Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - An argument for gun rights and gun protection

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

An argument for gun rights and gun protection
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:54 am Post subject:

Quote:

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

The true irony of that is that Hamilton was killed in a duel.

Personally speaking, I grew up with guns in the house. To this day, family back home have a shotgun and a .22 in the house. As long as it's legal, it's probably best to be armed.

That being said, ttompatz makes a very good point. Other than TUM, a paleo-conservative, are there people from other countries itching to have gun bans repealed?

Moreover, I'm probably going to retire abroad, and this issue essentially eliminates places. Phillipines? No. Not interested in peeps rolling up to rob/ransom expat-dude who has comparatively more money. Same goes for Mexico and South America. Chances might be low, but why chance it? One gun can make a world of difference. It's simply better to go with somewhere where that kind of thing is unthinkable.

As for removing guns from the US, I'd say that's nigh impossible. However, that doesn't mean we should leave things to the gun nuts. There should be limits on what you can buy. As in, Bosnians during the Balkan conflict were buying the highest powered sniper rifles (that can take out a car) for their "elephant hunting club". And, especially. guns are freely traded without tracking ownership properly. THIS is what I se as the biggest and easiest to fix problem. Guns should be no different than cars. You buy one and its attached to you through title and registration. EVERY gun should be traceable to its owner. If your gun is used by some thug, then YOU get to go to jail. I don't really give a rip if some militia dude has 34 guns as long as we know he's got them and they're not being traded on a black market.

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of random whackos going postal and killing people in cafeterias/high schools/Amish communities/universities/post offices, but you reap hat you sow and I'm pretty far removed from that retardity.

pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

There should be limits on what you can buy. As in, Bosnians during the Balkan conflict were buying the highest powered sniper rifles (that can take out a car) for their "elephant hunting club". And, especially. guns are freely traded without tracking ownership properly. THIS is what I se as the biggest and easiest to fix problem. Guns should be no different than cars. You buy one and its attached to you through title and registration. EVERY gun should be traceable to its owner. If your gun is used by some thug, then YOU get to go to jail. I don't really give a rip if some militia dude has 34 guns as long as we know he's got them and they're not being traded on a black market.

There are limits. Fully automatic firearms and other weapons (grenade launchers, gatling guns, etc...) require a Class 3 license, which is very difficult to get. Also, by having a Class 3 license, the ATF and authorities have the right to search your home at anytime they wish without a warrant.

Furthermore, the Class 3 firearm's location must always be registered with law enforcement. If you take that weapon out of your home and take it to the gun range, you MUST tell the police when, where, and for how long you will be in transit with that weapon.

Conceal and Carry permits require firearms training, gun safety classes, and a certification.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:08 pm Post subject:

pkang0202 wrote:

Conceal and Carry permits require firearms training, gun safety classes, and a certification.

I believe it depends on the state you're in. Most have those requirements, but there are a couple that don't.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:25 am Post subject: ...

But Pkang, The problem lies in the culture of gun shows and whatnot, popular in the backwoods areas where gangs and inner-city problems don't exist, and loose handling of gun registration and such allows unregistered weapons to flow back into high-crime areas. I'd call for a 2.5 license on everything: 1) It must be registered, or you're a felon. 2) If you "lose" it, you report it immediately or you're a felon. 3) Every weapon must be traceable to an owner. If that weapon is used in a violent crime by anyone, you, the owner, share responsibility for that crime. 4) Waiting days are not some big issue to crap yourself over. How many hunters can't hunt because of waiting days vs. whackos deciding they need to off someone pronto? If someone enters your house, it's not like you run out to buy a gun at that time. These 4 things would lead to far better gun ownership. The problem is the NRA's vehement slippery slope argument.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:35 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

But Pkang,

The problem lies in the culture of gun shows and whatnot, popular in the backwoods areas where gangs and inner-city problems don't exist, and loose handling of gun registration and such allows unregistered weapons to flow back into high-crime areas. I'd call for a 2.5 license on everything:

1) It must be registered, or you're a felon.

2) If you "lose" it, you report it immediately or you're a felon.

3) Every weapon must be traceable to an owner. If that weapon is used in a violent crime by anyone, you, the owner, share responsibility for that crime.

4) Waiting days are not some big issue to crap yourself over. How many hunters can't hunt because of waiting days vs. whackos deciding they need to off someone pronto? If someone enters your house, it's not like you run out to buy a gun at that time.

These 4 things would lead to far better gun ownership. The problem is the NRA's vehement slippery slope argument.

I see nothing in those ideas that a reasonable person would object to.

I'd also say that it's okay for Chicago to have one set of gun laws and for Alaska to have completely different ones.

For example, because Alaska is so rural, the fact that you didn't report the gun stolen within 24 hours wouldn't be cause to throw you instantly in jail. Heck, it might take you that much time to get back from your hunting/fishing trip to see your cabin has been ransacked, to say nothing about flying your seaplane 250 miles south to report it.

12ax7

Joined: 07 Nov 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:29 am Post subject:

comm wrote:

madhusudan wrote:

This passage states my view fairly well:

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/00/billofrights.html

It's tragic that the view of the framers of the Constitution has been so thoroughly forgotten. I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who would argue that the power to regulate hopscotch can be teased out of the power to "regulate interstate commerce". Or, failing that, that the legally meaningless Preamble gives the Federal government the power to regulate hopscotch if it will "promote the general Welfare".

The guys who wrote the US Constitution were slave owners, and so were the first 8 US presidents...So, whenever I hear someone waxing nostalgic about their forgotten ideas, I tend to roll my eyes.

In any case, you can't discuss the right to bear arms in the US Constitution without looking at the historical context in which it was written. An army made up of citizen's militias, guys armed with black powder rifles, had just won a war against opponents equally armed. The way I see it, granting people the right to bear arms was not only a strategic decision, but a politically motivated one (don't like the government, overthrow it). But, in today's context (and modern warfare being what it is), the idea seems a bit ridiculous.

With that said, I enjoy shooting...and I'm Canadian. I'm quite good at it, too. Few people here have shot the weapons I have, and I've been shooting since I was 8. Rockets, machine guns, you name it (I was trained to shoot down airplanes, as a matter of fact).

So, what do I think about gun control? I enjoy walking the streets in South Korea without fearing to get shot, but it's like that where I'm from. Where I'm from, we understand that firearms are for hunting and sports shooting. That's it. If you aren't a hunter or the member of a gun club, you really have no business owning one.

I just don't trust people who want them for the purpose of protection. They are the ones who are most likely to make mistakes, in my opinion. They are the people who are the most likely to accidentally shoot a family member having a midnight snack thinking it was a burglar.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:28 am Post subject:

12ax7 wrote:

In any case, you can't discuss the right to bear arms in the US Constitution without looking at the historical context in which it was written. An army made up of citizen's militias, guys armed with black powder rifles, had just won a war against opponents equally armed. The way I see it, granting people the right to bear arms was not only a strategic decision, but a politically motivated one (don't like the government, overthrow it). But, in today's context (and modern warfare being what it is), the idea seems a bit ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. An armed population is a free one. Simple as that.

Quote:

If you aren't a hunter or the member of a gun club, you really have no business owning one.

Nonsense. People have the business to own guns because it's a fundamental right. I could say you have no business owning kitchen knives unless you're a licensed chef; and it would be equally as absurd.

Quote:

I just don't trust people who want them for the purpose of protection. They are the ones who are most likely to make mistakes, in my opinion. They are the people who are the most likely to accidentally shoot a family member having a midnight snack thinking it was a burglar.

Total conjecture on your part, unsupported by anything other than your own imagination.

madhusudan

Joined: 30 Jan 2006

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject:

12ax7 wrote:

The guys who wrote the US Constitution were slave owners, and so were the first 8 US presidents...So, whenever I hear someone waxing nostalgic about their forgotten ideas, I tend to roll my eyes.

There's really only one way to read this, but it's just so absurd I have to ask: Are you suggesting we do away with the "forgotten ideas" of the US Constitution because its writers were slave owners?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

[

. Other than TUM, a paleo-conservative, are there people from other countries itching to have gun bans repealed?

.

If the twenty or so polls (provided in the link I supplied) are any indication then the majority of Canadians must be paleo-conservatives as well. Rolling Eyes

And the next link shows why gun bans and gun control have failed.

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/thefailedexperiment.pdf

Quote:

Britain

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. The firearm laws may even have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite Britain�s banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime, and firearm crime, continue to grow.

Australia

Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide. The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime

Canada

In the 1990s, sweeping changes were made to the firearms laws, first in 1991 and then again in 1995. Licensing and registration are still being phased in. The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:21 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The problem is still there, even more so than ever, but the right to bear arms doesn't make sense anymore because wars are not fought in the same way they were 200 years ago. In the American Revolution, the American side was made up of everyday folks, and they were fighting a national military, but the two sides were not all that differently advantaged. The British army was better trained and had better quality equipment, but at the end of the day it was just guys with rifles shooting at other guys with rifles. On the other hand, if Americans went to war with their government today, it would be guys with rifles against guys with fully automatic assault weapons, missiles with targeting systems, grenade launchers, fighter jets, armored vehicles, GPS (which the government can choose to restrict from common use), and all kinds of other sophisticated technology that James Madison could never have imagined. In short, it would be literally impossible for citizens to fight the US Armed Forces in this era.

I believe more than a few Iraqi vets would disagree with that.

duke of new york

Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Quote:

I believe more than a few Iraqi vets would disagree with that.

Are you implying the insurgency in Iraq was (is) fought with the same kinds of weapons available to the general public in the US? You know, they have assault weapons, rocket launchers, and SA missiles? They have looted military ordnance and have almost certainly been supplied with weapons by Iran. It has nothing at all to do with owning semi-automatics or hunting rifles like people do in the US.

madhusudan wrote:

12ax7 wrote:

The guys who wrote the US Constitution were slave owners, and so were the first 8 US presidents...So, whenever I hear someone waxing nostalgic about their forgotten ideas, I tend to roll my eyes.

There's really only one way to read this, but it's just so absurd I have to ask: Are you suggesting we do away with the "forgotten ideas" of the US Constitution because its writers were slave owners?

That's the kind of black and white thinking that makes so many gun rights advocates impossible to argue with. He's just saying the "founding fathers" were not the perfect gods that many people make them out to be. They, along with the Constitution, are sometimes mythologized to the point where people will accept something as a fact just because it can be attributed to one of their opinions. In fact, they were obviously fallible people like anyone else, and especially since they lived a long time ago and we've made significant social progress since then, it is possible for us to be right and them wrong about things.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:16 pm Post subject:

duke of new york wrote:

That's the kind of black and white thinking that makes so many gun rights advocates impossible to argue with.

Then don't argue. Just realize that Americans are never, ever going to give up the fundamental right to bear arms and let it be.

duke of new york

Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:56 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

duke of new york wrote:

That's the kind of black and white thinking that makes so many gun rights advocates impossible to argue with.

Then don't argue. Just realize that Americans are never, ever going to give up the fundamental right to bear arms and let it be.

That is by far the worst argument in this entire thread. I suppose we should just give up on peace in Israel/Palestine because the two sides will never, ever agree. Or we should just realize that Islamist extremists will never, ever stop hating America and just let it be. Just because a belief is deeply entrenched doesn't make it right and doesn't mean we should just "let it be."

Besides, the right to bear arms is not, as I said before, a fundamental right. You are not born with the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. Fundamental rights are things like freedom of expression, association, and privacy, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection. Everyone on Earth has these rights, whether they are upheld in their country or not, because they are just self-evident. There is nothing self-evident about people having the right to own weapons in a peaceful society.

As long as people I know are senselessly killed in firearms accidents and homicides, I will certainly not just "let it be."

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject:

Quote:

the right to due process, and the right to equal protection. Everyone on Earth has these rights, whether they are upheld in their country or not, because they are just self-evident. There is nothing self-evident about people having the right to own weapons in a peaceful society.

I'd submit that in the state of nature, from which self-evident rights spring, that the right to owning a weapon is for more of a "basic right" than due process (which didn't exist until writing and codification of laws) or equal protection, which didn't come about until about 300 years ago.

For all but the last 100 years of human kind's existence, the right to own a weapon was largely accepted.

Your idea is born of luxury. I'd agree that as a society develops this right may not be as essential as it once was and can be phased away, but to suggest that having a weapon was not an essential human right during our prehistory and into much of our history through the industrial era is just silly.

I'd also submit that people in countries that have bans on guns, do so because their society IS peaceful (and the two things might very well be connected). I'd also submit that if a democratic people feels their society is not peaceful AND have a low degree of confidence in their government, particularly the police, that they will not relinquish the right to weapons (possibly making the situation worse).

duke of new york

Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Maybe we are not thinking of the same definition of what a "fundamental right" is. It is a subjective term. In my understanding of the concept, fundamental rights are totally independent of time and circumstances. They are rights that the earliest humans were entitled to, and we will continue to be entitled to them for as long as we exist. Every human has them, and there are no exceptions based on specific circumstances. There is no situation, as much as the last two US Presidents may believe, in which someone is not naturally entitled to due process in accordance with fair law. Not to say that this right has been respected throughout most of history, but the fundamental right has always existed and always will. The fact that circumstances can exist where the right to bear arms is unnecessary, which you admit, means it is not a fundamental right.

Quote:

I'd also submit that people in countries that have bans on guns, do so because their society IS peaceful (and the two things might very well be connected). I'd also submit that if a democratic people feels their society is not peaceful AND have a low degree of confidence in their government, particularly the police, that they will not relinquish the right to weapons (possibly making the situation worse).

I agree with this, but I will add that if American society is not peaceful or Americans do not have confidence in their government, then guns are not the solution. The fact that civilian gun ownership is necessary reveals deeper problems with the society and law enforcement. Especially considering that so many other countries, which many of the same armed Americans feel so socially superior to, do not have this need. I would argue that if the problems of economic and racial inequality in the US were seriously addressed, there would be significantly less violent crime and so little need for guns for self-defense, and as a result, even less violent crime.

Display posts from previous:

	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, 9, 10 Next
Page 5 of 10

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe