|
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 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The American Revolution was possible because people owned guns. That allowed them to go to war with the British. The point of the Second Amendment is to let the people go to war with the government again, if the government was no longer fit to rule.
|
This is not really historically accurate. It is clear from the records that most people did not own guns in those days. Guys on the frontier did, mostly to hunt turkeys for the dinner table. But most did not live on the frontier and did not own guns.
The idea comes from a romanticized view of history. There have been plenty of revolutions or rebellions in other parts of the world, both before and after guns were invented.
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
SCOTUS ruled wisely on this two years ago in McDonald v. Chicago.
| Quote: |
| The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment |
That's it. States and municipalities can heavily regulate firearms, but those firearms minimally necessary for self-defense in one's homes are constitutionally protected. Likewise, State constitutions can guarantee greater protections for firearms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
This is not really historically accurate. It is clear from the records that most people did not own guns in those days. Guys on the frontier did, mostly to hunt turkeys for the dinner table. But most did not live on the frontier and did not own guns.
The idea comes from a romanticized view of history. There have been plenty of revolutions or rebellions in other parts of the world, both before and after guns were invented.
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
Exactly how prolific guns were is beside the point. If guns were outlawed in 18th century America, there could not have been a revolution in the same sense that there was. There were revolutions before guns because the oppressors didn't have guns either.
The Second Amendment was meant to protect self-determination first and foremost from the state. I guess this point is debated, but it just seems obvious to me from the text of the amendment, related writings and historical context. My point was that since "arms" refers to a kind of technology which has changed over time, the validity and usefulness of "the right to bear arms" has changed as well. It is no longer a reasonable protection against the threat it was intended to suppress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
SCOTUS ruled wisely on this two years ago in McDonald v. Chicago.
| Quote: |
| The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment |
That's it. States and municipalities can heavily regulate firearms, but those firearms minimally necessary for self-defense in one's homes are constitutionally protected. Likewise, State constitutions can guarantee greater protections for firearms. |
Nobody's arguing what the law is, just what it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
SCOTUS ruled wisely on this two years ago in McDonald v. Chicago.
| Quote: |
| The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment |
That's it. States and municipalities can heavily regulate firearms, but those firearms minimally necessary for self-defense in one's homes are constitutionally protected. Likewise, State constitutions can guarantee greater protections for firearms. |
Nobody's arguing what the law is, just what it should be. |
I'm not sure everyone understands what the law is. The Constitutional guarantee is very moderate. There's no Constitutional right to carry any firearm in your car, across state lines, or in any place outside of the home. It may even be possible to restrict handgun use on somebody's property not within their home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
But you are ignoring the second part of it- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say militia, it says people. And it says arms, not guns.
Now the REAL question is what exactly is "infringement"? Is only allowing hunting rifles infringing the right? (I don't think so). It can still serve a rudimentary self-defense purpose and work as a practical tool.
And at that point the next question becomes- what are "arms"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
But you are ignoring the second part of it- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say militia, it says people. And it says arms, not guns.
Now the REAL question is what exactly is "infringement"? Is only allowing hunting rifles infringing the right? (I don't think so). It can still serve a rudimentary self-defense purpose and work as a practical tool.
And at that point the next question becomes- what are "arms"? |
"A well regulated militia ... "
"Militia" at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant an organized citizen army that was not part of the government - not a standing army available to the state.
"Regulated" at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant "trained" as in the people needed to be armed and well trained in the use of their weapons to resist the tyrrany of the state.
The constitution gives the people to right to keep and bear arms, it does not give the same right to the government. It is the governments of the world that need to be disarmed, not the people.
I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern aversion to gun ownership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern aversion to gun ownership. |
+1 : "I might be hurt by a gun someday. Let's ban them all!" That's paranoia too.
There's a lot of "Americans are BEHIND everyone else on this issue" kind of sentiment. Yeah, yeah, we get it: we're uncouth and everyone else in the world is SO sophisticated. Right. It's not behind, it's just a different way of looking at the world.
Why is it good to want to give up a means of protection? I don't understand the sentiment behind this. If others don't want to have a tool to protect themselves that's fine, but don't ask the rest of us think in this manner.
If anything, work on crime prevention as a whole, instead of reducing guns first, why don't we work on reducing crackheads and criminals by addressing root causes, etc.? And, maybe address some of the loopholes and black markets that get guns into the hands of criminals as well, because they are going to have guns whether they are legal or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
There's a lot of "Americans are BEHIND everyone else on this issue" kind of sentiment. Yeah, yeah, we get it: we're uncouth and everyone else in the world is SO sophisticated. Right. It's not behind, it's just a different way of looking at the world. |
Well, that sentiment is coming from precisely one poster. But anyway, given America's stance on the death penalty, I can understand the condescending attitudes. But when it comes to gun rights, America is just very similar to Switzerland.
BTW, ttompatz talks about the violence of the Wild West, which he assuredly gets from movie lore, not actual history.
| Quote: |
Before 1900 there were no successful bank robberies in any of the major towns in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, or New Mexico, and only a pair of robberies in California and Arizona. Lots of people carried concealed weapons, so potential robbers were always vulnerable. Criminals don�t want to get hurt doing their criminal acts, so they aren't as likely to pick prey that appears willing to fight back.
In 2000 there were about 7,500 bank robberies, burglaries, and larcenies in the United States. Normally, these crimes are pulled off with no injuries or deaths.
. . .
In the real Dodge City of history, there were five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the little town's frontier history. In the most violent year in Deadwood, South Dakota, only four people were killed. In the worst year in Tombstone, home of the shoot-out at the OK Corral, only five people were killed. The only reason the OK Corral shoot-out even became famous was that town boosters deliberately overplayed the drama to attract new settlers. They cashed in on the tourist boom by inventing a myth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Washington DC banned guns. Violent crime skyrocketed.
Criminals still had guns. Law abiding citizens didn't.
I rest my case. |
It's not that simple. D.C.'s average homicide rate was actually higher during the decade that preceded the 1976 ban than during decade that followed. It wasn't until the late 1980s when violence skyrocketed because of crack cocaine.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| In England & Wales in 2007-8, there were 9,803 firearms offences. And this "despite the recent doubling of sentences for possessing or supplying firearms". |
Probably a lot of those firearm offences are crimes committed with airguns/replica guns. It's a big problem in the UK.
Last edited by ghostrider on Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
The American Revolution was possible because people owned guns. That allowed them to go to war with the British. The point of the Second Amendment is to let the people go to war with the government again, if the government was no longer fit to rule.
|
This is not really historically accurate. It is clear from the records that most people did not own guns in those days. Guys on the frontier did, mostly to hunt turkeys for the dinner table. But most did not live on the frontier and did not own guns.
The idea comes from a romanticized view of history. There have been plenty of revolutions or rebellions in other parts of the world, both before and after guns were invented.
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
Most states passed laws during the Revolutionary War which allowed privately owned guns to be confiscated and given to Washington's army. At that time, it was a practice known as impressment (the act or policy of seizing people or property for public service or use). However, America's victory over the British probably had more to do with France donating weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
But you are ignoring the second part of it- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say militia, it says people. And it says arms, not guns.
Now the REAL question is what exactly is "infringement"? Is only allowing hunting rifles infringing the right? (I don't think so). It can still serve a rudimentary self-defense purpose and work as a practical tool.
And at that point the next question becomes- what are "arms"? |
"A well regulated militia ... "
"Militia" at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant an organized citizen army that was not part of the government - not a standing army available to the state.
"Regulated" at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant "trained" as in the people needed to be armed and well trained in the use of their weapons to resist the tyrrany of the state.
The constitution gives the people to right to keep and bear arms, it does not give the same right to the government. It is the governments of the world that need to be disarmed, not the people.
I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern aversion to gun ownership. |
Men in the militia served under officers appointed by the state. The militia could be federalized during times of a national emergency as happened in the War of 1812. So it wasn't like the militia existed entirely apart of government. Read Article I of the Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
The American Revolution was possible because people owned guns. That allowed them to go to war with the British. The point of the Second Amendment is to let the people go to war with the government again, if the government was no longer fit to rule.
|
This is not really historically accurate. It is clear from the records that most people did not own guns in those days. Guys on the frontier did, mostly to hunt turkeys for the dinner table. But most did not live on the frontier and did not own guns.
The idea comes from a romanticized view of history. There have been plenty of revolutions or rebellions in other parts of the world, both before and after guns were invented.
The phrase 'well-regulated militia' is ignored in this debate. I would urge that people consider the idea of chronic paranoia to be the real reason behind the modern insistence on gun ownership. |
Most states passed laws during the Revolutionary War which allowed privately owned guns to be confiscated and given to Washington's army. At that time, it was a practice known as impressment (the act or policy of seizing people or property for public service or use). However, America's victory over the British probably had more to do with France donating weapons. |
And all the states had passed laws legalizing slavery. And that's OK too, right?  |
|
| 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
