News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


Sure, that was clear to me from the start. We're not talking to agree or to convince one another to our point of view but to exchange our opinions.


I think that life is better than death.


Me? Nothing. I don't have that power. I just think that people don't have the right to kill children just because they can or because law says that is all right for them to do that

As I said two wrongs doesn't make it right. The only justifiable kill is in a self-defence.


You clearly got this right.


Regardless what you think those exceptional circumstances are not what the battle is all about. Its about promotion of 'abortion' on request, as that is the end game of the neo-Marxist and these other radicals, you know - scared of crowds.

Once you say that there're exceptions in a protection of the sanctity of the human life. Floodgates are open to different interpretations. Moral guidance need to be clear and to the point. Free of ambiguity - either all the human life is protected and sacred or not.


Nope, no one is doing that as far as I know. You make no sense.


Do I need a special permission to express my opinion on a very important matter or any matter at all? I don't think so. Maybe in the North Korea that is the case.


Again, you make no sense. You sound as if a mother would slathered in some strange ritual after delivering a child. I assure you that it is no what I have in mind. Never heard about such a practise. Needless to say the Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with it either.


Unnecessary? What makes you an expert on what is necessary and what is not? You could have at least add - in my opinion.


It is immaterial as in fact they failed to run medical tests. You seem to be in denial in that case as to the reality.


Sure you do and that has nothing to do with religion. Once again as you most likely skipped that part. Religion has nothing to do in my assessment whether or not an unborn child is a child or not.

Religion came into it only as a moral guidance about sanctity of the human life. If you don't share that view on the sanctity of the human life then I understand your stance even if I don't agree with it.

If, however, you agree that human life is sacred and yet you advocate 'an abortion' for whatever reason bar saving its mother's life. You inadvertently condone killing children and your stance cannot be defended. Its lack consistency and logic.


You're being absurd.

By the way - "The early leaders of the feminist movement were against abortion.

The radical feminist Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as "child murder" and viewed it as a means of exploiting both women and children."

"Alice Paul, who drafted the original version of the Equal Rights Amendment, referred to abortion as "the ultimate exploitation of women.""

Abortion - First introduced by Lenin, followed closely by Hitler.

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


That is a moral dilemma right there. Once you gonna decide on someone else behave what constitutes a good quality of life or the very right to existence you, where does it stop! Euthanasia, Nazism, Pol-Pot, Stalin all those deeds that hide behind those names and sounds are based on an assumption, on that leap that you're making right there, that you know better and that gives you the right to deicide about matters of life and death.

A fact that you're driven by a good intentions. What you would term the best intention, doesn't change a thing!
In short is not your call unless you can bring dead to life.
That utilitarian arrogance is a nothing new. It has been know to our pagan ancestors, to the ancient Romans and Greeks as well. In fact it is not an alien idea in many parts of the glob. Where the influence of the Christian civilization had has only left a very superficial markings.

A moral superiority of the European civilization had been confirmed by its global, historical success. Technological and material wealth came only as a distant second.

Our civilization by gradually loosing its moral standards. By turning its back on them, is on a good way to lose itself.
A sad part is that some people (even on this forum) would say that is a good thing. Fools!


Don't do it of you're not up for it! No one is telling you to do what you cannot do. Doesn't necessary means that you have to kill such a child.


Hard and convenient, not hard and moral.


I'm sure you do. I call a spade a spade. Notice that I have no objected to you talking about an 'abortion' or whatever other euphemism you chose to adopt. That your choice and your views which I respect. Yet I hold an opposite position on the issue and I will use those terms that best stress my views.


Since when feelings justify murder? By the way - what mother? Ex-mother? That's a conundrum.
If a woman in question doesn't believe that she is carrying a child but some inanimate object a bundle of cells for example, shouldn't be swayed or upset by what others say. Simple!

I wouldn't even stop her from doing what she does. I don't understand why people are sometimes blocking those places that're killing children and for same reason are called clinics.

Each person responsible for his own deeds. Hence if the hypothetical person in question would be sure that she is in the right, what's the harm in listening to opinions that differ?


I just can hear that convo.
"Listen sweetie we cannot afford to give you a life you clearly deserve. Setting for less wouldn't be fair on you - the best solution you have to go. That is for the best, we're doing that only for you!"

Come on!


There is no shame in that. If you can't you can't. No-one would wish to force a child conceived in such a circumstances on a mother. The emphasis is not on questioning the 'ability' of a mother, nor her fitness to be a mother so to speak. That is not about that all women competition deal that often looks like a pretending game.

That is a deadly serious issue of the life and death.
Rapist should be hanged for all I care. A rape is wrong. Killing children is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make it right. Period.

On the issue of children as a result of a rape. That is a standard leftie counterfeited currency they try to circulate. I don't remember exactly how many pregnancies as a result of a rape are out there but those numbers I have checked some time ago were negligible numbers. It is very rare occurrence. Same pertain to children with crippling or life threating disabilities.

What I mean to say, why talk about that?
Let's assume for the sake of our debate that I would agree that killing children would be OK:
if mother's life would be in danger
if pregnancy would be result of rape
Would you conceded to a law stipulating also - No 'abortion' for any other reason?


Surly even in such exceptional circumstances there is no need for an 'abortion'. There're other less radical solutions. In the age that have more understanding for the most vile murder than their victim/s, that instead of eradicating criminals aims at excusing them, such a radical approach to unborn children seems unduly harsh in my opinion.


Well, no machine or doctor is prefect, there were mistakes made in that matter. Chillingly often. If the child die anyway - what's the harm?


I doubt that many people who derive a satisfaction from a misery of others would care at all for unborn children!


Really? Preventing a child from being born is completely moral. Its for its own good. What morality we are talking about?
Hypocrisy?


His educated guess. He is not a prophet and couldn't guarantee of the outcome. Is pretty irrelevant in relation to the past events, flaming even. What happened was simple - she complained, they ignorant it. She lost her life. Would they run complex medical check up on her the outcome might have been different. Did they requested such a check up? I don't know.


What lesson? If a woman complaining about some problems and demands an 'abortion' - medical stuff should be automatically required to do that? That practically an unrestricted abortion. Disgusting!

Or - run complex tests? Lesson learned. Good!


Sure, I'm not a hypocrite.


I would rather call myself someone who 'understand' rather than pro-lifer.
I understand that unborn child is not only a bundle of cells. That is a fact, that has nothing to do with Church, religion or whatnot! Some people don't get it some don't care.

That fact has it's consequences this time that has all to do with a religion and morality. If you believe that - do not kill - is something you're on board with, you cannot condone killing children.

Meaning voting for those people who would amend laws - its simple really.

To address your question. The difference is in the aim of the doctors, in their intention. They aim to save mother's life not to kill a child if in the process of saving her life, child dies that too bad.

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


Why mother? In the Roman times it was father that could decide about fate of his children.
Seriously, do you think it is right to kill someone right off the bat just because you can? Just to save your self some grief later?


Because if she would kill her own child it would not affect her at all! She just shrug it off just like that!


Nobody forces mother to rare her child or to care for it. If she is not up for a task, she can give it up for adoption or whatnot! You're full of drama! :)


Some reverse psychology here, redundant. Killing children that cannot even defend themselves is wrong. Period.


No, killing children is wrong. Once you decide that you have right to kill someone because you can and it is convenient to you when does it stop? Next you know it could be you in that redundant human waste category that can be and should be easy discarded.


No, it is moral and human. You propose something that is clearly a backwoods backlash to the philosophy best emphasised by The Tarpeian Rock!


That the key word here. That what it all about! That case has been used to bring forgather laws that would grant people an abortion if requested.


Highly likely? Meaning, maybe maybe not.


That is your opinion.


That is not an argument, but a logical fallacy! Crimes are still being committed regardless of the laws. Should we abolish laws as they clearly do not prevent criminals from committing crimes?


My views have nothing against an aborcion if mother's life is in danger. The point is they didn't know that because they didn't take her complain seriously, saving money and all that.


Irrelevant!

Off-Topic / What is funny about this picture? [31]


Indeed, that looks quite out of place and to be honest look weird. I suspect that that is what it is anti-Catholic propaganda poster pretending to be something that is not. Nowadays, you can create that kind of thingee on your PC, take a picture from one source, replace original message with something entirely else and vole!

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


So what does she thinks? ****, lets kill that monster? I would rather say that what she think and what she does depends on an idvidual faced with such a tragic reality.

If she is to have a real choice not a token one, she should be told the truth, even if that hurst. She wouldn't have remained unscorched by that either way. Unless she can do the right thing or not.

What she doesn't need are all those humanitarians that are falling over themselves to help her - over her dead child body.


That was a complex issue that boils down to an illegal action of ideologically motivated politicians and an intrigue.


Do you mean to say that such a woman should be forced to terminate her pregnancy?
The reason is simple, doctors are humans as well and as such they have the right to refuse to 'terminate' a life. I'm sure there is plenty of other doctors that would only to happy to do it. What's the problem?


Do you think that it is the right thing to do? To kill an innocent child?
Frist of all pregnancies like that are an exception to the rule, used as an argument in discussion to further that ideology that claims that it is OK to kill a child and not OK to kill a degenerate criminal. Madness.

From a moral point of view that has no legs, the same goes for a logic, it is illogical as every heretical ideology.
I say only that rape is a crime. Children shouldn't be killed. Both things are wrong.


You should read what I have to say about it. Yes, medical error are nothing new and might happen in the future. Should we ban hospitals or doctors?


Good! Bill Gates has influence and is cosy with a government, same goes for the mass media, celebrities and personalities! Is there anything wrong with havening influce? Is that a crime?

Not to mention politicians and political parties.
So what?
Ultimatly people are voting parties to power or are voting them out......


I mean, so what? I'm sure that it was terrible to him and his wife. Every medical error that leave victims behind is a inhuman terrible thing.

Could you stop using that case as a tool to further pro-abortion propaganda?


I think that at the present the current law is enough due to political circumstances i.e. there isn't a consensus in Poland to change the law one way or the other.

I think that 'abortion' should be an option only if mother's life would be in danger.

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


No, it is a major failure in a medical treatment. That's plain enough to see.
Do you claim to know what would have happened IF they would go on with that procedure you all seems to be so fixated about? I don't know and no one knows. the end result could be well the same. The right question what she was doing being pregnant while after miscarriage and with her sickness.


If doesn't runs about and cries daddy - kill it! (the pro-choice view) That is the root of all evil.

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


I think you're confused.
Here is the right answer -


A Medical Error that was the reason for her dead. That is really low that that tragic accident has been turned around to be used as a tool in the ideological warfare.

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


Well, that would be mighty inconvenient wouldn't be?


Why? That child is guilty of the crime. Would you be in favour for a capital punishment for murderer's children?


That is an old lie that is always used by the leftie propaganda. Not factual at all.


Like al the laws, the police and all that legal trifle and carry on haven't stopped criminals from committing crimes./


the Church can do nothing on its own. Cannot implement laws or police them. In that regard depends on laymen, on people on the street to vote such a people and such laws as they find agreeable.

That obsessive fear of the church is not well founded at all. It is an irrational feeling - nothing less and nothing more.

News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]


Are homosexuals deviants too? tsk tsk


Boohoo! Use some more big meaningless slogans while out of real arguments. I can do it to - all evil people murdering unborn children should be ashamed of their own wickedness.


How but they can do whatever they like with their bodies. At least in Europe, thanks largely to the civilisation that exist mainly due to the Catholic Church's influence. However they're not allowed (or shouldn't be allowed)to take a life of another human being.

Life / Differences between Irish, British, Polish, American and other nations culture, tradition, music - loose talk [241]


Majority of people in Poland lost their ability to dance all these folk or national dances in 50' and 60'. Except for those who were interested in that. There're some groups at the movement that do work on reviving all those dancing traditions.

Interesting though that Ireland have no regional folk traditions.

Life / Differences between Irish, British, Polish, American and other nations culture, tradition, music - loose talk [241]


Yes and Nay!
No, nothing to do with nobles and only 10% citizens able to vote is still better then all countries in the world until USA or Britain (in the second part of the 19th century).

Yes, It has everything to do with the WWII and its aftermath. Poland as Soviet colony government directly form Kremlin with installed middlemen, that consisted traitorous scum, minorities and such. That supposed to be 'Polish' government.

More than have territory of Poland have been stolen and incorporated into the Soviet Union directly, populace from those lands have been treated forcibly into lands taken from Germany.

Rapid industrialization followed in 50' and 60' with growing cities and towns, people have been uprooted, brain washed with agnostic, soviet propaganda, no élites to speak off, or rather what's left of them have been marginalized.

People mainly form rural areas have been ashamed of their often very modest origin, custom, song and dance have been all but forgotten.

That is miracle that so much survived.
Slowly that lost trove of very rich and vibrant culture is been rediscovered.

Comparing histories of Ireland and Poland is like compering apples and oranges.
posted in random

Life / Differences between Irish, British, Polish, American and other nations culture, tradition, music - loose talk [241]


Paulina those are lies and made up stories. The same goes for "a real life" confessions to support their biased ideology. Don't be gullible.

posted in random

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Honestly if you ask such a question you're missing the point already.
--


Sure, why not?
---


Just because it is the right thing to do.
--


You mean crime rate with a firearm involved. As if that would make any difference to a victim. Please.
---


Well, go back to deaths related to traffic accidents. You haven't addressed that one in any sort o logical and satisfactory argument./
--


In my mind it is. After all that would explain neatly why you're grasping at straws fending off my well formed and logical augments:)

It isn't a 'cool' reason to be sure but I'm not going to hold it against you.
---


Ban the cars, every time you drive your car you're creating a potentially dangerous situation for yourself and others.
---


That worse, in the way guns are safer than cars!
--


As I said, that is not about me, its about principles... Also I'm not going to post my personal experiences on a internet forum. Especially that it doesn't serve any purpose and doesn't further our debate. I propose to focus our talk on few key issues, because in my opinion we are going in circles returning to the same pivotal points again and again only dressing it differently. That is if you feel like it:)

History / Conscripted to German Army, then the British Polish Free Army. How? [12]


You should have asked him. I'm sure he would be able to provide you with the most accurate information. You can't expect complete strangers to know about your father life more than you with a much of a detail? Are you for real?


Where exactly? Anyway check that for yourself might be helpful:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_the_Wehrmacht


You too, would benefit from reading that wiki note.

Life / Will Poland ever be multicultural like Sweden, Germany or France? [283]


Multicultural doesn't mean what you think it does. Multiculturalism states that all cultures are equal. That there is no need for immigrants to assimilate, embrace value and culture of their new country. Its rather majority and a new country should accommodate newcomers, an so forth.

what you think about is color. You mean to say that there is no millions of non-white people in Poland. So what>? Go to Africa, go to India, Go to China. Muslim countries or Japan. Non of those have many differed race in number or their territory. Why don't you go and troll them>?

That is some BS you spew!
--


Have even been in Poland bud? I doubt that! If you have you're dumb as an ashtray.
--


So are Indians, are you pestering them with your ignorant trolling too? Gees if you want to troll get some brains.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


The right to self-defense is the most fundamental aspect of individualism. Even if it doesn't benefit the collective because an individual matter more than collective.

Defending your life is a basic human right and a basic moral good. All dictators and tyrannies started with taking away guns from the people.

Soviets, Hitler's Germany and so forth.
----


Happy now?:)
---


No, I feel that a free citizen in a free country should justify his shopping habits.
--


The law should be changed accordingly.
---


That is not a question of a need but of a right. I think Poles should have that right given back to them.
---


Because law and mentality in Poland is pretty much in a grip of what I would term as post-commie withdraw syndrome. That changes slowly.
---


Well, sometimes they do take their cars and use as means to kill people. Example of France spring to mind.
If you die, you die. I'm sure those people don't care if they have been killed with a gun, a care or a hammer.

The latter is the most cited cause of dead in the USA, ahead of ah so deadly rifles. according to FBI roughly twice as much people have been killed with fist, legs, hammers than with shot to dead with rifles of any kind:

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20
-----


Nothing, I was asking you because it was you who have been talking about mortality rate as an argument. I think I have aptly turned table on you and expected your real motives. Irrational fear of guns.

---


It is a very practical solution. Often defenders of the nature are using it. Had been using it before their case have been overtaken by commies from the on side and special interest groups from the other.

Trains, trams, public transport is generally cheaper, most effective, saves resource and reduced number of a road casualties. That is an irrefutable fact. On the other hand a car is more convenient, individualist means of transport.

I have nothing against cars. On the other hand I think you should if you want to remain consistent in your reasoning?
Either you care about number of dead or you don't!
Seems that you don't!
Conclusion is simple - an irrational fear of guns that you simply justly in that way. Do you think that parents who lost their kids in that terrorist attack in France - say - at least they my beloved child had been run over by a truck rather then mowed down by the terrible terrible gun.

Ridiculous premise.
----


:D That is a good one Chemikiem. I lest I die from a good tool misused by some drunk dikehead, not from one of those terrible, awful, evil guns made for killing. That funny! :DDD

---


I'm certain, plus that is what a free country should do.
---


Yes, because you hail from a class society and doesn't see anything wrong with a fact that those on the top have their security people armed protecting them and so forth. They have no problem with owning or obtaining any gun that would like to have.

Plebs on the other hand that is either different matter. They should know their place and obey their betters. Let scare them with a tall tales of evil guns.

----


Don't be silly. Even the most safe country in the world is only relatively safe..
--


That is not the question of feelings or needs. ~It is about principles.
---


Shouldn't justify - typo.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


We're going in circles. What difference does it make easer, harder, an ax instead of gun. Where is a will there is a way.

On a whole you cannot justify guns restrictions by bringing in criminals. Criminals are criminals they don't worry about laws and rules or morals. Why anyone would make laws for law abiding citizen and worry about criminals - it doesn't make sense.

----


Possibly, that could happen, that stand to logic. Want is more precious? What ranks higher - freedom or life?
---


Probably because it is a very good argument. One that exposes lots of hot air about guns and cut to the chase.
----


I disagree, trains, trams, buses, planes could be used instead. The only reason you would be rather using cars is a personal comfort.
It is easer to you to use a car, plus you are familiar, used to it. So you ignore dangers and risk or rather you take it as a part of a parcel.

Why? Because in your mind benefits of owning a car overweight risk that causes.
That is. There is no any other reason.
-----


That is what you believe in. I disagree. That is only your opinion and point of view. S one you're entitled to of course but no better or worse than other opinions on the matter. I would like to hear compelling arguments that support your opinion. :)

----


Once you start making decisions for others, where would you stop?
--


Benefit of leading your life in a considerable freedom. Benefit of having an option. Benefits of self-reliance....
----


Fear doesn't go hand in hand with a reason.
---


That wouldn't change. After all your changes are much greater to be killed in a traffic right now. I doubt that would change with guns around.

---


It is logical reasoning but for it to make a compelling argument you would have to be consistent. Remember cars, reads, accidents? Ban cars, ban guns - completing argument. Guns - bad, cars - ok - no argument.

----


Not long term.
--


Nothing guarantee your safety. Having a gun even odds and gives you a standing change to defend yourself. Why would you begrudge people of chance to do that?

-

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Of course it is!
---


Germany 1933? Does it ring a bell? Secession conventions, 1860. ? They don't? Are you really, really sure?
----


"•A person in the US has better chances of being struck by lightning ( about 1 in 6,000) than of being shot by another person at any given moment. "

-------


I understand your point. I understood it the first time you used it. Yes, you're right. That could happen than more criminals would get an access to a gun if the number of guns in a country would increase significantly.

However that would be a negligible number most likely.
The point is - if someone want to commit a crime there is nothing you can do to stop them. I don't think that people who are killed with a knife, an axe, baseball bat or a gun care in the slights what tool had been used in causing their demise.

What more, freedom of majority cannot be circumvented, reduced due to action of few.
In other words, collective responsibility is not a very evolved concept and doesn't promote freedom of an individual.
-----


I think that US and Poland differ in that regard and gun crimes would never spin out of control in certain areas as it is in the USA.

----


How many dead in road accidents would you consider too many? What number would make you think about banning cars?#

I think the real question here is - when dangers outweighs benefits? For me I guess it would be the same number people shot as those killed in traffic accidents. Then I would think that maybe something is not right. Fat chance of that happening bar a war.

-------


That is my proposal, drives need to pass a competency test as well as theoretical stuff, I think that something similar could be done with guns. Once you pass, you can buy.

----


No one is safe, that is a common misconception, you can feel safe but in fact you're relatively safe.

So, in fact your anti-gun argument is based on a false assumption of security. Guns in the hands of your countrymen would make you feel unsafe. OK! I can understand that. Even though I think such a stance is based on feelings, not logic or reason.

-----


They don't have to have anything to do with guns.
---


No, I don't! Your assumption is that guns are making a country more dangerous place. I think that the opposite is true.:~)
----


Check!


Check!-----
I would rather be a self-relaying citizen with as many freedoms as possible. Rather than a safe 'peasant' relaying on others for my safety.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


So, if you cannot trust your fellow countrymen to carry guns abound. Why would you entrust them with the right to vote. That has much more direct impact on your life than some irresponsible or criminal dumbass caring a gun.

Maybe there should be selected and trusted group of people that not only would have the right to carry guns around but would also be the only ones with the right to vote.

Hey if you're elitist - I can understand your point of view. Otherwise not so much.
-----


That correlation is not proven. It is only an estimation. There're other countries than USA with guns at homes and without so many gun crimes.

Even if you were right. Lets assume that for a sake of discussion. Why would you penalize law abiding citizens for some what might happen or for some crime that would have been committed with a gun instead than with a knife?

Why one man misdeeds should negatively reflect on my rights, on my freedom, on my choices? Where is justice in that?>
After all I would rather have a gun to defend myself and my family than became victim of a crime. That someone somewhere would use surplus of arms in a country to break the law and commit a crime - that is not a sufficient excuse to curb my freedom. I have nothing to do with it.

IF we take your assumption that all citizens freedom should be sacrificed on the altar of a greater good. Let bring your logic to its natural conclusion. Institution of marriage is beneficial for a society, open relationships, single mothers, gay 'marriages' - not so much. They are creating inequalities, disturbance and lack of stability in a society and generally tends to brings standards down.

All that is allowed by the state in the name of freedom and personal choice. Why make an exception for guns? Either we sacrifice all freedoms for a great good or not!

------


Kids are killed due to all kinds accident. People die in traffic accidents. Why not ban all cars and introduce a public transport that would be statistically safer.

No consistency here. People are ready to make all kind of allowances and excuses for cars. Yet they refuse to do the same for guns. Actually there is more people that die in car accidents than to guns. Significantly higher if we remove all that ghetto, gang related shootings.

It tells me that is not about victims or number of victims. Its about victims of shootings. So it burn down to anti-gun prejudices, fear or a fact that such a people don't believe in self-defense.

-----


Statistically it is not true.
------

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Why would there be a neighborhood with flying bullets? People would just go mad from Sunday to Monday, hey we got a GUN! Let shoot everyone. That crazy.

---


Actually, a knife in close quarters is as deadly as a gun. Somehow people are not getting stabbed in busses or trams. Why would that change with a gun?

---


I know what I have seen with my own eyes. Some people have guns stashed, don't know how common is that though.
---


Even then. Its all your imagination. Anyway is not that simple even in the US. Depends on the state.
Also I don't advocate that anyone could buy a gun like a tomato.

I'm thinking about gun license that all adults could pass (except for criminals, mentally ill). Like a driving license, that would teach you to use a gun, care for it, about law and some training.. There even could be A, B, C categories of that license, one you could but guns to be kept on your property and in your car to transport it to shooting range. Other could give you right to carry it in public. C would be a license for professionals like police officers or military.

Sure the law would need to change. Like you can kill home invader and so forth.
--


Why would they shoot at each other? They don't kill each other with axes or whatnot.
----


Eh, would that be that stupid? could they afford guns? If then they would be shot dead, process of natural elimination, that would happen only once if at all.

You're building all these scenarios to scare yourself for no reason.
-----


Statics can be deceiving. There are areas in the USA that are much safer than Poland. What is skewing the picture are ghettos, large cities and so on. So all that violence is relative. You can experience more violence in a line to bus in Poland than in some of those towns in the USA.

-----


Because mentally ill people are wondering on the streets. Such people they are confined into a mental institutions, medicated in Poland. In the US they roam free. Alas those mass shooting happens in so called no gun areas. (gun-free zones)

Idea is no guns, no shootings, but that means that law abiding citizens are unarmed and criminals and nutters know about it.
---


Where you got this idea from? Come and visit me in the Royal Palace in Warsaw.
----


Some people, there are others that think differently.
---


I'm not going to give instructions for an illegal activity. Please.
---


Sure, have you been ever interested remotely in guns or anything military? Nay? So, why would you know?
---


Soviets has to go!
---


Did you even seen a gun with your own eyes? Not on TV. :)

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Chemikim, people are getting shot regardless. Criminals have guns and always will have them. Anyway being killed is being killed - doesn't really matter what has been used to do the deed. Its an irrational fear of guns.


They are facing that risk even now. The police is armed. Criminals are armed. A foreign security forces on the Polish soil are armed.
You are not suggesting that a normal people, upstanding citizens would turn overnight into crazed cold blood killers just because you would given them a gun? Are you? That is an irrational fear of guns and their magical potency, if I ever seen one.


From all enemies domestic and foreign. Being a republic Poland needs citizens that would stand up to uphold its principles.


You would have to ask. On the other hand if you're local and in a city, you have a certain idea where some illegal stuff can be bought.


Why would they tell you anything? Are you that naďve? That would be a closely guarded secret.


Yeah and by the guns magic power they would appear in Poland? Really?

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


That really doesn't make sense.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


From enemies foreign and domestic.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


I should be able to purchase and take a gun to my home. As its perfectly legal in case of a car.


That is not the point. The point is I cannot buy one or keep it in my house without license.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


You don't need a driving license to buy a car. You need license to drive it on public road, if you drive it abound in your backyard you're good.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Why? To defend their town, village or a neighborhood in case of war or whatnot. That makes a lot of sense.


Really? Who are you to deny me right to buy what I want? Tyrant, upstart?


that is bad and needs to be changed.


Shouldn't have to grand permission for something that should be within your right. What is Polish passport? confirmation of the citizenship or identity card for peasants.


Generally they don't. That is what ROMB is complaining about, you can have all legal requirements fulfilled to a T, and some unelected Dick can refuse you (and does, more oft than not) that 'permit' on a whim or expecting a little brown envelop.

In fact power of discretion vested by law on bureaucracy is one of reasons that bureaucracy in Poland is inefficient, corrupt and redundant.


What are you about?>
Why would they invest money into something that wouldn't guarantee them return of their investments i.e. permit?

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


A right - is a moral or a legal entitlement to have or do something. If you agree that people have a moral right to won a gun, why would you deny them that right to be realized on legal grounds?

Unless you think about a legal right in that case you're mistaken. They don't have that right. That is a privilege and on the top of it the law that exists at the moment is not legally binding. As it is completely within discretion of a commented of the local police to grand such a permit or not. Since commandant is not elected in a local election he doesn't give a rat's ass about what people (the local constituency) thinks about him.


Simple as that is that you have no clue. Enough said - why don't you go to ROMB webpage and see how that looks in reality.


To do what? Stop an offensive of few tanks division supported by air forces and boots on the ground? Of course not! Nobody claimed that.

As for a local defense forces, armed with a light weaponry, machine guns, MANPADS, .50 caliber, shoulder fired, semi-automatic sniper rifles, shoulder-launched anti-tank rockets and more, can make it impossible and too costly to keep and occupy conquered territory.

Lines of communion necessary to support and provisions those divisions would be extremely sensitive to such a local forces.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Well, about the same number of Poles thinks that homosexuality is not normal. Which is pretty high if you think about all those grand's and money that are being send from abroad including America to promote and impose different views and standing on the issue. Still, you think that is nothing wrong with people that would like to force pro-gay legislation on Poland - that hypocrisy.


Even if your estimate is correct that doesn't negate anything Johnny said. There IS an increase and people have a right to rise and awareness and to whippy up support, prepare a ground, educate people for such a legislation to be introduced in Poland at the later date.

There is no reason why people should be able to arm themselves if they wish to do so.


Those right equal no right at all. Unless you are cozy with a local commandant of the police.

Life / Being a Jew in modern-day Poland; Israeli Jew who is of Polish descent [279]

Lyzko, in your case symptoms are typical for paranoid delusion coupled with victim mentality. Sure hope you're not medicated up to your eyeballs.

News / "A merciful heart can share its bread with the hungry and welcome refugees and migrants" Pope Francis [89]

"refugees and migrants"
Migrants is rather ambiguous what that even means without context. As for refugees - fair enough there is nothing new in this. Thing is, to be refugee one need to fulfill a certain conditions, those illegal immigrants from the middle east or God knows where from, do not met.


No, roots of all evil are stupid little, selfish people.