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 

5yr old girl suspended for Hello Kitty terrorism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Leon wrote:
Also, a militia is not really that far from warlords. Private armies are a stupid idea, akin to private "protection" from Tony Soprano.

Militias are nothing like mafias. They are not for profit, and members actually have day jobs.


At first, sure, but it wouldn't stay that way if it became more widespread, and if it gained more power than the police/state. The rich and powerful can afford more "militia" than you or me, and as we saw in the 90's the ideologically extreme are more likely to join militias in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
visitorq wrote:
Leon wrote:
Also, a militia is not really that far from warlords. Private armies are a stupid idea, akin to private "protection" from Tony Soprano.

Militias are nothing like mafias. They are not for profit, and members actually have day jobs.


At first, sure, but it wouldn't stay that way if it became more widespread, and if it gained more power than the police/state. The rich and powerful can afford more "militia" than you or me, and as we saw in the 90's the ideologically extreme are more likely to join militias in the first place.

Yeah well, I don't see that as being anything inevitable. The whole notion of a militia is that it is voluntary and power is fairly decentralized. The purpose is for people in a community to come together and ensure their collective defense (on a voluntary basis). As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't be run by some Federal bureau, and if it's being bankrolled by some boss hog and turned into a private army, then it's no longer a militia (in which case yeah, I would concede the point).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

We had militias in the 90's, it didn't work well then, why would it work better now. Also, a militia is not really that far from warlords. Private armies are a stupid idea, akin to private "protection" from Tony Soprano.


A well-regulated militia in the sense I refer to would not be a "private army," it would be a non-professional replacement for a full-time standing army, working in service to the state and subject to state control. It would be substantially cheaper than our current military (allowing the savings to be used on other, more important things), in concert with our nuclear arsenal would be totally adequate to defend out home soil, and would impede military adventurism.

Seriously now, I am not some gun loving libertarian fundamentalist here. I am a citizen who has seen how our large professional standing army has been abused at citizen expense, and I want it to stop. I also want American gun culture cured of its insane radical individualism and renewed into something healthy and socially productive. Both can be achieved through this methodology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

We had militias in the 90's, it didn't work well then, why would it work better now. Also, a militia is not really that far from warlords. Private armies are a stupid idea, akin to private "protection" from Tony Soprano.


A well-regulated militia in the sense I refer to would not be a "private army," it would be a non-professional replacement for a full-time standing army, working in service to the state and subject to state control. It would be substantially cheaper than our current military (allowing the savings to be used on other, more important things), in concert with our nuclear arsenal would be totally adequate to defend out home soil, and would impede military adventurism.

Seriously now, I am not some gun loving libertarian fundamentalist here. I am a citizen who has seen how our large professional standing army has been abused at citizen expense, and I want it to stop. I also want American gun culture cured of its insane radical individualism and renewed into something healthy and socially productive. Both can be achieved through this methodology.


Seems like you basically just want the reserves to replace the standing army. I'd have no real problem with that, although there should be some specialized full time units. A militia is outside of government control, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a private army.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ttompatz



Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Fox"]
Leon wrote:
Both can be achieved through this methodology.


Not if the "Red Right" and the "Red States" have anything to do with it.

It wasn't all that long ago that the "Reds" were on the left and good Americans were on the right ...

has the right swung so far to the right that they are far left now?

This is so confusing...
... child terrorists talking about bubble guns and other terrorist children pointing fingers ...
... arming teachers,
where is Joseph McCarthy when you need him.

.

Where is that tongue in cheek emoticon when you need it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
It would be substantially cheaper than our current military (allowing the savings to be used on other, more important things), in concert with our nuclear arsenal would be totally adequate to defend out home soil, and would impede military adventurism.

I'd keep the Navy around to protect our trade routes from blockades, but I'm with ya here. No nation on Earth would risk nuclear retaliation, especially if invasion faced millions upon millions of militia members.

Still wouldn't give up private gun ownership though Smile

Leon wrote:
A militia is outside of government control, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a private army.

And yet, still necessary to the security of a free State... probably because it's outside of government control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
A militia is outside of government control, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a private army.


?

The Dictionary wrote:
militia[ mi-lish-uh ]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.


I do not think militias, by definition, need be outside of government control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
A militia is outside of government control, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a private army.


?

The Dictionary wrote:
militia[ mi-lish-uh ]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.


I do not think militias, by definition, need be outside of government control.


Militias have traditionally been outside of government control, such as the militias in the 1990's, or even the ones in the revolutionary war. In the American context when you say militia, that's what it means, regardless of dictionary usage. It seems like what you're arguing for is a sort reserves system, am I right? No need to get into semantics, I think we agree on a basic level.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fox wrote:
It would be substantially cheaper than our current military (allowing the savings to be used on other, more important things), in concert with our nuclear arsenal would be totally adequate to defend out home soil, and would impede military adventurism.

I'd keep the Navy around to protect our trade routes from blockades, but I'm with ya here. No nation on Earth would risk nuclear retaliation, especially if invasion faced millions upon millions of militia members.

Still wouldn't give up private gun ownership though Smile

Leon wrote:
A militia is outside of government control, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a private army.

And yet, still necessary to the security of a free State... probably because it's outside of government control.


Why is it necessary? Most free states don't have them, yet many third world countries do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
It seems like what you're arguing for is a sort reserves system, am I right? No need to get into semantics, I think we agree on a basic level.


I suppose it could be portrayed as a reserves system with broad participation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:


Militias have traditionally been outside of government control, such as the militias in the 1990's, or even the ones in the revolutionary war. In the American context when you say militia, that's what it means, regardless of dictionary usage.


No, the 1990s paramilitary groups styled as "militias" are not the traditional iterations of militias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Leon wrote:


Militias have traditionally been outside of government control, such as the militias in the 1990's, or even the ones in the revolutionary war. In the American context when you say militia, that's what it means, regardless of dictionary usage.


No, the 1990s paramilitary groups styled as "militias" are not the traditional iterations of militias.


This might be true, to be honest most of what I know about militias come from watching and reading interviews from people like the Michigan militia leaders, so I could see how I might have been mislead. That would explain my hostility towards the idea of militias in general.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
Fox wrote:
And your article? Pure counter factual speculation regarding number of lives saved.


Yes, you've proven once again that my "facts" (this time from an unbiased newspaper) will never trump your crazy. It's pointless arguing with crazy, so carry on.


Laughing

You've made it clear your interest in guns. The examiner is hardly unbiased. And of all the posters that could be considered "crazy", Fox is not one of them. Well ok, he's crazy about trying to make a logical argument and sometimes I feel like he's trying to bring back Socrates, but beyond that? Quite sane.


Leon wrote:
This might be true, to be honest most of what I know about militias come from watching and reading interviews from people like the Michigan militia leaders, so I could see how I might have been mislead. That would explain my hostility towards the idea of militias in general.


Yeah, it sounds like you're stuck on the wacky Timothy McVeigh term of militia. I think he and his ilk thought they were following the path of our founding fathers, but they went seriously astray.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fox wrote:
It would be substantially cheaper than our current military (allowing the savings to be used on other, more important things), in concert with our nuclear arsenal would be totally adequate to defend out home soil, and would impede military adventurism.

I'd keep the Navy around to protect our trade routes from blockades, but I'm with ya here. No nation on Earth would risk nuclear retaliation, especially if invasion faced millions upon millions of militia members.

Still wouldn't give up private gun ownership though Smile

Leon wrote:
A militia is outside of government control, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than a private army.

And yet, still necessary to the security of a free State... probably because it's outside of government control.


The militias are subject to almost total government control, although that control is divided between State and Federal control.

Quote:
The War Powers Clause: Article 1, section 8

"[Congress shall have power to] ..."to declare war; ...to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ..to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

The Militia Clauses: Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16:

"[Congress shall have power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."


Note that the United States Congress could call forth the Militia to simply execute the Laws of the Union. No insurrections or invasions necessary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Leon wrote:


Militias have traditionally been outside of government control, such as the militias in the 1990's, or even the ones in the revolutionary war. In the American context when you say militia, that's what it means, regardless of dictionary usage.


No, the 1990s paramilitary groups styled as "militias" are not the traditional iterations of militias.


This might be true, to be honest most of what I know about militias come from watching and reading interviews from people like the Michigan militia leaders, so I could see how I might have been mislead. That would explain my hostility towards the idea of militias in general.


Well to better inform you, here is a brief summary of the idea of the militia, which frankly, I wish you had been educated about before taking such a hostile view towards.

The militia system has been around for centuries, in the American context, it was primarily a city or state based system to provide self-defense against Natives or another colonial power, like the French. The scale of the emergency dictated the extent to which the militia was called up.

Standing armies are expensive, and the colonists, at least initially, being made up of farmers and merchants, lacked the funds to support a standing army. Also, many of them had escaped from England where the standing army under Oliver Cromwell had become viewed as tyrannical and they had an EXTREME distrust of standing armies. The significance of Cromwell's Protectorate, his New Model Army, and the abuses that ensued cannot be overstated and were one of the major concerns of The Framers and the general citizenry.

The militia system existed up into the Civil War where it was overtaken by volunteerism at first, and conscription and bounties later. Aside from serving as a pool and organization for the original batch of troops at the beginning of the war, the militia was found to be ineffective as it lacked the material, resources, and elan that was required of a modern army.

Indeed, up through WWII, the US avoided a large standing army. In the period between the Civil War and WWII, the militia system was largely replaced by reserves and national guard troops, volunteers, and drafts- the idea being one of the "expansible army". It was only with the rise of the Cold War and the need for a large standing army that the present system evolved.

Quote:
Multiple well armed police forces in the same area would mean even less safe. Why else would they need multiple forces for a single population. In my mind it would mean the contrary or you wouldn't need such a large force.


Yes the "terror" of having your local city police, county sheriff, and state highway patrol man together in one place. I bet they'd start shooting each other on sight.

Or in Canadian terms- you have your city police, provincial police, and RCMP.

Kinda failed on that one, didn't you?

Oh and BTW, in 'barbaric' America I can go watch a game of 22 people chasing a ball without fear of roving gangs beating me to death for wearing the wrong team's uniform, unlike "civilized" Europe.
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  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
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