The French elected this idiot? Live and learn like us I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

My wife asked her parents what they thought of this statement, and they found it as elitist and out of touch as I did, particularly my father-in-law. I don't think they would be in the minority in that thinking either.

After the gilets jaunes protests, I don't know if we can imagine a greater example of Eurocratic elitism than Macron. This is just another--even more disgusting--example.

Thankfully Macron just says the quiet part out loud to help make it very clear just what they think of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

That an elitist national leader can casually dismiss a God given right, a natural right, because they have a well-trained well-armed security detail surrounding them and their family constantly for their protection, illustrates just how out of touch they are with the realities of the commoners they lead.

To deny a parent the ability to protect their home, their families, their children, and their possessions they work for is to deny their rights.

Just one more example of a world leader pushing for taking over citizens' right to defense and replacing it with dependence on inefficient unreliable big government protection.

I agree with you. However, it’s worth noting that the concept of natural rights is a decidedly western one and currently going out of fashion in many (left-leaning) places. I believe, and I’m not being hyperbolic here, that the recognition of natural rights is the cornerstone of western civilization and those who advocate for its abolition are our greatest threat.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
However, Macron responded to the story by asserting that the 35-year-old farmer had no right to defend himself or his daughter in such a manner.

“Everyone must be safe, and the public authorities have to ensure it,” Macron told Europe 1.

Opposed to self-defense?

Sounds reasonable and enlightened. What could possibly go wrong?

This is taking "French Surrendered" to an entirely different level. Now they're obligated to surrender to each other?

quote:

However, Macron responded to the story by asserting that the 35-year-old farmer had no right to defend himself or his daughter in such a manner.

“Everyone must be safe, and the public authorities have to ensure it,” Macron told Europe 1.

“But I am opposed to self-defense. It’s very clear and undisputable because otherwise the country becomes the Wild West. And I don’t want a country where weapons proliferate and where we consider that it’s up to the citizens to defend themselves,” said Macron.

So... if you're being attacked you should what, apologize to your attacker for bleeding on them and pray the police arrive before you bleed out?

“This Friday, following the avalanche of reactions to this statement, Emmanuel Macron’s entourage explained to Europe 1 that in reality, the candidate meant that he was “against the presumption of self-defense ” and not “against self-defense, as evidenced by the continuation of his remarks in his answer.”

“A word was missing” in the sentence pronounced by Emmanuel Macron, recognizes an adviser to the candidate who regrets the “instrumentalization” which is made of this declaration.”



This is what my basic research shows. I’ve read that translated copy multiple times. Still is gibberish. Fuck the French if they re-elect that guy. Unbelievable. If that motherfucker Macron breaks into my house in Florida and I think our lives are at risk then he is at risk of me defending my home. Ie, don’t break into my home because I’m an American and I don’t need a “presumption” of self defense, my Constitition guarantees it you French mother fucker.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Macron's exact statement: "Je suis opposé à la légitime défense."

Translation: "I am opposed to self-defense."

More like-
Translation: "Let them eat cake!"

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
I’m against people with dozens of bodyguards wielding submachine guns saying ordinary folk have no right to defend themselves and their property.

That elitist and those who think like him should lose all their protection and see what it feels like to be responsible for their own defense.

Amen!!!

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:
I agree with you. However, it’s worth noting that the concept of natural rights is a decidedly western one and currently going out of fashion in many (left-leaning) places. I believe, and I’m not being hyperbolic here, that the recognition of natural rights is the cornerstone of western civilization and those who advocate for its abolition are our greatest threat.

I think the USA is the onnly country with that right specifically incorporated into its founding documents. Are there others?

flashguy

quote:

“Everyone must be safe, and the public authorities have to ensure it,” Macron told Europe 1.

Yeah, what Dzozier said.

Western Europe has generally had a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S. at least since WWII.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but mostly it is due to ethnic homogeneity. They like to say it's because of gun control but they didn't have major problems before all the gun control. In the U.S. we all know where the high violent crime areas are and who the perps usually are. Europe lacked this kind of "diversity" until recently.

Also, due to proximity to South and Central America, there is a huge supply of drugs moving into the U.S. for distribution, which fuels a lot of violent crime. I'm not sure how drug trafficking works in Europe but I think it's a lot different in terms of gross volume and the amount of money involved. Drugs are legal in some places too.

Europe does have property crime, and street theft (pickpocketing, purse snatching), including a much higher incidence of "hot burglaries" - where houses are burglarized with the owners present, usually at night. The U.S. has far fewer hot burglaries because many jurisdictions allow deadly force against a forced entry into an occupied home.

As such most western European SD laws allow only like force and have a duty of retreat. Someone breaks into your house, you have to try to retreat to avoid confrontation. Or you can match their force with equal force. But with all the immigration they've seen in the past decade or two, things are changing a lot. But the politicians don't seem to care. When Islamic militants literally cut people's heads off in the street, you really have to accept the new reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Western Europe has generally had a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S. at least since WWII.

I agree with your analysis.

I always hear this cherry picked set of data about crime in Europe, and it brings a few questions to mind:

why do they always want to talk about post-WWII? Can't we include the data from the murders that occurred on civilians during WWII in France and that general region? Oh, I see, that would make Germany look bad. What a shame. Better dismiss that data.

They often include Japan. Oh, yeah, Japan is so wonderful when you aren't Japanese. Anyone who has actually been there can tell you stories about Japan. What if we added the behavior of Japanese who were outside of Japan, in, say, Guadalcanal? Oh, that would make the Japanese look bad. Oh, too bad.

Oh, wait, why are we only talking about specific countries in Europe? Can't we include Mexico in the comparison? By many measures they are now considered a developed nation. Oh wait, that would skew the cherry picked data. What a shame.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:I think the USA is the onnly country with that right specifically incorporated into its founding documents. Are there others?flashguy

Well, Sir, I have almost 11000 posts here so far, and I'll bet my next meal that I've mentioned that very fact at least a hundred times over the last near-twenty years.

However, it won't harm to repeat it, just so you can make a note - 'The United States of America is the ONLY nation on Earth that has the Right to To keep and Bear Arms written into its Constitution'.

Quote - 'The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for the preservation of life, liberty, and property.'

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
However, it won't harm to repeat it, just so you can make a note - 'The United States of America is the ONLY nation on Earth that has the Right to To keep and Bear Arms written into its Constitution'.

True, but it's also interesting to note that...

quote:

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

As I understand it: Technically speaking, that provision is still in force.

^^^^^ Historically accurate, but in the UK it seems that it is no longer functional. We here in the US are trying to keep ours alive.

flashguy

This story has not surprisingly generated the sound of crickets here in the US, but I'm curious if anyone knows how big this is over in France in the midst of their elections?

quote:

French President Macron Says He is “Opposed to Self-Defense”

Just like the UK, eh?