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
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
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.


Cherry picking, eh? So, many people make the argument that guns were supposedly to protect citizens against tyranny from your federal government, but since that's been shown to be a questionable claim at best, you now argue that they were given the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against corrupt cops...

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Militia_Act_of_1792
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
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.


Cherry picking, eh? So, many people make the argument that guns were supposedly to protect citizens against tyranny from your federal government, but since that's been shown to be a questionable claim at best, you now argue that they were given the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against corrupt cops...

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Militia_Act_of_1792


Again, you seem to not have read anything that I wrote. I spend most of the thread pointing out flaws in the in the idea that guns protect from tyranny of the National Government, but when I suggest that they could have some use to protect from a corrupt local government, and provide an actual example, I'm cherry picking? It's not an either:or thing, nor does my argument have anything to do with the second amendment. It was just a simple point that if corrupt local cops and governments try to act like criminals, they might be less likely to do so around an armed population. If a dirty cop gets shot, and the person can prove self defense, then that might not be such a bad thing. You're really confused it seems. I'm not personally for, or against, most gun control other than closing background check loopholes which I'm strongly for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
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.


Cherry picking, eh? So, many people make the argument that guns were supposedly to protect citizens against tyranny from your federal government, but since that's been shown to be a questionable claim at best, you now argue that they were given the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against corrupt cops...

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Militia_Act_of_1792


Again, you seem to not have read anything that I wrote. I spend most of the thread pointing out flaws in the in the idea that guns protect from tyranny of the National Government, but when I suggest that they could have some use to protect from a corrupt local government, and provide an actual example, I'm cherry picking? It's not an either:or thing, nor does my argument have anything to do with the second amendment. It was just a simple point that if corrupt local cops and governments try to act like criminals, they might be less likely to do so around an armed population. If a dirty cop gets shot, and the person can prove self defense, then that might not be such a bad thing. You're really confused it seems. I'm not personally for, or against, most gun control other than closing background check loopholes which I'm strongly for.


Read the link. My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so). No more, no less. There's nothing in there about policing cops.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
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.


Cherry picking, eh? So, many people make the argument that guns were supposedly to protect citizens against tyranny from your federal government, but since that's been shown to be a questionable claim at best, you now argue that they were given the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against corrupt cops...

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Militia_Act_of_1792


Again, you seem to not have read anything that I wrote. I spend most of the thread pointing out flaws in the in the idea that guns protect from tyranny of the National Government, but when I suggest that they could have some use to protect from a corrupt local government, and provide an actual example, I'm cherry picking? It's not an either:or thing, nor does my argument have anything to do with the second amendment. It was just a simple point that if corrupt local cops and governments try to act like criminals, they might be less likely to do so around an armed population. If a dirty cop gets shot, and the person can prove self defense, then that might not be such a bad thing. You're really confused it seems. I'm not personally for, or against, most gun control other than closing background check loopholes which I'm strongly for.


Read the link. My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so). No more, no less. There's nothing in there about policing cops.


I just said that I was not so hung up on the 2nd amendment, and was talking purely in terms of utility. Are you so against guns that you when you hear about it, it puts you in an irrational state where you lose all sense of reading comprehension? This has been a weird back and forth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Privateer



Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Use of violence against the state is usually welcomed by the forces of oppression because it gives them an excuse to pull out the stops. That's why the civil rights movement was determinedly non-violent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Leon wrote:
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.


Cherry picking, eh? So, many people make the argument that guns were supposedly to protect citizens against tyranny from your federal government, but since that's been shown to be a questionable claim at best, you now argue that they were given the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves against corrupt cops...

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Militia_Act_of_1792


Again, you seem to not have read anything that I wrote. I spend most of the thread pointing out flaws in the in the idea that guns protect from tyranny of the National Government, but when I suggest that they could have some use to protect from a corrupt local government, and provide an actual example, I'm cherry picking? It's not an either:or thing, nor does my argument have anything to do with the second amendment. It was just a simple point that if corrupt local cops and governments try to act like criminals, they might be less likely to do so around an armed population. If a dirty cop gets shot, and the person can prove self defense, then that might not be such a bad thing. You're really confused it seems. I'm not personally for, or against, most gun control other than closing background check loopholes which I'm strongly for.


Read the link. My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so). No more, no less. There's nothing in there about policing cops.


I just said that I was not so hung up on the 2nd amendment, and was talking purely in terms of utility. Are you so against guns that you when you hear about it, it puts you in an irrational state where you lose all sense of reading comprehension? This has been a weird back and forth.


Now, now. You're being petty. Do you go through pages of comments before leaving a comment? I don't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Are you so against guns that you when you hear about it, it puts you in an irrational state where you lose all sense of reading comprehension?


To be fair, guns aren't the only thing that makes 12ax7 irrational and unable to read. If you've read his other posts, it's pretty much who he is 24x7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Do you go through pages of comments before leaving a comment? I don't.


Perhaps you should take the time to read before you jump to conclusions, feel compelled to insert your 2 cents, stick your nose into matters you don't know anything about, jump in with your mouth ablazin' and/or pick fights with everyone else on the forum.

Take a deep breath. Recite to yourself, "Nobody cares what I think" and then think twice before you respond. This advice should probably also serve you well in life outside of Dave's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so).


Believing that requires one to ignore all the literature and thought on arms that led up to the American Revolution and the written sentiments of many of its authors as well as their skepticism towards government in general.

I mean, these people fought duels against each other with pistols.

Enumerating a right to self-defense and hunting would be as ridiculous to them as enumerating a right to play baseball would be to us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
Leon wrote:
Are you so against guns that you when you hear about it, it puts you in an irrational state where you lose all sense of reading comprehension?


To be fair, guns aren't the only thing that makes 12ax7 irrational and unable to read. If you've read his other posts, it's pretty much who he is 24x7.


I'm not the one who lacks the scientific literacy to recognize that we can't clone cavemen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Do you go through pages of comments before leaving a comment? I don't.


Perhaps you should take the time to read before you jump to conclusions, feel compelled to insert your 2 cents, stick your nose into matters you don't know anything about, jump in with your mouth ablazin' and/or pick fights with everyone else on the forum.

Take a deep breath. Recite to yourself, "Nobody cares what I think" and then think twice before you respond. This advice should probably also serve you well in life outside of Dave's.


Hypocrite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so).


Believing that requires one to ignore all the literature and thought on arms that led up to the American Revolution and the written sentiments of many of its authors as well as their skepticism towards government in general.

I mean, these people fought duels against each other with pistols.

Enumerating a right to self-defense and hunting would be as ridiculous to them as enumerating a right to play baseball would be to us.


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And duels were illegal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so).


Believing that requires one to ignore all the literature and thought on arms that led up to the American Revolution and the written sentiments of many of its authors as well as their skepticism towards government in general.


He's not wrong, though. James Madison seems to have felt that the Second Amendment was actually implicit in the Constitution already. It was added on the demands of certain parties, and they explained their reasons pretty clearly. For example:

George Mason wrote:
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . .


Patrick Henry wrote:
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.


These fellows were slavers, and they knew, and admitted freely, that compulsory Southern militia patrols keeping slaves in line was the only thing that could hold their system together. They weren't worried about tyranny when it came to their demands for the Second Amendment, they were worried about the possibility of the Federal government using its defense powers to put a de facto end to slavery. That's why the simple fact that the Constitution gives the Federal government no power to disarm the people wasn't enough for them: they needed specific guarantees regarding their state militias, which is why although Madison referred to the security of "a free country" in the original draft of the Second Amendment, it got changed to "a free state" very quickly after.

There is little ambiguity here if one actually looks at the historic facts instead of trying to reason based purely and only off of the text: the Second Amendment was never really about the right of individuals to bear arms, but rather, was always about the militias. I'm not saying early Americans had no concerns about potential tyranny, but modern Americans tend to over-state those concerns; our (your, I should say: my family didn't come to America until well after the Civil War) forefathers were not ridiculous cowards, terrified of tyranny around every corner. Certainly, they had concerns about it, but it was one concern among many, and ought not to be over-stated, especially when the words of the men themselves offer a much more nuanced and pragmatic vision of events.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
My argument is that the Second Amendment of your constitution was written specifically with militias in mind (it even says so).


Believing that requires one to ignore all the literature and thought on arms that led up to the American Revolution and the written sentiments of many of its authors as well as their skepticism towards government in general.


He's not wrong, though. James Madison seems to have felt that the Second Amendment was actually implicit in the Constitution already. It was added on the demands of certain parties, and they explained their reasons pretty clearly. For example:

George Mason wrote:
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . .


Patrick Henry wrote:
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.


These fellows were slavers, and they knew, and admitted freely, that compulsory Southern militia patrols keeping slaves in line was the only thing that could hold their system together. They weren't worried about tyranny when it came to their demands for the Second Amendment, they were worried about the possibility of the Federal government using its defense powers to put a de facto end to slavery. That's why the simple fact that the Constitution gives the Federal government no power to disarm the people wasn't enough for them: they needed specific guarantees regarding their state militias, which is why although Madison referred to the security of "a free country" in the original draft of the Second Amendment, it got changed to "a free state" very quickly after.


Interesting. Could it be why the text says a "free state", not a free nation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
the Second Amendment was never really about the right of individuals to bear arms, but rather, was always about the militias.

Fortunately, it does say (and has been legally interpreted to mean) "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I guess we should count ourselves lucky that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

In fact, the right of the People to keep and bear arms is directly related to the militia in that the People would be ready to participate in a militia using their own weapons. Perhaps they should have wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear militia-quality arms shall not be infringed so they are ready to join said militia". But then that gets a little wordy, doesn't 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 6 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