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
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Russia, France, Germany, England (I'd submit that the colonial exploitation of others at the scale of the English warranted the overthrow of their government), Italy, Spain, Norway, Turkey, Persia, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, on and on and on have had a brutal or overly corrupt regime in place within the last 100 years that deserved expulsion or has faced imminent invasion necessitating the mass arming of the populace or indeed the populace becoming partisans.

And yet people like ttompatz believe that America's astute citizenry are uniquely capable of electing benevolent leaders. Clearly the wisdom and observant nature of the American public will prevent us from making an electoral mistake like the Germans did a while back. No... Americans' solid grasp of history and inherent superiority in decision making prevent us from making the mistakes that almost every other country has since the beginning of civilization.

Come on Steelrails. When you look at the American media and culture, aren't you filled with an overwhelming sense that all of these people know what they're doing? Isn't it clear that the average citizen is level-headed and clear-thinking enough to see through the lies of a potential dictator?

All these non-Americans are chiming in about how silly it is to think that the U.S. would experience an invasion or revolution are simply stating the obvious: That Americans have much better judgement than the Russians, French, Germans, English, Italians, Spanish, Norwegians, Turks, Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, South Africans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Ugandans, etc. How could you possibly look at the average American and disagree with that?


When did Norway and France have a brutal or overly corrupt government? I know the rest, but that one seems odd. I suppose you could mean the occupation government, but that doesn't really make sense in the context of the conversation as it was forced on them by an occupying force. If I'm forgetting some aspect of their history, please let me know.

If the government turned tyrannical, then honestly I'm not sure who I'd want to win, the government or the people who hoarded guns, both sound pretty terrible. I'd probably just leave the country. Luckily the real chance of it happening is slim. Why compare us to Germany when the situation was completely different. Until we lose a massive war and suffer a massive collapse and sign a miserable treaty giving up our rights as a sovereign nation I'm not too worried. All this is just Turner Diary fantasies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
visitorq wrote:
We need less TTOMPATZ.


He's contributed FAR more to this forum than you ever have.


So because of other contributions, he's allowed to troll this forum? Anyway, I consider CC to be the voice of the mods, so at least we have some explanation of why TTompatz gets a special pass.


Quote:
As to Tom's proposal - I say go all the way! Allow tanks and RPGs! Let everyone own any weapon - how better to fight off tyranny!??!


Says Captain Corea, smiling
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captain Corea wrote:
Could have sworn that you declared many times you'd never reply to my posts again - can't even hold yourself to your own standard, eh? lol

Not to worry, I'll be sure to remind ya when you say something oddball - going to go on again about how owning guns is a human right? How's that work out for you when you live outside the US. lmao



I think we all know how it goes: He's petrified of setting foot outside of his apartment. Home to work and back again, that's all he does. That's why he spends every waking hour telling us how guns are important. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Privateer



Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
I am also distressed at your scope of history. For the last 220 years, America has been, through all of its faults, a stable democracy devoid of the worst excesses of tyranny. You do realize, that outside of Canada, perhaps a few small states, that that makes America largely unique.

Russia, France, Germany, England (I'd submit that the colonial exploitation of others at the scale of the English warranted the overthrow of their government), Italy, Spain, Norway, Turkey, Persia, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, on and on and on have had a brutal or overly corrupt regime in place within the last 100 years that deserved expulsion or has faced imminent invasion necessitating the mass arming of the populace or indeed the populace becoming partisans.


England has been a more or less stable democracy for the past 220 years also. In 1790 the franchise was extremely limited but it was also quite limited in the early days of the US. Both states have become progressively more democratic through time, due to reformists and popular movements.

If you exclude England from the list of worthy states due to colonial exploitation, fair enough, but you must also exclude America. America expanded as an empire into the west, ruthlessly exterminating the native population, and ruthlessly exploiting its own black population both before and after emancipation. From the late 19th century on, it got into the colonial game, and it has consistently intervened in the affairs of Latin and South America to make sure its resources are available for American business. In the 20th century, America (and England too) has a record of propping up dictators in countries worldwide as a bulwark against Bolshevism or any populist movement that has the cheek to suggest people have a right to the resources of their own country. Before WW2 this policy extended to Hitler himself, which America preferred to communism, as did the 'appeaser' (more like ally) Chamberlain. Since WW2, I am sure you are all too familiar with US foreign policy with regard to supporting dictators. There is also the terrible atrocity of Vietnam and the mass slaughter of civilians by American-backed forces in Central and South America, thanks to Reagan and others.

Just saying. We like to look down on these unstable, prone-to-extremism countries in England too, but, if you look at the historical record, both US and British governments deserve toppling based on their foreign policies alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I also do believe that as sacrosanct as the constitution is to most Americans there is room for change (else how did those amendments come to pass in the first place).


Again, the right to bear arms was part of the original 10 Amendments, collectively entitled "The Bill of Rights".

Let's do a quick review

1- Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly
2- Right to Bear Arms
3- Prohibits Quartering of Soldiers in Peacetime
4- Prohibits Unlawful Search and Seizure
5- Right to Due Process, Freedom from Self-Incrimination, Double Jeopardy
6- Fair and Speedy Trial, Right to Counsel
7- Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
8- Prohibits excessive bails & fines
9- Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution
10- Limits the powers of the Federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution

AS you can see, this is not a frivolous list. The other 9 are essential to a stable, balanced democracy. Clearly the Framers regarded the 2nd as essential to that very thing.

Some of the other Amendments we have had are of varying gravity, but those 10 are intended to be taken together as a whole and clearly are interdependent upon each other.

Quote:
The "right to bear arms" had its place and its day. I think that day has since come and gone


But that doesn't mean it will never return again. Indeed the course of human affairs strongly suggests that that need shall return. Again, what long-term pattern can you point to in human history that suggests that responsible government and lack of war is the norm in human society?

Quote:

I would also like to add that gun control is not a negation of the "right to bear arms" (although I personally think that scared cow should be shot) but a legitimate control of arms and ammunition acquisition and transport by appropriately chosen bodies (or do the people think that the government is too dangerous to entrust such control to?).


That's fine. I'm not an absolutist on this issue. Just as one can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, I am fine with bans on fully-automatic weapons, municipal-based regulations on concealed arms, background checks, mental health checks, training courses, etc.

Quote:
perhaps amend it by adding the federal responsibility of confirming the suitability (no history of mental illness or violent crime) and issuing a "firearms acquisition certificate" that needs to be renewed periodically with updated checks. No certificate = no gun or ammunition purchase or transport.


That's not an "Amendable" issue. That's a regulation for Congress or the State or local governments to handle. If you look a the language of Amendments, they don't go into that kind of regulatory specificity.

America's legal system is largely based on precedents. There is absolutely no precedent for overturning one of the original 10 Amendments, in fact only one Amendment has ever been repealed and that was one that clearly had a purpose and regulation unbecoming of an Amendment. To overturn the 2nd Amendment would be an earth-shattering precedent. One that would likely presage dramatic revolutionary changes in the American government.

The significance of the 2nd Amendment being part of the Bill of Rights and how those Amendments are interconnected and the dramatic precedent an overturn of any of them would represent cannot be overstated.

It is akin to scratching one of the 10 Commandments and not expecting the church to fracture afterwards.

Quote:
Either the country is safe and the government can be trusted to govern by the people/for the people and is a stable democracy OR it is not safe, people need to be armed, militias formed and the populace protected from themselves and their government.


The reason is that while a country can be the first thing, as history has shown, it can very rapidly transition into the second. Much as your home can be a place of safety and comfort, if someone decides to break in, it ceases to be that and then becomes a place of danger perhaps necessitating a violent response.

Quote:
When did Norway and France have a brutal or overly corrupt government? I know the rest, but that one seems odd. I suppose you could mean the occupation government, but that doesn't really make sense in the context of the conversation as it was forced on them by an occupying force. If I'm forgetting some aspect of their history, please let me know.


Well, for starters the occupation part justifies armed resistance even more. One could quietly acquiesce to that foreign power, or choose the path of countless French, Poles, Dutch, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Norwegians, Czechs, and more and continue to resist in a partisan fashion.

For Norway, you had the Quisling regime during WWII, part occupation force, part coup. The guy was strongly suspected and convicted of having participated in The Final Solution, just cause as any for arming oneself and rebelling against their government. In France, you had the Vichy rump state that was hardly any better.

Quote:
Why compare us to Germany when the situation was completely different. Until we lose a massive war and suffer a massive collapse and sign a miserable treaty giving up our rights as a sovereign nation I'm not too worried.


But, as I said, it is pretty much every nation on Earth within the last 150 years, heck even the last 100. We're talking Russia, Japan, China, Mexico, Spain, Italy, Argentina, on and on.

It's right to compare us to the 150+ nations around the world who have undergone such regimes and conflicts. It should make one realize that we are an outlier and that odds are, we may end up as they once did.

I really can't understand this blase attitude that America will somehow be exempt from history and the normal course of human affairs.

I really think people need to stop thinking of 1945 as "a long time ago" and to caution themselves about projecting their optimism towards humanity onto the reality of the human experience. The last 50 years of human history have been a complete and total exception to the previous 5000. To consider that the new norm is extremely risky, considering that our DNA and biological impulses are still the same as those people of the last 5000 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ttompatz wrote:
Either the country is safe and the government can be trusted to govern by the people/for the people and is a stable democracy OR it is not safe, people need to be armed, militias formed and the populace protected from themselves and their government.

That's right Germans. Either overthrow President Hindenburg or forget this silly notion that dictators can come to power in a democracy.

Steelrails wrote:
I really think people need to stop thinking of 1945 as "a long time ago" and to caution themselves about projecting their optimism towards humanity onto the reality of the human experience. The last 50 years of human history have been a complete and total exception to the previous 5000. To consider that the new norm is extremely risky, considering that our DNA and biological impulses are still the same as those people of the last 5000 years.

I can't say it any better than this. The "guns are always bad" crowd still wont get it, but that was very well said.

Leon wrote:
If the government turned tyrannical, then honestly I'm not sure who I'd want to win, the government or the people who hoarded guns, both sound pretty terrible.

The last group of gun-hoarders who overthrew the government in America did an OK job of it. Not perfect, obviously, but it was a solid start.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
ttompatz wrote:
Either the country is safe and the government can be trusted to govern by the people/for the people and is a stable democracy OR it is not safe, people need to be armed, militias formed and the populace protected from themselves and their government.

That's right Germans. Either overthrow President Hindenburg or forget this silly notion that dictators can come to power in a democracy.

Steelrails wrote:
I really think people need to stop thinking of 1945 as "a long time ago" and to caution themselves about projecting their optimism towards humanity onto the reality of the human experience. The last 50 years of human history have been a complete and total exception to the previous 5000. To consider that the new norm is extremely risky, considering that our DNA and biological impulses are still the same as those people of the last 5000 years.

I can't say it any better than this. The "guns are always bad" crowd still wont get it, but that was very well said.

Leon wrote:
If the government turned tyrannical, then honestly I'm not sure who I'd want to win, the government or the people who hoarded guns, both sound pretty terrible.

The last group of gun-hoarders who overthrew the government in America did an OK job of it. Not perfect, obviously, but it was a solid start.


Completely different situation, a colonial government back in England is different than an actual national government. Also, to put it bluntly, the current gun hoarders are no George Washington's. The one's who are planning for this sort of thing, organizing for this sort of thing, etc. are the dregs of society who would turn America into an ugly place. Here's a recent study about the sort of people I'm talking about.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right

How many revolutions turned out good, especially how many violent ones? I mean we have the French and their reign of terror, the Shah turned into the Ayatollah, etc. etc. Colonial powers getting over thrown is a completely different thing. The people who will take power in the aftermath of a violent struggle are the people who are already organized, and who have already trained and planned for it. In the Middle East that meant the Islamists, as we see in Syria and other places, here it may mean the far right, who are already training, already organized, and more ideologically motivated than other groups. If it was a choice between those two I'd rather just move.

To Steel Rails, no occupation governments do not make a valid comparison to America. I mean most importantly, this isn't Red Dawn, we aren't going to be invaded. Firstly we have geography on our side, Canada and Mexico are allies, and more importantly not even close to being able to invade. All other countries would have to get their armies across an ocean, which by itself would be difficult, but when having to deal with our Navy that completely outclasses all others in the world it's not even really worth talking about. Furthermore, America is much larger than France and Norway, so holding it would be extremely difficult, I mean look at Iraq and Afghanistan, so no your comparisons are another false equivalence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Also, to put it bluntly, the current gun hoarders are no George Washington's. The one's who are planning for this sort of thing, organizing for this sort of thing, etc. are the dregs of society who would turn America into an ugly place. Here's a recent study about the sort of people I'm talking about.

That's exactly the problem, you're thinking of "the current gun hoarders". I'm talking about preserving the right to rebellion for generations to come. People planning violent rebellion under current conditions are clearly unstable and poor examples of anything but a failed social safety net for the mentally infirm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Leon wrote:
Also, to put it bluntly, the current gun hoarders are no George Washington's. The one's who are planning for this sort of thing, organizing for this sort of thing, etc. are the dregs of society who would turn America into an ugly place. Here's a recent study about the sort of people I'm talking about.

That's exactly the problem, you're thinking of "the current gun hoarders". I'm talking about preserving the right to rebellion for generations to come. People planning violent rebellion under current conditions are clearly unstable and poor examples of anything but a failed social safety net for the mentally infirm.


And that, my friends, is what we call "cognitive dissonance".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
comm wrote:
Leon wrote:
Also, to put it bluntly, the current gun hoarders are no George Washington's. The one's who are planning for this sort of thing, organizing for this sort of thing, etc. are the dregs of society who would turn America into an ugly place. Here's a recent study about the sort of people I'm talking about.

That's exactly the problem, you're thinking of "the current gun hoarders". I'm talking about preserving the right to rebellion for generations to come. People planning violent rebellion under current conditions are clearly unstable and poor examples of anything but a failed social safety net for the mentally infirm.


And that, my friends, is what we call "cognitive dissonance".

Maybe if you're cognitively lacking... What he said makes perfect sense, and he is correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
comm wrote:
Leon wrote:
Also, to put it bluntly, the current gun hoarders are no George Washington's. The one's who are planning for this sort of thing, organizing for this sort of thing, etc. are the dregs of society who would turn America into an ugly place. Here's a recent study about the sort of people I'm talking about.

That's exactly the problem, you're thinking of "the current gun hoarders". I'm talking about preserving the right to rebellion for generations to come. People planning violent rebellion under current conditions are clearly unstable and poor examples of anything but a failed social safety net for the mentally infirm.


And that, my friends, is what we call "cognitive dissonance".

Maybe if you're cognitively lacking... What he said makes perfect sense, and he is correct.


Sure, I could see how it would make perfect sense to people who've got their heads stuck up so far that they can't recognize what's going on at the moment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
England has been a more or less stable democracy for the past 220 years also. In 1790 the franchise was extremely limited but it was also quite limited in the early days of the US. Both states have become progressively more democratic through time, due to reformists and popular movements.

If you exclude England from the list of worthy states due to colonial exploitation, fair enough, but you must also exclude America. America expanded as an empire into the west, ruthlessly exterminating the native population, and ruthlessly exploiting its own black population both before and after emancipation. From the late 19th century on, it got into the colonial game, and it has consistently intervened in the affairs of Latin and South America to make sure its resources are available for American business. In the 20th century, America (and England too) has a record of propping up dictators in countries worldwide as a bulwark against Bolshevism or any populist movement that has the cheek to suggest people have a right to the resources of their own country. Before WW2 this policy extended to Hitler himself, which America preferred to communism, as did the 'appeaser' (more like ally) Chamberlain. Since WW2, I am sure you are all too familiar with US foreign policy with regard to supporting dictators. There is also the terrible atrocity of Vietnam and the mass slaughter of civilians by American-backed forces in Central and South America, thanks to Reagan and others.

Just saying. We like to look down on these unstable, prone-to-extremism countries in England too, but, if you look at the historical record, both US and British governments deserve toppling based on their foreign policies alone.


You're right. Actually when I was writing my post, America in the Philippines, Hawaii, Native Americans, etc. came up. I was more going for a "look bad government worthy of overthrow is a common thing" and tried to throw out as many examples as possible.

One other thing that occurred to me is that our own Civil War, while perceived as a victory for "Loyalist" forces and thus a continuation of the 'legitimate' government and therefore a triumph of democracy, was actually a revolution itself. The previous old order of a largely decentralized, agrarian land-owning, Southern aristocracy was removed from power and replaced by a Federalist, heterogeneous, urban, industrial, Northern power base.

Quote:
To Steel Rails, no occupation governments do not make a valid comparison to America. I mean most importantly, this isn't Red Dawn, we aren't going to be invaded. Firstly we have geography on our side, Canada and Mexico are allies, and more importantly not even close to being able to invade. All other countries would have to get their armies across an ocean, which by itself would be difficult, but when having to deal with our Navy that completely outclasses all others in the world it's not even really worth talking about. Furthermore, America is much larger than France and Norway, so holding it would be extremely difficult, I mean look at Iraq and Afghanistan, so no your comparisons are another false equivalence.


The reason I listed regimes in places such as Norway is not to directly compare them to the US, it is to show that corrupt and revolt worthy government is a frequent occurrence, even in places that are supposedly advanced, fond of liberty, and have functioning democracies. It was to illustrate that revolutionary violence, war, and despotism are the norm, not the exception in human societies.

For comparisons sake, you could say that only China, India, Russia, and perhaps Brazil and maybe South Africa compare to the US. But people would make the argument that those countries aren't 'Western' or developed. That's why the examples of Italy, Spain, France, Norway, Germany, etc. had to be brought up, illustrating the necessity of firearms to protect either from threats from within or external threats.

What many of those countries have done is basically make a risk calculation that the odds of a despotic regime or invasion by a foreign power are much less than the risk posed by gun ownership, which is a fine argument and likely the correct one in the short-medium term.

But, as I have mentioned, the greatest difference is that in none of those countries is the right to bear arms intertwined with basic democratic ideals like Freedom of Speech, Right to Counsel, No Excessive Bails & Fines, Freedom from Self-Incrimination, etc. the way that the 2nd Amendment is in the U.S.

I'd also submit that America's pessimism in its own system's long-term chances and its awareness of the darker angels of man's nature is unique among the governments in its rule. Most country's Constitutions are screeds proclaiming the greatness of the government and promising that the laws within shall protect the country for all eternity and so on. America's Constitution and its Founders if you read then, are basically one big warning against its own government, intertwined with vague (and overt) allusions to future corruption and predictions of dire warnings of what brings about an Empire's fall.

Indeed, the Founders (post-1815) would agree with you- It is not the armies of Europe and Asia that one has to fear, if America is to fall, it is America itself which shall be the author of its destruction, and that is why they are so concerned with tyrannical regimes and want to ensure that the people have some means to combat a corrupt regime. That is why there was, initially, such an extreme distrust of a standing army.

And that is why, worry about a despotic government, while unlikely, is the gravest threat to America's security and should be regarded as such and one of the best ways to prevent the extremes of such is to enable a large swath of the populace to at least make a nuisance (and lets be real, a nuisance is about all they could be these days) of themselves.

Look, I agree that gun nut fantasies are ludicrous, but to not understand the very real and serious issues and rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is to take a frivolous attitude to a significant matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
England has been a more or less stable democracy for the past 220 years also. In 1790 the franchise was extremely limited but it was also quite limited in the early days of the US. Both states have become progressively more democratic through time, due to reformists and popular movements.

If you exclude England from the list of worthy states due to colonial exploitation, fair enough, but you must also exclude America. America expanded as an empire into the west, ruthlessly exterminating the native population, and ruthlessly exploiting its own black population both before and after emancipation. From the late 19th century on, it got into the colonial game, and it has consistently intervened in the affairs of Latin and South America to make sure its resources are available for American business. In the 20th century, America (and England too) has a record of propping up dictators in countries worldwide as a bulwark against Bolshevism or any populist movement that has the cheek to suggest people have a right to the resources of their own country. Before WW2 this policy extended to Hitler himself, which America preferred to communism, as did the 'appeaser' (more like ally) Chamberlain. Since WW2, I am sure you are all too familiar with US foreign policy with regard to supporting dictators. There is also the terrible atrocity of Vietnam and the mass slaughter of civilians by American-backed forces in Central and South America, thanks to Reagan and others.

Just saying. We like to look down on these unstable, prone-to-extremism countries in England too, but, if you look at the historical record, both US and British governments deserve toppling based on their foreign policies alone.


You're right. Actually when I was writing my post, America in the Philippines, Hawaii, Native Americans, etc. came up. I was more going for a "look bad government worthy of overthrow is a common thing" and tried to throw out as many examples as possible.

One other thing that occurred to me is that our own Civil War, while perceived as a victory for "Loyalist" forces and thus a continuation of the 'legitimate' government and therefore a triumph of democracy, was actually a revolution itself. The previous old order of a largely decentralized, agrarian land-owning, Southern aristocracy was removed from power and replaced by a Federalist, heterogeneous, urban, industrial, Northern power base.

Quote:
To Steel Rails, no occupation governments do not make a valid comparison to America. I mean most importantly, this isn't Red Dawn, we aren't going to be invaded. Firstly we have geography on our side, Canada and Mexico are allies, and more importantly not even close to being able to invade. All other countries would have to get their armies across an ocean, which by itself would be difficult, but when having to deal with our Navy that completely outclasses all others in the world it's not even really worth talking about. Furthermore, America is much larger than France and Norway, so holding it would be extremely difficult, I mean look at Iraq and Afghanistan, so no your comparisons are another false equivalence.


The reason I listed regimes in places such as Norway is not to directly compare them to the US, it is to show that corrupt and revolt worthy government is a frequent occurrence, even in places that are supposedly advanced, fond of liberty, and have functioning democracies. It was to illustrate that revolutionary violence, war, and despotism are the norm, not the exception in human societies.

For comparisons sake, you could say that only China, India, Russia, and perhaps Brazil and maybe South Africa compare to the US. But people would make the argument that those countries aren't 'Western' or developed. That's why the examples of Italy, Spain, France, Norway, Germany, etc. had to be brought up, illustrating the necessity of firearms to protect either from threats from within or external threats.

What many of those countries have done is basically make a risk calculation that the odds of a despotic regime or invasion by a foreign power are much less than the risk posed by gun ownership, which is a fine argument and likely the correct one in the short-medium term.

But, as I have mentioned, the greatest difference is that in none of those countries is the right to bear arms intertwined with basic democratic ideals like Freedom of Speech, Right to Counsel, No Excessive Bails & Fines, Freedom from Self-Incrimination, etc. the way that the 2nd Amendment is in the U.S.

I'd also submit that America's pessimism in its own system's long-term chances and its awareness of the darker angels of man's nature is unique among the governments in its rule. Most country's Constitutions are screeds proclaiming the greatness of the government and promising that the laws within shall protect the country for all eternity and so on. America's Constitution and its Founders if you read then, are basically one big warning against its own government, intertwined with vague (and overt) allusions to future corruption and predictions of dire warnings of what brings about an Empire's fall.

Indeed, the Founders (post-1815) would agree with you- It is not the armies of Europe and Asia that one has to fear, if America is to fall, it is America itself which shall be the author of its destruction, and that is why they are so concerned with tyrannical regimes and want to ensure that the people have some means to combat a corrupt regime. That is why there was, initially, such an extreme distrust of a standing army.

And that is why, worry about a despotic government, while unlikely, is the gravest threat to America's security and should be regarded as such and one of the best ways to prevent the extremes of such is to enable a large swath of the populace to at least make a nuisance (and lets be real, a nuisance is about all they could be these days) of themselves.

Look, I agree that gun nut fantasies are ludicrous, but to not understand the very real and serious issues and rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is to take a frivolous attitude to a significant matter.


You know what's funny, on one hand all of these people are saying that knives, cars, and home made bombs are so dangerous, yet we need guns to protect us against the government. Which one is it, they can't both be equally true. Tell you what if the government turns bad why don't you run them over, plant fertilizer bombs in federal buildings, or knife them. How many threads ago was it that you were trying to convince us that I'd we take away guns mass killers would just turn to these other methods once guns were gone, why can't freedom fighters be as inventive? I'm mostly ambivalent about most gun control, other than closing background check loopholes, but the nonsensical arguments made by some people are too much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
It is America's North American Defense (an extension of its Monroe Doctrine) that enabled Canada to enjoy defense without having to invest excessive energies into its military.


So if America was an isolationist nation Canada would have been under attack? By whom exactly?


Quote:
It is that Monroe doctrine which enabled independence in the Western hemisphere and prevent excessive foreign (European) meddling in the affairs of Latin American nations.


..........and replaced with the meddling of the United States in Latin American American nations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
England has been a more or less stable democracy for the past 220 years also. In 1790 the franchise was extremely limited but it was also quite limited in the early days of the US. Both states have become progressively more democratic through time, due to reformists and popular movements.

If you exclude England from the list of worthy states due to colonial exploitation, fair enough, but you must also exclude America. America expanded as an empire into the west, ruthlessly exterminating the native population, and ruthlessly exploiting its own black population both before and after emancipation. From the late 19th century on, it got into the colonial game, and it has consistently intervened in the affairs of Latin and South America to make sure its resources are available for American business. In the 20th century, America (and England too) has a record of propping up dictators in countries worldwide as a bulwark against Bolshevism or any populist movement that has the cheek to suggest people have a right to the resources of their own country. Before WW2 this policy extended to Hitler himself, which America preferred to communism, as did the 'appeaser' (more like ally) Chamberlain. Since WW2, I am sure you are all too familiar with US foreign policy with regard to supporting dictators. There is also the terrible atrocity of Vietnam and the mass slaughter of civilians by American-backed forces in Central and South America, thanks to Reagan and others.

Just saying. We like to look down on these unstable, prone-to-extremism countries in England too, but, if you look at the historical record, both US and British governments deserve toppling based on their foreign policies alone.


You're right. Actually when I was writing my post, America in the Philippines, Hawaii, Native Americans, etc. came up. I was more going for a "look bad government worthy of overthrow is a common thing" and tried to throw out as many examples as possible.

One other thing that occurred to me is that our own Civil War, while perceived as a victory for "Loyalist" forces and thus a continuation of the 'legitimate' government and therefore a triumph of democracy, was actually a revolution itself. The previous old order of a largely decentralized, agrarian land-owning, Southern aristocracy was removed from power and replaced by a Federalist, heterogeneous, urban, industrial, Northern power base.

Quote:
To Steel Rails, no occupation governments do not make a valid comparison to America. I mean most importantly, this isn't Red Dawn, we aren't going to be invaded. Firstly we have geography on our side, Canada and Mexico are allies, and more importantly not even close to being able to invade. All other countries would have to get their armies across an ocean, which by itself would be difficult, but when having to deal with our Navy that completely outclasses all others in the world it's not even really worth talking about. Furthermore, America is much larger than France and Norway, so holding it would be extremely difficult, I mean look at Iraq and Afghanistan, so no your comparisons are another false equivalence.


The reason I listed regimes in places such as Norway is not to directly compare them to the US, it is to show that corrupt and revolt worthy government is a frequent occurrence, even in places that are supposedly advanced, fond of liberty, and have functioning democracies. It was to illustrate that revolutionary violence, war, and despotism are the norm, not the exception in human societies.

For comparisons sake, you could say that only China, India, Russia, and perhaps Brazil and maybe South Africa compare to the US. But people would make the argument that those countries aren't 'Western' or developed. That's why the examples of Italy, Spain, France, Norway, Germany, etc. had to be brought up, illustrating the necessity of firearms to protect either from threats from within or external threats.

What many of those countries have done is basically make a risk calculation that the odds of a despotic regime or invasion by a foreign power are much less than the risk posed by gun ownership, which is a fine argument and likely the correct one in the short-medium term.

But, as I have mentioned, the greatest difference is that in none of those countries is the right to bear arms intertwined with basic democratic ideals like Freedom of Speech, Right to Counsel, No Excessive Bails & Fines, Freedom from Self-Incrimination, etc. the way that the 2nd Amendment is in the U.S.

I'd also submit that America's pessimism in its own system's long-term chances and its awareness of the darker angels of man's nature is unique among the governments in its rule. Most country's Constitutions are screeds proclaiming the greatness of the government and promising that the laws within shall protect the country for all eternity and so on. America's Constitution and its Founders if you read then, are basically one big warning against its own government, intertwined with vague (and overt) allusions to future corruption and predictions of dire warnings of what brings about an Empire's fall.

Indeed, the Founders (post-1815) would agree with you- It is not the armies of Europe and Asia that one has to fear, if America is to fall, it is America itself which shall be the author of its destruction, and that is why they are so concerned with tyrannical regimes and want to ensure that the people have some means to combat a corrupt regime. That is why there was, initially, such an extreme distrust of a standing army.

And that is why, worry about a despotic government, while unlikely, is the gravest threat to America's security and should be regarded as such and one of the best ways to prevent the extremes of such is to enable a large swath of the populace to at least make a nuisance (and lets be real, a nuisance is about all they could be these days) of themselves.

Look, I agree that gun nut fantasies are ludicrous, but to not understand the very real and serious issues and rationale behind the 2nd Amendment is to take a frivolous attitude to a significant matter.


You know what's funny, on one hand all of these people are saying that knives, cars, and home made bombs are so dangerous, yet we need guns to protect us against the government. Which one is it, they can't both be equally true. Tell you what if the government turns bad why don't you run them over, plant fertilizer bombs in federal buildings, or knife them. How many threads ago was it that you were trying to convince us that I'd we take away guns mass killers would just turn to these other methods once guns were gone, why can't freedom fighters be as inventive? I'm mostly ambivalent about most gun control, other than closing background check loopholes, but the nonsensical arguments made by some people are too much.


Exactly.

I really don't care what the US does in terms of gun control. If they want a literal interpretation of the second amendment that is fine. But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.

The government has nuclear weapons.
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 2 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