Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

We need MORE guns.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ttompatz



Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:

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.


Control of acquisition and prohibition of acquisition by certain classes of individuals would not be possible under the 2nd amendment. As is stands, any idiot and their dog can go to a gun show and get as many guns of whatever type they want with little or no oversight. If the mentally infirm or criminals cannot get them then their dog can.

Kuros wrote:
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.


Yes, it is. If it is a set of rules, drawn up by men, agreed to by men, ratified by men and a process exists to make changes to it - it certainly is legislation.

legislation [ˌlɛdʒɪsˈleɪʃən]
n
1. (Law) the act or process of making laws; enactment
2. (Law) the laws so made


They are not universal and are meaningless outside of the borders of the USA. (Your "rights" do not go with you when you leave the country - you are bound by the laws of the country you enter and whatever "rights" they may or may not deem to give to you).

The laws of motion and gravity are not legislation. They are pretty much universal regardless of where on the planet (or solar system) that you go.

.

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ttompatz wrote:
Kuros wrote:

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.


Control of acquisition and prohibition of acquisition by certain classes of individuals would not be possible under the 2nd amendment. As is stands, any idiot and their dog can go to a gun show and get as many guns of whatever type they want with little or no oversight. If the mentally infirm or criminals cannot get them then their dog can.


Are you sure about that? I'm not. Felons aren't allowed to vote in several states. The right to firearms isn't any more foundational than the right to vote. The Supreme Court hasn't gotten to this question yet, so we're not sure if the 2nd Amendment protects the firearms rights of those who are mentally ill. The 2nd Amendment certainly doesn't mandate the gun show "loophole," though.

ttompatz wrote:
Kuros wrote:
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.


Yes, it is. If it is a set of rules, drawn up by men, agreed to by men, ratified by men and a process exists to make changes to it 0\- it certainly is legislation.

legislation [ˌlɛdʒɪsˈleɪʃən]
n
1. (Law) the act or process of making laws; enactment
2. (Law) the laws so made


They are not universal and are meaningless outside of the borders of the USA. (Your "rights" do not go with you when you leave the country - you are bound by the laws of the country you enter and whatever "rights" they may or may not deem to give to you).

The laws of motion and gravity are not legislation. They are pretty much universal regardless of where on the planet (or solar system) that you go.


Who said that the right to firearms were universal rights? I suppose if we're being generous, you could call the Bill of Rights Supreme Legislation. The Bill of Rights aren't laws, exactly. They're Constitutional provisions. If they were laws, Congress could repeal them. They can't, although the Constitution may be amended.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ghostrider



Joined: 27 Jun 2011

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should realize a few fundamental facts about the Second Amendment:

1) Bills of rights were commonly not understood to be legally binding in the 18th Century. James Madison wanted to insert the Bill of Rights directly into the main text of the Constitution to avoid any ambiguity on this matter. Congress which was dominated by Federalists (those who favored a powerful central government) at the time opposed him. So the Bill of Rights was added as amendments.

2) There was no widespread concern about gun-control voiced during the time the Second Amendment was debated and discussed. The historical context tells us the amendment was written to affirm the value of having an armed citizen militia rather than to prohibit government from regulating firearms in the interest of public safety.

3) Suggesting that somehow the Second Amendment protects a right of rebellion is absurd. Article I of the Constitution says that the militia may be used for the opposite purpose- to suppress insurrections. There was a real risk of slave rebellions at the time. Many of the Founding Fathers came from states with high slave populations. Firearms were highly valued as important instruments of slave control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ghostrider wrote:
You should realize a few fundamental facts about the Second Amendment:

1) Bills of rights were commonly not understood to be legally binding in the 18th Century. James Madison wanted to insert the Bill of Rights directly into the main text of the Constitution to avoid any ambiguity on this matter. Congress which was dominated by Federalists (those who favored a powerful central government) at the time opposed him. So the Bill of Rights was added as amendments.

2) There was no widespread concern about gun-control voiced during the time the Second Amendment was debated and discussed. The historical context tells us the amendment was written to affirm the value of having an armed citizen militia rather than to prohibit government from regulating firearms in the interest of public safety.

3) Suggesting that somehow the Second Amendment protects a right of rebellion is absurd. Article I of the Constitution says that the militia may be used for the opposite purpose- to suppress insurrections. There was a real risk of slave rebellions at the time. Many of the Founding Fathers came from states with high slave populations. Firearms were highly valued as important instruments of slave control.


Who are you talking to, exactly? I'm on the record on this forum as to (1)* and to (2). (3) is more of your opinion than fact, although you're right that the Second Amendment couldn't mean a right to rebellion. And you do realize that your discussion of slave-holding in (3) contradicts your point in (1), namely that our current understanding of the Bill of Rights as applying to protect individuals against State overreach comes from AFTER the Civil War (with the 14th Amendment), not before.

* Although I'm not comfortable with your terms. The Bill of Rights were legally binding, but they only restrained the power of the Federal gov't, and thus were not nearly as applicable as they are today. Certainly they were binding.

You know, ghostrider, it almost sounds like you're an originalist when you discuss the 2nd Amendment. I doubt you're an originalist, much less a textualist, when it comes to the right to privacy or the right to an abortion. The original understanding of the Constitution is important, but not entirely decisive. Adaptivist readings should be encouraged when they expand rights, because the modern American understanding of individual rights has evolved since 1789.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
(3) is more of your opinion than fact, although you're right that the Second Amendment couldn't mean a right to rebellion.


Regarding his third point, it bears mentioning that he is actually correct that slavery and the threat of slave rebellions played a not-inconsiderable role in the adoption of this particular amendment: the southern states were rightly paranoid about slave uprisings, and required armed militia patrols to keep them in check. I was actually toying with bringing up the slavery/Second Amendment relationship myself as a side point to the on-going discussion to contrast Steelrails' pseudo-historic (and frankly ridiculous), "It's important because it's number two. Number two!" approach to Amendment valuation, but I opted against it, both because a lot of people here simply aren't mature enough to handle the topic, and because it's really not relevant to the modern case for the Second Amendment, which is really all that matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="ttompatz"]Yes, it is. If it is a set of rules, drawn up by men, agreed to by men, ratified by men and a process exists to make changes to it - it certainly is legislation.

legislation [ˌlɛdʒɪsˈleɪʃən]
n
1. (Law) the act or process of making laws; enactment
2. (Law) the laws so made

They are not universal and are meaningless outside of the borders of the USA. (Your "rights" do not go with you when you leave the country - you are bound by the laws of the country you enter and whatever "rights" they may or may not deem to give to you).

The laws of motion and gravity are not legislation. They are pretty much universal regardless of where on the planet (or solar system) that you go.

[quote]

The Constitution and its Amendments are not laws. They establish the powers of the government, the role of its various bodies, and enumerate the rights of the people.

That's why it's a constitution and not legislation.

Quote:
I was actually toying with bringing up the slavery/Second Amendment relationship myself as a side point to the on-going discussion to contrast Steelrails' pseudo-historic (and frankly ridiculous), "It's important because it's number two. Number two!"


Well you should have, because you are making a good point. While the writings of certain Framers expressed a concern for the need for people to be able to revolt against an oppressive power, the reasons for it being entered into the Bill of Rights may vary. I think its certainly possible, and indeed probable, that some supporters backed it for its anti-rebellion properties, whereas others saw it as protecting against tyrannical regimes.

However, let's not dismiss the degree to which the Colonists distrusted the large standing army and viewed it as a tool of corruption, and lets not dismiss the notion that a group of people, having just fought an armed rebellion, forming what amounts to an experimental form of government, might see the need for armed rebellion in the future against a tyrannical regime. These are people who certainly understood man's natural inclination towards corruption.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to move away from the Second Amendment a little bit, and get back to something Steelrails posted in the other thread (there's about 3-4 of these post-Newtown threads). Below, Steelrails masterfully expresses why the United States has moved away from militias, and what benefit the country might gain from reacquainting itself from the militia-style organization system.

Steelrails wrote:

Leon wrote:
To steel rails, I was wrong about the original militias, but even in your write up you admitted that they were discontinued due to being inefficient. If we are going by what Fox is describing, it's just the reserves or national guard on a more local level, so it's hard to see how it's different than what we already have, except it would mean a smaller standing army.



Well, part of the problem is the change in warfare that started with Napoleon, came to America in the Civil War, and exploded across the globe in WWI & II, namely mass mobilization and the commitment towards 'total war' where the entire resources of the state were devoted to war. In such an environment, militias are a waste.

However, I would submit that in the 21st century, we are seeing a return to smaller scale conflict. America's defense can be achieved with a significantly smaller force, provided it maintains its technological superiority. Its doubtful that this country would ever need mass mobilization again, but that's always a possibility, so a militia system would be useful in providing basic training and familiarity with military operations, as well as providing disaster relief.

Hopefully, the American military would resemble te military of America's (and other countries) past- A small standing army, consisting mostly of a few elite regiments, often with specialized functions (Special Forces, Airborne, Cavalry, Rangers), the Navy (traditionally the backbone of the "standing military"), and for the 21st century, the Air Force.

This would be similar to an 18th century force which might have a few regiments of hussars or riflemen and some cavalry, a bit of artillery, and most of the military would be in the Navy, largely protecting from commerce raiders and ensuring safety of citizens abroad, especially in evacuations and disasters.

Whatever the militia would be, if it was part of a broad community effort, would serve to provide basic military training, serve as the base of an expansible army, and provide an adequate deterrent to "tyrannical excess".

I should add one additional reason for the decline of the militia system- Previously militias were often organized around towns or counties. This was thought to enhance morale and most volunteer military units during wars were organize around towns grouped with men from their state. "The 54th Massachussetts", "The Cleveland Rifles", etc. Well, as the scale of warfare increased and the casualties became enormous, more and more frequently you started to have instances where a regiment or company would get in a bad position during a battle or be ordered to make an ill-advised assault and get cut up badly. Their town may find out after the battle that there are no more young men, all of them are dead. That tends to put a damper on the enthusiasm for the war, to say the least.

Units now are made up of people from all over and dispersed to avoid this phenomenon. That's why when you hear about a helicopter crashing or a troop carrier getting blown up, all 27 dead aren't from the same state or town.

Bringing back the organization of units based on community might make the costs of war more apparent. If 27 kids in one Texas town were to die in Iraq, you can bet there would have been far fewer 'Vote for W. Bush' signs on people's lawns.


I emphatically agree. The United States armed forces have evolved into a very imperial structure. Steelrails expertly shows us how it doesn't have to be this way, and perhaps shouldn't. Furthermore, I feel Steelrails's romanticism of the militia system provides a positive message that might be wielded against the current U.S. empire, and its a message that could appeal to right-wing populist circles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Quote:
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.

The government has nuclear weapons.


Local police do not wield nuclear weapons, and NORAD doesn't invade people's homes.

Yes, guns protect from tyranny, even though that tyranny may never occupy the center of national government power.


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.


Dude, that was 40 years ago. Most of you weren't even born yet.


What's your point? That history is completely irrelevant, that we can't learn from the past, what is it?


If guns were meant to protect U.S. citizens from tyranny from their own government, why was George Washington offered the title of emperor? Yeah, looking at history from a biased perspective is always fun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Quote:
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.

The government has nuclear weapons.


Local police do not wield nuclear weapons, and NORAD doesn't invade people's homes.

Yes, guns protect from tyranny, even though that tyranny may never occupy the center of national government power.


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.


Dude, that was 40 years ago. Most of you weren't even born yet.


What's your point? That history is completely irrelevant, that we can't learn from the past, what is it?


If guns were meant to protect U.S. citizens from tyranny from their own government, why was George Washington offered the title of emperor? Yeah, looking at history from a biased perspective is always fun.


My whole point was about corrupt local government, such as corrupt local cops, not the Feds or George Washington.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
The United States armed forces have evolved into a very imperial structure. Steelrails expertly shows us how it doesn't have to be this way, and perhaps shouldn't. Furthermore, I feel Steelrails's romanticism of the militia system provides a positive message that might be wielded against the current U.S. empire, and its a message that could appeal to right-wing populist circles.

Agree 100%
Though this presupposes the idea that local and State run militias would be effective against nation-state actors, and I think we've spent several pages of thread debating that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lucas



Joined: 11 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEu9qiE49Lk

Watch this and please tell me that gun's aren't cool!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Quote:
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.

The government has nuclear weapons.


Local police do not wield nuclear weapons, and NORAD doesn't invade people's homes.

Yes, guns protect from tyranny, even though that tyranny may never occupy the center of national government power.


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.


Dude, that was 40 years ago. Most of you weren't even born yet.


What's your point? That history is completely irrelevant, that we can't learn from the past, what is it?


If guns were meant to protect U.S. citizens from tyranny from their own government, why was George Washington offered the title of emperor? Yeah, looking at history from a biased perspective is always fun.


My whole point was about corrupt local government, such as corrupt local cops, not the Feds or George Washington.


So you're saying that the Feds and the state governments were thought to be powerless against local cops? That's ridiculous.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Quote:
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.

The government has nuclear weapons.


Local police do not wield nuclear weapons, and NORAD doesn't invade people's homes.

Yes, guns protect from tyranny, even though that tyranny may never occupy the center of national government power.


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.


Dude, that was 40 years ago. Most of you weren't even born yet.


What's your point? That history is completely irrelevant, that we can't learn from the past, what is it?


If guns were meant to protect U.S. citizens from tyranny from their own government, why was George Washington offered the title of emperor? Yeah, looking at history from a biased perspective is always fun.


My whole point was about corrupt local government, such as corrupt local cops, not the Feds or George Washington.


So you're saying that the Feds and the state governments were thought to be powerless against local cops? That's ridiculous.


What are you talking about. What do the Feds and state governments have to do with local cops. What good do those things do when you are dealing with corrupt cops in your neighborhood, or breaking into your house, or planting evidence, or acting as muscle for actual gangs, all of which has happened, and happens, on a pretty big level.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:


What are you talking about. What do the Feds and state governments have to do with local cops. What good do those things do when you are dealing with corrupt cops in your neighborhood, or breaking into your house, or planting evidence, or acting as muscle for actual gangs, all of which has happened, and happens, on a pretty big level.


Suffering from amnesia?

"My whole point was about corrupt local government, such as corrupt local cops, not the Feds or George Washington."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:


What are you talking about. What do the Feds and state governments have to do with local cops. What good do those things do when you are dealing with corrupt cops in your neighborhood, or breaking into your house, or planting evidence, or acting as muscle for actual gangs, all of which has happened, and happens, on a pretty big level.


Suffering from amnesia?

"My whole point was about corrupt local government, such as corrupt local cops, not the Feds or George Washington."


Again, what are you talking about. You're the one who brought up George Washington and the national government. I made one point about the Black Panthers using guns to patrol cops in their neighborhoods, and you brought all this other stuff into it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International