|
ArchangeI posted:All Europeans have the right to arm bears, it's in the constitution (Article 2 in Germany, not sure about the others). Artikel 2 (1) Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit, soweit er nicht die Rechte anderer verletzt und nicht gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder das Sittengesetz verstößt. (2) Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit. Die Freiheit der Person ist unverletzlich. In diese Rechte darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingegriffen werden. No explicite right to bear arms there. You mean it's implicated in Article 2? Same as the right to wear silly hats or speak in rhymes.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Squalid posted:Unless of course the dirty magazines featured fraternization between civilians and foreign servicemen, which was of course strictly verboten by American officers predisposed to fear a little race mixin'. I'm going to question this. Do you have any solid evidence that this was the rationale? The reason I'm skeptical is that similar rules were in effect in Germany in the early occupation period and there was no racial component to those. There were simply fears of a resistance to the occupation and getting cozy with the occupied was considered a major security risk. Of course this broke down in a few years. I'm pretty sure the anti-frat rules in Japan even broke down pretty quickly. In fact, I'm pretty sure we have someone in this very thread who is the product of their Japanese grandmother "fraternizing" with an American GI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Also it is a security risk. Like when the unsullied started hanging out with Merenese women and started getting their throats cut.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
I thought Americans were insanely racist towards the "Japs" at that time, even sending home human skulls? It isn't surprising that some occupying soldiers get friendly with local women, but I can't imagine it was very accepted in either Japan or the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:I thought Americans were insanely racist towards the "Japs" at that time, even sending home human skulls? It isn't surprising that some occupying soldiers get friendly with local women, but I can't imagine it was very accepted in either Japan or the US. Racism and bonking people of a different race are not in the least incompatible (see Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond's daughter, like 90% of slaveowners, etc, etc). As long as it's kept semi-discreet and the bonkers are male and the bonkees female even racist societies tend to turn a blind eye. Also, they weren't sending back human skulls post-1945. Things change once you've won the war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Racism and bonking people of a different race are not in the least incompatible (see Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond's daughter, like 90% of slaveowners, etc, etc). As long as it's kept semi-discreet and the bonkers are male and the bonkees female even racist societies tend to turn a blind eye. specifically if the male is of the dominant race and the female the oppressed
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:specifically if the male is of the dominant race and the female the oppressed Yes, sorry, that's what I was getting at, yeah.  Not fun pegging times or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:I thought Americans were insanely racist towards the "Japs" at that time, even sending home human skulls? It isn't surprising that some occupying soldiers get friendly with local women, but I can't imagine it was very accepted in either Japan or the US. War changes everyone, and fucks some people up and not others, and those it does change drastically it changes in countless different ways from person to person. You've got people who come home from deployment without major psychological damage and become incredible selfless philanthropists, and you've got people who get ground into a seething racist mound of hatred by the end of their first year. I mean yeah you could comedically summarize this as #notallGIs but seriously, not everyone sought to hack off the head of a Japanese person and send the skull home, and not everyone at home wanted that. The same almost certainly applied to Japanese people, and in the middle you get people falling in love. Folks aren't a homogenous mass while at war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:I thought Americans were insanely racist towards the "Japs" at that time, even sending home human skulls? It isn't surprising that some occupying soldiers get friendly with local women, but I can't imagine it was very accepted in either Japan or the US. Everybody was racist toward everyone else at the time. The Japanese weren't particularly singled out. Your ancestors' national origins and religion meant a whole lot in who you were allowed to hang out with. It was far more than just skin color.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Britain didn't have any particular problems with torpedoes that I'm aware of - see Taranto, for example. No, the British problem was that we were delivering these torpedoes with Fairey Swordfish biplanes, which made TBD Devastators look like F-22s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Everybody was racist toward everyone else at the time. The Japanese weren't particularly singled out. Your ancestors' national origins and religion meant a whole lot in who you were allowed to hang out with. It was far more than just skin color. Yeah, but there's differing degrees of bias. The German POWs in WWII got way better treatment in camps than the American citizens of Japanese descent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:I thought Americans were insanely racist towards the "Japs" at that time, even sending home human skulls? It isn't surprising that some occupying soldiers get friendly with local women, but I can't imagine it was very accepted in either Japan or the US. Well, my grandparents didn't have any trouble when they were in Tokyo but after the war they got stuck in Bumfuck, Deep South where, among other things, people severely disapproved of my grandmother, their marriage was illegal, and my grandfather didn't have anything interesting to do and zero promotion prospects. When he asked why he was told 'it is hard to find acceptable posts for officers with Japanese wives' so he left as soon as he could. Raenir Salazar posted:Was this during a public appearance or did your grandmother work on the Palace grounds? Metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Yeah, but there's differing degrees of bias. The German POWs in WWII got way better treatment in camps than the American citizens of Japanese descent. True. There was a very clear pecking order of nationalities and ethnic groups. Blacks and Asians were at the bottom, of course, but Irish and Italians weren't too far above them. My Dad grew up in the 30s, and his stories of the gradeschool playground were eye opening for me. Everybody knew everybody else's ethnic extraction back five or six generations and there was a clear caste system of who was better than whom. An often overlooked byproduct of the Civil Rights revolution was the way it also freed whites from having to rank and hate each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Artikel 2 Read my post, I was specifically talking about the right to arm bears. Article 2 of the German constitution works like a backup, in that it covers all rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the other articles. There is a decision by the German constitutional court that even feeding pigeons falls under this right. So very obviously giving weapons to bears would also count. Unless you hate freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
I do in fact hate freedom, which is why I will soon be writing a mini-essay for the book on the theme of "The BEF circa 1917 as a successful self-governing Socialist nation-in-exile".
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Read my post, I was specifically talking about the right to arm bears. Article 2 of the German constitution works like a backup, in that it covers all rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the other articles. There is a decision by the German constitutional court that even feeding pigeons falls under this right. So very obviously giving weapons to bears would also count. Depends. Bears are animals, so as long as you aren't using weapons against them (which would be breaking several animal protection laws), you can definitely arm them. But: As wild animals you'd need to use the Aneignungsrecht to transfer ownership from no-one to you, so you can give them weapons. Otherwise, since wild animals can't own anything themselves, you would essentially throw your weapons away, which is against both your owner- and your carrying license. Also it's a rather criminal way of littering, which is against the law, too. And even if you do all this, arming bears would be interpreted by courts as haphazardly and unsafe storage of your weapons. This is because animals are counted as things, like furniture. Only with special laws protecting them a little bit. Anyway, your licenses to own, store and carry weapons would be revoked after you armed bears because of how flagrantly you violated German weapon laws. So the bears you armed will make you face charges because: - Violating animal protection laws. - Unsafe weapon storage. - Everything the bears do with the weapons will be another charge against you, since you're the legal owner. - A giant can of worms springs open as soon as the police realize the bears you claim ownership of are actually under protection of preservation laws and can't be owned. - Now you also face charges because you're littering and fooled around with protected species. So while you have the right to arm bears, you'll also break multiple laws if you actually try. Next up: Why taking something out of your neighbour's trash can is stealing from the state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
can bears arm themselves? if they're german
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:can bears arm themselves? if they're german Nope, because they can't own anything. Also all licenses relevant for weapon ownership can only be issued to German citizens, which bears can never be. (They're legally objects with additonal protection against humans touching them.) Edit: It's quite amusing to think how those laws got started. I imagine a lawyer at one point saying something like "No, a cat is more like a chair, therefore..." 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
what about american bears? we probably won't know until one of them brings suit edit: funny you mentioned cats, depending on the time and place they weren't technically ownable in the us: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...tion_feral.html quote:In 1894, a Baltimore man was arrested for stealing his neighbor’s cat. But as the judge prepared to sentence him, Maryland’s attorney general stepped in. “A cat,” he declared, “is not legal property. … It is as much a wild animal, in a legal sense, as are its relatives—the tiger and the wild-cat.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Bears definitely don't need to arm themselves, because they already have arms and thus don't need any right to bear arms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Britain didn't have any particular problems with torpedoes that I'm aware of - see Taranto, for example. Everyone had problem with magnetic detonators in WW2. Ark Royals strike on Bismarck was equipped with contact detonators after an earlier mistaken attack on Sheffield had shown problems. At Taranto salvage of the Littorio was complicated by an unexplored magnetic torpedo preventing moving of the ship. The US and Germany had problems with depth keeping and contact detonators needing perpendicular hits. The US also had problems with premature explosions and circular running. It wasn’t all bad news for the US, the FIDO was the best acoustic torpedo developed in the war. At least 2 U-Boats were lost to being homed on by their own Zaunköning torpedoes. AbleArcher fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Bears definitely don't need to arm themselves, because they already have arms and thus don't need any right to bear arms. I would argue that that this means they absolutely require the right to bear arms, lest they be disarmed. Also this joke has been well and truly run into the ground. Not that this has ever stopped anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Libluini posted:So while you have the right to arm bears, you'll also break multiple laws if you actually try. I was thinking pikes to appease the gods of the thread, but I guess some form of claw-enhancement could work too. VVVV Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
As in....claws? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What if you arm bears with non-firearms? Then I guess you would only break half the laws I listed some posts back. Half the fines, half the prison time. Is that good enough?  Fake Edit: Claw-enhancements would probably lead to hilariously hijinks like you getting beat up by angry Greens or getting "accidentally" shot by a Jäger. So please get on with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What if you arm bears with non-firearms? Pike-claws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:" right to bear-arms" If PETA and the NRA agree on something, you know it's got to be a good idea. I see some of the problems are that bears are a protected species in germany. We've mentioned America, but I think the legal act of arming bears might be a bit different in other parts of the world  The other option would be to arm them with something deadly, but that is not generally regulated as a weapon, like an electrolaser or perhaps some kind of toxic poison. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
So what I'm taking from this is that we need to get to work on Uplifting bears so we can then arm them legally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
What the gently caress is happening in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Nobody is talking about Napoleons and that makes this man very angry. It would actually be an interesting discussion to pick through the legend and sort of what he was good out and what is just milhist legend.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Napoleon was awesome I wish he won
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Napoleon was awesome I wish he won  He re-established slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
ain't nothing wrong with that, the Germans had it coming
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I do in fact hate freedom, which is why I will soon be writing a mini-essay for the book on the theme of "The BEF circa 1917 as a successful self-governing Socialist nation-in-exile". I would love you forever were this true and not merely a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Nobody is talking about Napoleons and that makes this man very angry. The Austrian army had its doctrines designed by a secretive cabal of French nationalists specifically to make sure Napoleon won. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
come on you would do the exact same thing in his shoes
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Napoleon had some good ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Toussaint Louverture was cooler though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:05
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Napoleon had some good ideas. The Napoleon code and actually alllowing European Jews to do something other than Usury was pretty cool.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Napoleon did some good things and some bad things. He wasn't the greatest politician, but he was one hell of a military leader. Also he ended up defining the landscape of Europe for the modern era. He's a one man argument for the great man theory of history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:31
|
|