cannot have the rule of law and rule of the people at the same time.

Please, let's not discuss using clichés. Develop this statement.

[Insula Dei]

Oh, so Germany was still a republic under Hitler? Was France a republic under Bonaparte?

In a strict sense, they were. So is currently China.

A democratic republic is merely a sub-category of the republican form of government.

These types of laws only serve to hurt liberty. Loss of liberty leads to the loss of free government (republic, despite your lazy terminology, means 'rule of law'). This means tyranny, where liberty is substantially even less.

Even if "republic" would mean "rule of law" I don't see how stricter gun control would violate or negate the rule of law provided that this stricter control was adopted through a democratic and constitutional process and could in theory be reversed through the same democratic and constitutional means.

You cannot have the rule of law and rule of the people at the same time.

Wha...

[Middle-aged Europe]

You cannot have the rule of law and rule of the people at the same time.

You're not making much sense.

[Zarn]

You cannot have the rule of law and rule of the people at the same time.

You're not making much sense.

Okay, please study the Enlightenment and the Classical period, then discuss forms of government. It's very basic stuff.

I could give you the run down, but you likely wouldn't believe me. After all, it's the internetz.

[minionofmidas]

I fail to see how banning guns makes people freer.

IIRC, nobody made such claim.

That's the entire purpose of having a republic.

The purpose of a republic is that you don't have a monarch. Which isn't what these polls were about either...

Oh, so Germany was still a republic under Hitler? Was France a republic under Bonaparte?

There is an alternate reading of the word, not ever encountered outside the US of A, under which the first is highly debatable. The second (in the years when it claimed to be, ie the Consulate) - yes, very much so.
For all normal purposes, the answer is duh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, we're quite on the same page here.

[Хahar 🤔]

It bothered certain elements in the DNVP that Germany remained a republic under Hitler, but then they didn't matter.

[Franzl]

Typical.

[Middle-aged Europe]

While it never seems to die as a political issue how likely is a NPD ever to occur anyway (or a ban of any other political party for that matter)?

The only two successful party bans conducted under the Grundgesetz happened almost sixty years and it was an entirely different country back then. The SRP was banned because it consisted of Nazis (actual Nazis, not neo-Nazis) and the West German government wanted to prove to the Western allies how serious they were about preventing the rise of another Hitleresque regime. Four years later, the KPD was banned to prove that West Germany is not only tough against Nazis but also against the Soviets, which was an important point to make at the height of the Cold War for some reason.

Diplomatic relations with Israel are currently as good as ever, so what would be the actual incentive of banning the NPD here?  Could calling for a NPD ban be the German equivalent to America's flag burning amendment that never materializes?

[minionofmidas]

Yes, quite.