|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Local police do not wield nuclear weapons, and NORAD doesn't invade people's homes. |
Finally a rational argument. Remember that many of the pro gun crowd was for gun control when it was the Black Panthers carrying guns to keep the police in check in their neighborhoods. |
You realize that is rational, but you think the homes of rebellious citizens would be invaded by drones?
And yes, firearms help to prevent the oppression of the minority by the majority. Human nature hasn't changed to prevent guns from being needed for that purpose in the future.
| Leon wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| And when it comes down to it, the idea that a non-violence would be more effective is simply arguing that non-violence will persuade the people with guns to use those guns to give power to the people. Violence is still inherent in revolution, since only violence (in some form and from some source) will stop a tyrant. |
No, you're wrong. Recent events prove it. Egypt, where was the armed struggle, Mubarak wasn't a tyrant? Tunisia, the end of the British occupation of India, the Iranian revolution, etc. etc. In fact many of these ended faster and cleaner than armed ones. |
Egypt is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. The people with guns (the military) decided to give the power to the people. The people with guns made a good decision in that case, but don't delude yourself into thinking that they weren't making that decision. As was mentioned earlier, the Indian rebellion had violent elements as well and in the end follows the same principle... the people with guns decided who would have power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The iranian revolution was very violent and the army sided with the mullahs or it would never have happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Local police do not wield nuclear weapons, and NORAD doesn't invade people's homes. |
Finally a rational argument. Remember that many of the pro gun crowd was for gun control when it was the Black Panthers carrying guns to keep the police in check in their neighborhoods. |
You realize that is rational, but you think the homes of rebellious citizens would be invaded by drones?
And yes, firearms help to prevent the oppression of the minority by the majority. Human nature hasn't changed to prevent guns from being needed for that purpose in the future.
| Leon wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| And when it comes down to it, the idea that a non-violence would be more effective is simply arguing that non-violence will persuade the people with guns to use those guns to give power to the people. Violence is still inherent in revolution, since only violence (in some form and from some source) will stop a tyrant. |
No, you're wrong. Recent events prove it. Egypt, where was the armed struggle, Mubarak wasn't a tyrant? Tunisia, the end of the British occupation of India, the Iranian revolution, etc. etc. In fact many of these ended faster and cleaner than armed ones. |
Egypt is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. The people with guns (the military) decided to give the power to the people. The people with guns made a good decision in that case, but don't delude yourself into thinking that they weren't making that decision. As was mentioned earlier, the Indian rebellion had violent elements as well and in the end follows the same principle... the people with guns decided who would have power. |
Drones wouldn't invade homes, put if there was a violent revolution those drones would kill the leadership, destroy supplies, etc. if anything IEDs would be for more effective than conventenional arms. In all the examples that we talk about in your second half, it's the army that matters, not civilians with small arms. So how are civilian small arms stopping tyrants? On a local level I think it can, but on a national level, not really. If anything the rebels would need outside help, but who knows if France will save us this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am not advocating for prohibition of guns. |
Well, you seemed to be advocating for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
I agree with gun control, even gun control which some would call "burdensome". But I do not believe in repealing the Amendment which prevents the prohibition of guns.
| Quote: |
| They have a place, even in a modern, democracy. Hunting, competitive shooting (I used to compete in IPSC), they are sometimes still a necessity in remote rural areas for safety, animal and pest control to name but a few. |
What about urban or suburban self-defense? Sorry, but by the time the police show up, it's a crime scene one way or the other.
Granted, you run the risk of that gun being involved in an accident or other incident, but that is a risk a person should be able to decide for themselves. Unless you think a woman driving home late at night should be left with mace, her sell phone, and her decisive advantage in physical strength to protect her from would-be assailants.
| Quote: |
| I understand the emotions that people have about changing the constitution but it has been done without loss of other "rights" in other modern democracies. There ARE checks and balances in place. Why can't it be done in the States? It honestly defies logic. |
There has been one time where a common citizen has had a right overturned- Prohibition, it is also the one Amendment to be repealed and is a well-known example of the folly of social legislation. But you aren't just talking about amending term-limits or the method for appointment to government offices, or the establishment of taxes. You are talking about removing an enumerated right.
That is extremely unique. I'd submit that in those "other countries" the removal of an enumerated right from the founding constitution has likely been followed by extreme political unrest.
It does not defy logic. The removal of an enumerated right from any constitution is an extremely grave measure. The removal of an enumerated right sets the legal precedent for the removal of other enumerated rights.
This is not the same as the checks and balances for basic regulations and legislation.
Again, I have to stress that sensibility, moderation, and benign government are not the norm in ANY human society. They are rarities and typically of short duration. In those societies that do experience those things, it is usually bought at the expense of others. By only focusing on the most recent 50 years of human society, you are in my opinion, making a grave miscalculation.
Lastly, are familiar with the term "The Law of Unintended Consequences"? It means that the human brain is often rather limited in being able to predict the effects its actions will have on the future and that often in making decisions, and that the more involved those decisions are, the greater the odds and the scope of unintended consequences that ensue.
Being suspicious of repealing an Amendment isn't illogical, it is based on the understanding that human beings are not logical creatures, nor is it logical to assume that we can accurately predict the changes from a measure of such magnitude. It is also based on the overwhelming body of evidence which suggests that such a measure would likely lead to grave long-term consequences for the society, ones which would eclipse in blood, the cost of having that Amendment in place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
That is extremely unique. I'd submit that in those "other countries" the removal of an enumerated right from the founding constitution has likely been followed by extreme political unrest.
It does not defy logic. The removal of an enumerated right from any constitution is an extremely grave measure. The removal of an enumerated right sets the legal precedent for the removal of other enumerated rights. |
Yes, the most recent and closest example would be Canada who repatriated and re-wrote their constitution and charter of rights as recently as 1982.
We all know how unstable those Canadians are and look at the social upheaval and political unrest that has caused.
Actually, it might behoove the USA to ADD some additional rights to the "Bill of Rights" as well but I don't see the political will to allow that to happen either.
It does but if any particular enumerated right is as out of date as the 2nd amendment then it probably would need removal as well but in the light of today I can't see one that would need removal nor can I see one whose removal would actually pass the process of removal other than perhaps the 2nd.
You have equated the "Bill of Rights" to the 10 commandments. I don't think it is in the same category. It is nothing more than legislation that starts and ends at the US border and the last time I checked the founding fathers weren't in the same category as Moses (being spoken to directly by God) either.
I do think it is time for us to agree to disagree over the repeal of the 2nd amendment and gun control in general.
You are as passionate about keeping it untouched as any Christian would be about the 10 commandments or any Muslim about the Koran and since there is no argument that can be made to convince someone who has a fanatical or religious fervor in regard to a long held belief I think it is time to let it go and let these threads die their own natural death.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| It does but if any particular enumerated right is as out of date as the 2nd amendment then it probably would need removal as well but in the light of today I can't see one that would need removal nor can I see one whose removal would actually pass the process of removal other than perhaps the 2nd. |
The 2nd Amendment is not out of date. YOU are out of date. The idea of groveling to the government for protection as you are doing is positively antiquated.
Seriously, just go peddle your victim disarmament garbage somewhere else if you don't like it. Nobody gives a crap what you think, and Americans are not going to give up their guns. End of discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| So if America was an isolationist nation Canada would have been under attack? By whom exactly? |
The USSR might have decided to throw its weight around as it pleased. Maybe export the 'Historical Struggle of the Working Proletariat" to Canada. |
Might but highly unlikely.
| Quote: |
| ..........and replaced with the meddling of the United States in Latin American American nations. |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Absolutely. |
Leaving Latin Amercian's to decide their own fate was not an option?
| Quote: |
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.
The government has nuclear weapons. |
| Steelrails wrote: |
What a juvenile reading of the situation. |
So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment? Should prviate citizens have the right to possess WMD? Non-sarcastic question?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And again, an oppressive government is not a rarity, it is the norm. A well-functioning, non-oppressive government is the rarity. |
Looks like the west is full of these "rarities". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment? Should prviate citizens have the right to possess WMD? Non-sarcastic question? |
Only governments are capable of producing/funding WMDs, so whether or not citizens have a "right" to own them is a moot point. If the government is willing to sell nukes to citizens, then I suppose by definition (and under the law) they are allowed to own them. If the government is not willing to sell people nukes, then they're not going to have nukes regardless of whether or not they have the right. This is all quite obvious, and to seriously entertain the point is to distract from the real issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment? Should prviate citizens have the right to possess WMD? Non-sarcastic question? |
Only governments are capable of producing/funding WMDs, so whether or not citizens have a "right" to own them is a moot point. If the government is willing to sell nukes to citizens, then I suppose by definition (and under the law) they are allowed to own them. If the government is not willing to sell people nukes, then they're not going to have nukes regardless of whether or not they have the right. This is all quite obvious, and to seriously entertain the point is to distract from the real issues. |
Not at all.
Should a private citizen be allowed to buy any weapon available? Considering the ever improving technology it is a very relevant point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| And again, an oppressive government is not a rarity, it is the norm. A well-functioning, non-oppressive government is the rarity. |
Looks like the west is full of these "rarities". |
Yeah, the west is going along just swimmingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment? Should prviate citizens have the right to possess WMD? Non-sarcastic question? |
Only governments are capable of producing/funding WMDs, so whether or not citizens have a "right" to own them is a moot point. If the government is willing to sell nukes to citizens, then I suppose by definition (and under the law) they are allowed to own them. If the government is not willing to sell people nukes, then they're not going to have nukes regardless of whether or not they have the right. This is all quite obvious, and to seriously entertain the point is to distract from the real issues. |
Not at all.
Should a private citizen be allowed to buy any weapon available? Considering the ever improving technology it is a very relevant point. |
It's a ridiculous point. The same government that you want to clamp down on peoples' rights (and seize our guns) has the sole means of producing nuclear weapons. So the only way for private citizens to ever possess these weapons would be if the government were to sell them (which would never happen). This is not the case with most other regular weapons, and this is precisely why the two are not comparable.
Seriously, do you actually think any private citizen could conceivably fund the development and production of a nuclear weapon? Even the largest corporations do not have sufficient budgets to do this (not unless they were being funded by the government). In the debate about gun control, the issue of WMDs is an absolutely moot point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Might but highly unlikely. |
Yes, because if there is anything Russians are renowned for, it is their active disinterest in intrigue and espionage. Even though they tried to export Communism everywhere, I'm sure they'd leave Canada alone.
| Quote: |
| Leaving Latin Amercian's to decide their own fate was not an option? |
I agree, in the case of LA, America was a meddling, corrupting piece of crap.
| Quote: |
| So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment? Should prviate citizens have the right to possess WMD? Non-sarcastic question? |
Because, a nation is extremely unlikely to use nuclear weapons against its own citizens. For starters, it would only be effective against a hardened military site (which would suggest that the rebels have coopted a significant portion of the military and would likely possess nuclear deterrent of their own, rendering the scenario ridiculous), or against a major urban center. The thing is major urban centers develop usually because there is some sort of economic value to the area. Aside from as a weapon of terror, there would be little practical value in nuking a city.
The conflict would likely entail guerrilla action. Nukes don't really work for that kind of warfare.
So please, lets leave the juvenile "extreme" scenarios (does the 2nd Amendment enable the construction of the Death Star?) and approach this in a reasonable manner.
| Quote: |
| Looks like the west is full of these "rarities". |
You mean Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Northern Ireland and the Troubles? You mean Switzerland with its universal conscription and armament? You mean the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Finland which all suffered invasion?
This is all since WWI. Some of it is post-WWII.
The sole exceptions to this have been U,S. Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and this is because of geographical isolationism, and in the case of the Dominions, small populations, and their Dominion status within a larger Empire.
That's pretty much it for the world. 4 countries out of close to 200. You get better odds on slot machines at Vegas. Heck, you probably have better odds on Keno at the bar or VLTs in Canada.
| Quote: |
Not at all.
Should a private citizen be allowed to buy any weapon available? Considering the ever improving technology it is a very relevant point. |
Not at all, because not all weapons are 'arms'. Clearly the concept was about citizens with their household firearms, not a mercenary force with a herd of war elephants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
| It does but if any particular enumerated right is as out of date as the 2nd amendment then it probably would need removal as well but in the light of today I can't see one that would need removal nor can I see one whose removal would actually pass the process of removal other than perhaps the 2nd. |
The 2nd Amendment is not out of date. YOU are out of date. The idea of groveling to the government for protection as you are doing is positively antiquated.
Seriously, just go peddle your victim disarmament garbage somewhere else if you don't like it. Nobody gives a crap what you think, and Americans are not going to give up their guns. End of discussion. |
This from some frustrated soul sitting in his mother's basement in Vancouver ... unable to post a coherent reply to any of the issues that are presented on this forum so he just attacks the posters...
Time for him to return to Thailand where his ilk are commonly found on Soi 4 - oh, right... he couldn't make it there either hence his return to Vancouver.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
| It does but if any particular enumerated right is as out of date as the 2nd amendment then it probably would need removal as well but in the light of today I can't see one that would need removal nor can I see one whose removal would actually pass the process of removal other than perhaps the 2nd. |
The 2nd Amendment is not out of date. YOU are out of date. The idea of groveling to the government for protection as you are doing is positively antiquated.
Seriously, just go peddle your victim disarmament garbage somewhere else if you don't like it. Nobody gives a crap what you think, and Americans are not going to give up their guns. End of discussion. |
Yup - always gotta' attack the poster.
This is getting sad.
I agree with Tom's thoughts that it's worth looking at these issues, and seeing if laws/guidelines set down SO many years ago may not be as applicable as we like.
There's nothing wrong with discussion on the matter - unless we're talking with visitorQ. Didn't you comment in the last thread on this subject that I was attacking your rights? By simply talking about the subject on the internet, you somehow felt I was swooping into your life and attacking your rights??
It's that type of reasoning that has sane people on both sides of the issue shaking their heads.
Talking about this on Dave's ESL, an anonymous discussion forum about Korean issues, does NOT take away your rights, visitorQ - get over yourself, and start to realize that people are allowed to discuss this issue - and you can't stop that.
| visitorq wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment? Should prviate citizens have the right to possess WMD? Non-sarcastic question? |
Only governments are capable of producing/funding WMDs, so whether or not citizens have a "right" to own them is a moot point. If the government is willing to sell nukes to citizens, then I suppose by definition (and under the law) they are allowed to own them. If the government is not willing to sell people nukes, then they're not going to have nukes regardless of whether or not they have the right. This is all quite obvious, and to seriously entertain the point is to distract from the real issues. |
Not at all.
Should a private citizen be allowed to buy any weapon available? Considering the ever improving technology it is a very relevant point. |
It's a ridiculous point. The same government that you want to clamp down on peoples' rights (and seize our guns) has the sole means of producing nuclear weapons. So the only way for private citizens to ever possess these weapons would be if the government were to sell them (which would never happen). This is not the case with most other regular weapons, and this is precisely why the two are not comparable.
Seriously, do you actually think any private citizen could conceivably fund the development and production of a nuclear weapon? Even the largest corporations do not have sufficient budgets to do this (not unless they were being funded by the government). In the debate about gun control, the issue of WMDs is an absolutely moot point. |
Since when are WMDs ONLY Nuclear weapons?
Are you seriously arguing that private citizens, or groups of private citizens, would NEVER have the funds to purchase a "weapon of mass distraction"?
Strawman much?
All this talk about developing nuclear weapons is a smokescreen - the truth is, WMDs are already made - it's their availability on the "open" market, and the rules regarding importation/ownership that are in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Control is not prohibition... a fact that seems to have evaded far too many people who equate one with the other.
Production and consumption of medicines are controlled. Why? They are no more deadly or dangerous than guns. Why do you need a visit to and prescription from a doctor to get a bottle of antibiotics?
. . .
I understand the emotions that people have about changing the constitution but it has been done without loss of other "rights" in other modern democracies. There ARE checks and balances in place. Why can't it be done in the States? It honestly defies logic. |
So, wait. You aren't advocating the complete and total ban of handguns? Then why are you assailing the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment, so far, doesn't rule out aggressive gun control, as long as that gun control falls short of outright firearms bans. All it does is guarantee the right to some sort of firearm (perhaps not even semi-automatics) in the home for self-defense.
| ttompatz wrote: |
You have equated the "Bill of Rights" to the 10 commandments. I don't think it is in the same category. It is nothing more than legislation that starts and ends at the US border and the last time I checked the founding fathers weren't in the same category as Moses (being spoken to directly by God) either.
I do think it is time for us to agree to disagree over the repeal of the 2nd amendment and gun control in general. |
No, the Bill of Rights aren't legislation. No wonder you think Americans are barbarians, you don't know anything about their laws or customs. The Bill of Rights are Constitutional provisions. They are foundational, and set the limits of government power, including the limits of legislation, among other things.
Fact is, you've come in here ridiculing the 2nd Amendment but you don't even understand it. I feel like we should have a sticky about this. Let me be clear: the 2nd Amendment, so far, only forbids the United States, or the States themselves, from banning certain firearms from possession within the home. That's it.
| Justice Alito, writing for the majority in McDonald v. Chicago wrote: |
| The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. |
Now, listen up. You might learn something. The 2nd Amendment is the least of the obstacles to aggressive gun control. Its Federalism and the various State Constitutional provisions which go much farther. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
