|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| 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. |
They may not be equally true, but they are both true.
Furthermore, the danger of knives/bombs was within a criminal context, either involving day-to-day street crime (knives) or acts of psychotic mayhem (bombs). The effectiveness of each weapon in a street gang fight vs. a mass murder vs. an insurrection differs according to the situation. A bomb is pretty useless in a situation where some thugs are jumping you. It is rather effective in a mass-murder scenario and a significant threat in a military situation (IED). I'd rather have a knife than a fertilizer bomb in my U-Haul if I was jumped by two thugs. Conversely, about all the knife is useful for if the government has gone corrupt is as a tool.
That's why soldiers with guns are dangerous. They are called "infantry". Soldiers with cars as weapons are dangerous. They are called "armor". Soldiers with bombs are dangerous. They are called "Engineers/Artillery/The Air Force".
| Quote: |
but the nonsensical arguments made by some people are too much.
|
Actually, as I've shown, it's your argument which was flawed as it failed to recognize fundamentally the nature of the situation- Street crime vs. mass murder vs. partisan uprising.
Now to agree with you in principle, if not in method. I do think that people who think of guns as guaranteeing success in some uprising against the government are daft. We live in the age of drones. What good is your AK if the target is over the horizon?
Recent history has shown that political organizing, protest, media savvy, non-violent resistance, effective communication, fundraising, community service, and so on are all much more effective ways to bring about change and even to combat oppressive regimes. The problem with gun nuts is that they think of it as an immediate solution, rather than as a last resort.
| 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
| Quote: |
| ..........and replaced with the meddling of the United States in Latin American American nations. |
Absolutely.
| Quote: |
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.
The government has nuclear weapons. |
What a juvenile reading of the situation.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has provinces that are basically no-go zones. Does Pakistan nuke its own territory and people? Of course not.
As I said, the guns do not guarantee victory, what they do offer is leverage to the oppressed faction (for better or for worse, who says the rebels are 'good' people?). They can secure better terms for themselves and act as a restraint on the excesses of the government. By simply presenting themselves as something to be concerned with, they can change the course of the regime. In the case of oppressed peoples, for instance the Native Americans, final victory for the whites was never in doubt, but those that presented significant fighting forces could secure better terms. Likewise, in the case of invasion, the damage dealt by partisans in France, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere and the drain of resources they were to the Germans illustrates that while victory may be impossible, resistance is still a viable and worthwhile option.
Wouldn't you rather have 2.5 million armed people backing you as you sat down at the negotiating table to try and prevent war and preserve your rights and prosperity? Or do you want to trust the magnanimity of a regime that is committing the abuses that have seen it necessary for you to consider rebellion?
And again, an oppressive government is not a rarity, it is the norm. A well-functioning, non-oppressive government is the rarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.
The government has nuclear weapons. |
And using nuclear weapons on American soil against rebellious citizens wouldn't sway more government loyalists to the rebellion, and wouldn't have any effect on the possibility of international intervention.
| Leon wrote: |
| 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. |
Those things are great for killing unarmed civilians, but not so good for killing armed government troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
But please stop this charade that their guns protects them from tyranny.
The government has nuclear weapons. |
And using nuclear weapons on American soil against rebellious citizens wouldn't sway more government loyalists to the rebellion, and wouldn't have any effect on the possibility of international intervention.
| Leon wrote: |
| 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. |
Those things are great for killing unarmed civilians, but not so good for killing armed government troops. |
Forget the armed government troops, the whole thing will get put down by drones. Seriously though a non-violent rebellion, especially in an American context has a far greater chance. Will American soldiers fire on peaceful citizens, sure ther are some psychopaths and mindless ones that will follow orders, but most of them? Now take that same scenario and replace it with people shooting at the troops, you think they won't fire back. Any revolution will come down to where most of the army ends up. If anything am armed revolution will give a tyrannical government a freer hand to come down hard, and potentially cost them the moral high ground and the ability for international help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does beg the serious question though:
Are Americans at large (more than 33% of eligible voters (~70 million souls) - enough to defeat a repeal)
of the general opinion that the repeal (or amendment) of the 2nd amendment = abolition of guns?
If the answer to that question is yes then the debate is moot.
The argument can never be won, a change cannot be effected and the gun violence will continue to make headlines in the USA.
If the answer to that question is no the the debate must rage on - are ARMS in the general population in the 21st century really necessary for the preservation of a democratic society?
I am of the opinion that should the democracy fail the rule of law would also fail and the "government" or "powers that be" backed by the military and police have more than sufficient arms and ability to subdue the civilian population whether they are armed or not (this isn't 1791).
If a modern democracy is unlikely to fail (fall into despotism), then why are ARMS necessary?
If the bad buys can't easily get guns then the good guys don't need guns for protection from the bad guys guns. Detente seemed to work; how about detente for the citizens (enforced by the police and government).
Americans will risk their lives in rescue operations around the country and even around the world to save a few souls in peril but they will allow thousands of their own to die by gunshot every year in order to preserve their guns.
Forgive my honest ignorance but I really don't get it.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Forgive my honest ignorance but I really don't get it.
|
Again, repealing the 2nd Amendment endangers the other 9.
Think about it, this was the second Amendment. It was put in before Right to Counsel and Freedom from Cruel & Unusual punishment.
The 10,000 a year gun deaths is abominable and there has to be a way to reduce that with sensible regulations. But repealing the 2nd Amendment is not the answer, and as an American, I would rather 10,000 people die a year from guns than have the Bill of Rights come under that kind of assault.
| Quote: |
would also fail and the "government" or "powers that be" backed by the military and police have more than sufficient arms and ability to subdue the civilian population whether they are armed or not (this isn't 1791).
|
Well it certainly depends. If it actually got into something like a serious revolt, bordering on Civil War, the government would certainly have a significant advantage. But who knows what nature the conflict might take? It might be something like The Troubles where there is a semblance of normalcy for large stretches of the population, but there are still significant problems. Or it might turn into something like Syria where it becomes more like a Civil War than an uprising.
Even a failed uprising can still bring about hope for the future, one has to look no farther than Gwangju to see the effects that even a failed moment of resistance can have on the desire for democracy and liberty.
| Quote: |
| If the bad buys can't easily get guns then the good guys don't need guns for protection from the bad guys guns. |
How would you propose to stop the bad guys from getting guns? In a nation with 300 million guns out there and a borderline Narco-state to the south?
Further, how would you enforce the ban? You do realize the Constitution of the United States prohibits unlawful search & seizure and the law requires things like warrants, probable cause, and concepts such as "guilty until proven innocent". Are you going to send in SWAT teams through predominantly African-American neighborhoods and have them do house to house searches? Do you have any idea what kind of racial fracas that would cause?
You can't just pass a law and say "That's the end of guns". You actually have to go in and get them. Think of it as a UN Resolution declaring Saddam Hussein a bad man who needs to go. All fine and dandy, but someone actually has to go in there, fight his people, and kill some people to accomplish that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| I am of the opinion that should the democracy fail the rule of law would also fail and the "government" or "powers that be" backed by the military and police have more than sufficient arms and ability to subdue the civilian population whether they are armed or not (this isn't 1791) |
The thing about armed resistance is that civilians are everywhere, and the more that you kill, the more resistance you generate. And as has been made clear, things like drone strikes don't sway public opinion in your favor.
About 1% of the U.S. population is in the military and a significant portion would join an armed resistance against actual tyranny. So you're left with a reduced standing army which has to contend with limitless civilian resistance (both violent and non-violent) under the direction of defecting military, sympathetic veterans, and likely duplicitous regional police forces. And it has to do that in a geographical area 30 times bigger than Iraq.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
| I am of the opinion that should the democracy fail the rule of law would also fail and the "government" or "powers that be" backed by the military and police have more than sufficient arms and ability to subdue the civilian population whether they are armed or not (this isn't 1791) |
The thing about armed resistance is that civilians are everywhere, and the more that you kill, the more resistance you generate. And as has been made clear, things like drone strikes don't sway public opinion in your favor.
About 1% of the U.S. population is in the military and a significant portion would join an armed resistance against actual tyranny. So you're left with a reduced standing army which has to contend with limitless civilian resistance (both violent and non-violent) under the direction of defecting military, sympathetic veterans, and likely duplicitous regional police forces. And it has to do that in a geographical area 30 times bigger than Iraq.
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. The fact of the matter is if there is a large enough social movement that refuses to follow government orders, to participate in society and the economy, it is extremely powerful. Even in a dictatorship, the ruling class is much smaller than the people, in effect a absolute ruler is an absolute ruler because enough people treat him like one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
Forgive my honest ignorance but I really don't get it.
|
Again, repealing the 2nd Amendment endangers the other 9.
Think about it, this was the second Amendment. It was put in before Right to Counsel and Freedom from Cruel & Unusual punishment. |
I understand the logic when put into the framework of post revolution 1791 and the importance of that particular amendment at that time.
But again I come back to the comment,
"I don't see how, under the requirements for constitutional change, that said change or repeal of the 2nd amendment would endanger the other rights"
and the question...
If a simple minority (33% of the population) can defeat said resolution, amendment or repeal
and
66% is the required minimum to pass...
one would have to assume that there are enough intelligent people remaining in the US (in spite of some people's opinion to the contrary):
a) to defeat the resolution if it really was so bad taken in light of the modern era and
b) that the constitution and its other amendments themselves would be strong enough to withstand a challenge to their viability because there has to be enough intelligent voters in the US to prevent the wholesale change to the other parts of the bill of rights.
To assume otherwise is to assume that the forefathers had the wisdom of the good Lord himself and were themselves infallible (we know that isn't the case) rather that being real people who were reacting to the circumstances of their time.
...
AFTER the changes are made then the privilege (not right) of ownership and enforcement of said privileges can become logistically possible and the removal/reduction of guns becomes a simple matter (albeit a VERY long term one) of attrition and enforcement.
I am not so rosy eyed as to expect an overnight miracle.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 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. |
I disagree with this. Non-violence and mass demonstration have frequently been shown to be effective agents of change.
I'd put more energy and labor into political organizing and media savvy than in guns.
That being said, guns are there as a last result and as a final deterrent to the worst excesses of tyranny.
| Quote: |
But again I come back to the comment,
"I don't see how, under the requirements for constitutional change, that said change or repeal of the 2nd amendment would endanger the other rights" |
It is not about the legal requirements, it is about the legal and cultural precedent it would set.
Again, this is akin to a church declaring one of the 10 Commandments null and void. It would challenge the legitimacy of the other 9.
If one can be outright repealed, that may not lead to the others being repealed, but it could lead to them being dramatically weakened.
Crossing the Rubicon, Opening Pandora's Box, whatever you want to call it, repealing the 2nd Amendment would be that.
| Quote: |
one would have to assume that there are enough intelligent people remaining in the US (in spite of some people's opinion to the contrary):
a) to defeat the resolution if it really was so bad taken in light of the modern era and |
Not necessarily. As the process is conducted by representatives, and ratification done by states, many of whom are dependent on Federal funding, you could end up with a situation like in the Eurozone where countries involved reject measures via referendum, but the body either ignores the referendum, like in Ireland, or ends up with a puppet government in place as happened in the case of Italy and Greece. Austerity is deeply unpopular, yet elected (or unelected) officials ignore the sentiments of the people and pass legislation regardless.
| Quote: |
| AFTER the changes are made then the privilege (not right) of ownership and enforcement of said privileges can become logistically possible and the removal/reduction of guns becomes a simple matter (albeit a VERY long term one) of attrition and enforcement. |
Actually, its very complex. For starters, the firearms industry would become entirely export driven and would likely see a dramatic decline in sales. Countless people would be out of the job and would be none-to-thrilled with those that had brought that about. You would also have a significant number of people, who previously had no inclination as criminals, now be forced with surrendering their guns used for hunting or self-defense in their high-crime neighborhood or become criminals. Said people would then have to be arrested, tried, and incarcerated. Meanwhile, a burgeoning black market would emerge for guns.
In order to enact an effective illegalization of guns, it is likely that a narrowing interpretation of things like search & seizure, would be enacted, and while initially focused at guns, would in turn focus on other crimes.
I really think this is an issue that is better served by looking at the demand side of the equation, rather than the supply side. Drugs and guns are largely restricted in many developed nations. However in many of these nations there is a large demand for drugs, and consequently a large supply. However, there is little demand for guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Actually, its very complex. For starters, the firearms industry would become entirely export driven and would likely see a dramatic decline in sales. Countless people would be out of the job and would be none-to-thrilled with those that had brought that about. You would also have a significant number of people, who previously had no inclination as criminals, now be forced with surrendering their guns used for hunting or self-defense in their high-crime neighborhood or become criminals. Said people would then have to be arrested, tried, and incarcerated. Meanwhile, a burgeoning black market would emerge for guns.
In order to enact an effective illegalization of guns, it is likely that a narrowing interpretation of things like search & seizure, would be enacted, and while initially focused at guns, would in turn focus on other crimes.
I really think this is an issue that is better served by looking at the demand side of the equation, rather than the supply side. Drugs and guns are largely restricted in many developed nations. However in many of these nations there is a large demand for drugs, and consequently a large supply. However, there is little demand for guns. |
This assumes that gun ownership would be "illegal" or criminalized.
That would not be the case. 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?
The use of aircraft and airspace is controlled. Pilots and aircrew are regularly monitored and their suitability for work tested. No-one complains. The aircraft themselves are very strictly regulated. Not an issue.
Cars and other automotive vehicles are controlled.
Most can still buy a car. Most can still drive a car (provided they meet the minimum requirements (passed a drivers test) and have not be prohibited.
Gun control (not prohibition) would leave enough jobs open in the regulation and enforcement to provide for those who would otherwise be displaced by the curtailing of production. Make trigger locks and gun cabinets instead of guns.
I am not advocating for prohibition of guns. 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.
Prohibition leads to a LARGE black market and by looking at the US "War on Drugs" and their prior experiment in the "Prohibition of alcohol" we all know how effective that route is.
Control and enforcement of their ownership coupled with control of their movement and use is probably a much better answer and let natural attrition take its course for reduction.
NONE of this would result in significant loss of employment, any degradation of the other "rights" for enforcement.
We will have to agree to disagree but after a LOT of reading and research I really still still don't get it.
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.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I think we are dealing with a lot of false dichotomies here: this is not a question of repealing the second amendment or not, or protecting people from tyranny or not.
It is about protecting people from gun violence, even in their own homes from people they love.
If you are just thinking about sane, rational people who know how to use, take care of and handle guns, you are missing the larger picture - the number of people who cannot do these things and are mentally unstable.
The second amendment should not prevent us from dealing with these threats.
And, shooting these people (in the act of self-defense) does not seem a satisfactory answer either.
What we are reaping here is at least a generation of poor social spending and the unraveling of the social safety net. We need to see people with mental health issues get help, not guns.
Arguing the second amendment is a distraction and IMHO, a dangerous one.
Making it slightly harder to get guns will be annoying to the relatively rational people in our society but for those with mental health issues, small hurdles can be enough to keep guns out of their hands, making us all safer. If it is just inconvenience, I think it is a small price to pay.
I don't know if Congress is capable of getting their act together and do something meaningful on this issue. The politics in America are just stupid IMHO, and I think this issue will be a real test of leadership, but I think we will all be better off, if we can find solutions to lessen gun violence.
I think it is an issue that American people need to be serious about and not just flap their gums with politics about. For some people, this will be about life and death and the quality of the life they live. It is not a game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
|
| 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
