|
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 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| You are not born with the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. |
Actually, yes I am. End of discussion. If you think Americans are EVER going to give this fundamental right up, you've got another thing coming. But feel free to bang your head against the wall all you want... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
| You are not born with the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. |
Actually, yes I am. End of discussion. If you think Americans are EVER going to give this fundamental right up, you've got another thing coming. But feel free to bang your head against the wall all you want... |
Fundamental right? Funny, but I've never noticed anything about firearms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
And when they wrote the US Constitution, weren't they just talking about muzzle-loaded black powder guns? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| 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. |
Perhaps I've missed it. Has there been some genetic change in humans which will cause them to behave differently than they have for the past few thousand years? Has some act of divine intervention miraculously made the Western world safe from major civil and international conflict? Or is it just easy to slip into the fantasy that the society that we see today will stay the same for hundreds or thousands of years to come?
Why will rational people, who would never say that a horrible event like cancer "would never happen to me", will exuberantly discard all of human history to say that dictatorship or violent revolution "will never happen to my society"? I'm happy for those who live in a society where the ownership of weapons is currently optional, but I don't understand the self-delusion that this is the permanent, natural state of any society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
| You are not born with the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. |
Actually, yes I am. End of discussion. If you think Americans are EVER going to give this fundamental right up, you've got another thing coming. But feel free to bang your head against the wall all you want... |
Fundamental right? Funny, but I've never noticed anything about firearms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
Yes, fundamental, and very obviously so. And it certainly doesn't have to be written down anywhere to be a right. It is self evident.
| Quote: |
| And when they wrote the US Constitution, weren't they just talking about muzzle-loaded black powder guns? |
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Where on earth you got "just muzzle-loaded black powder guns" from that statement, I don't care to guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
| You are not born with the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. |
Actually, yes I am. End of discussion. If you think Americans are EVER going to give this fundamental right up, you've got another thing coming. But feel free to bang your head against the wall all you want... |
You are still talking about two completely different things. Whether or not Americans want to give up this right is totally irrelevant. And saying things like, "Yes I am, end of discussion" is just making you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, I and the others are providing rational reasons for our opinions, while what you are doing is much more like "banging your head against the wall." I insist that you discuss the issue like a rational adult, or leave the rest of us to do so.
Why is owning a gun a fundamental right? Fundamental rights are, as I said before, timeless and independent of circumstance. Where was the fundamental right to own a gun 5,000 years ago, when they didn't even exist? Is it just weapons we have the right to own? So do we have the fundamental right to own landmines or cruise missiles? What about people who can't afford to buy a gun? They're expensive. If it is every human being's fundamental right to own a gun, then the government should hand them out for free like education and food stamps.
The difference is this, and pay close attention because this is the whole point of the "fundamental rights" argument. You have the fundamental right to own something if it is necessary to sustain your life or a reasonable quality thereof. There are times and places where everyday people need guns to protect their lives. In these situations, it is a right. However, there are many places, such as South Korea, where it is totally unnecessary to own a gun for protection. There are many places in the world where it is unnecessary to own a gun, so it is not a right. If there are places where a right does not apply, it is not a fundamental right.
As for the "protection against the tyranny of the state" argument, I have already explained that the changes in weapons technology since the eighteenth century mean that the right to bear arms can no longer protect us from the government in the event armed conflict. It's not a fundamental right if it no longer makes sense because of a couple hundred years of technological advances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
The difference is this, and pay close attention because this is the whole point of the "fundamental rights" argument. You have the fundamental right to own something if it is necessary to sustain your life or a reasonable quality thereof. There are times and places where everyday people need guns to protect their lives. In these situations, it is a right. However, there are many places, such as South Korea, where it is totally unnecessary to own a gun for protection. There are many places in the world where it is unnecessary to own a gun, so it is not a right. If there are places where a right does not apply, it is not a fundamental right.
As for the "protection against the tyranny of the state" argument, I have already explained that the changes in weapons technology since the eighteenth century mean that the right to bear arms can no longer protect us from the government in the event armed conflict. It's not a fundamental right if it no longer makes sense because of a couple hundred years of technological advances. |
The 2nd Amendment reinforces the 4th Amendment. DoNY probably imagines the state to be located in Washington, DC and armed with drones and nuclear weaponry. But, the state also includes state and local officials. Actually, it is local officials who worry me the most. Local cops can be bullies, and it is they who are the most daily threat to the right to privacy. I am sorry, but the courts are sometimes a weak and insufficient protection against local officers who break into homes and otherwise abuse their office. Certainly, the modern reading of the 4th Amendment allows officers to invade your home, its just they cannot use the poisonous fruits against you in the courts. That's hardly protection enough against all possible police villainy. Indeed, this very phenomenon was discussed in McDonald v. Chicago. Justice Alito's opinion reminds us that the laws of several Southern states prohibited African-Americans from owning firearms. And we all know the terror they suffered at the hands of local police for the next hundred years.
I am not persuaded to trust local and state gov'ts when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative: assuring that, at the very least, individuals have the right to individual self-protection within the home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| [You are still talking about two completely different things. Whether or not Americans want to give up this right is totally irrelevant. |
Strawman. The point was not whether or not American's "want" to give up said right; rather that the right is a right, everyone knows it, and therefore will not give it up. Quite straightforward.
| Quote: |
| Why is owning a gun a fundamental right? |
Because to deprive one of this liberty would be unjust. Neither you, nor anyone else, nor the government has the right to tell an innocent person they cannot own a gun.
| Quote: |
| Fundamental rights are, as I said before, timeless and independent of circumstance. Where was the fundamental right to own a gun 5,000 years ago, when they didn't even exist? |
The right to bear arms is inherent. It is the same as my right to have a bag of potatoes in my pantry.
| Quote: |
| Is it just weapons we have the right to own? So do we have the fundamental right to own landmines or cruise missiles? |
As long as you are not committing a crime, you have the right to own anything.
| Quote: |
What about people who can't afford to buy a gun? They're expensive. If it is every human being's fundamental right to own a gun, then the government should hand them out for free like education and food stamps.
|
The right to keep and bear arms is not the same as being entitled to have them. Obviously. (I would never support tax-funded, or "free" education or food stamps either, for that matter)
| Quote: |
| The difference is this, and pay close attention because this is the whole point of the "fundamental rights" argument. You have the fundamental right to own something if it is necessary to sustain your life or a reasonable quality thereof. There are times and places where everyday people need guns to protect their lives. In these situations, it is a right. However, there are many places, such as South Korea, where it is totally unnecessary to own a gun for protection. There are many places in the world where it is unnecessary to own a gun, so it is not a right. If there are places where a right does not apply, it is not a fundamental right. |
What a stupid argument. In the first place, I don't accept your definition of a "fundamental right" (sounds like something you just pulled out of thin air). Moreover, something being "necessary" or not is not a criteria for something being a right. People have the right to do whatsoever they want, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others.
| Quote: |
| As for the "protection against the tyranny of the state" argument, I have already explained that the changes in weapons technology since the eighteenth century mean that the right to bear arms can no longer protect us from the government in the event armed conflict. It's not a fundamental right if it no longer makes sense because of a couple hundred years of technological advances. |
Nonsense. A population of more than 300,000,000 people which is mostly armed is totally protection against the government. Just wait and see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Only in America.
The issue is when they try to export said foolishness when they travel.
Their right to bear arms is NOT universal and does NOT extend beyond their own borders; as many, to their dismay, discover each year when they get arrested or have other "difficulties" abroad for carrying "arms" into foreign countries.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Only in America.
The issue is when they try to export said foolishness when they travel. |
This is a non-issue, since it basically never happens.
| Quote: |
| Their right to bear arms is NOT universal and does NOT extend beyond their own borders |
Yes it is, and yes it does; but again it's a non-issue, since Americans are hardly going out of their way trying to "impose" gun ownership on others.
| Quote: |
| as many, to their dismay, discover each year when they get arrested or have other "difficulties" abroad for carrying "arms" into foreign countries. |
How absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
As long as you are not committing a crime, you have the right to own anything.
|
You could have just said this; it succinctly describes your view on property rights in general. While human rights is a subjective area and you are welcome to your opinion, I hope you understand that having the right to own anything is not a common belief.
It is a uniquely American belief that property rights are the most important thing in the world (I am an American myself, although I do not think like most Americans on this issue). Many Americans would readily defend to the death their right to own an assault weapon, while most citizens of developed nations are perfectly content to be restricted from owning something they have little use for. Rather than seeing it as a violation of their privacy rights, they consider it a protection of their right to live in a peaceful society.
I think I should have the right to live peacefully in my homeland without fear of gun-related crime (owning a gun myself would not really make me feel much safer). Why is your right to own a gun more important than everyone else's right to live in a peaceful society? That's what society is about: giving up some less important rights and privileges (not fundamental or unalienable rights) for the common good. That's why we pay taxes and have speed limits, and why we shouldn't have guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
The difference is this, and pay close attention because this is the whole point of the "fundamental rights" argument. You have the fundamental right to own something if it is necessary to sustain your life or a reasonable quality thereof. There are times and places where everyday people need guns to protect their lives. In these situations, it is a right. However, there are many places, such as South Korea, where it is totally unnecessary to own a gun for protection. There are many places in the world where it is unnecessary to own a gun, so it is not a right. If there are places where a right does not apply, it is not a fundamental right.
As for the "protection against the tyranny of the state" argument, I have already explained that the changes in weapons technology since the eighteenth century mean that the right to bear arms can no longer protect us from the government in the event armed conflict. It's not a fundamental right if it no longer makes sense because of a couple hundred years of technological advances. |
The 2nd Amendment reinforces the 4th Amendment. DoNY probably imagines the state to be located in Washington, DC and armed with drones and nuclear weaponry. But, the state also includes state and local officials. Actually, it is local officials who worry me the most. Local cops can be bullies, and it is they who are the most daily threat to the right to privacy. I am sorry, but the courts are sometimes a weak and insufficient protection against local officers who break into homes and otherwise abuse their office. Certainly, the modern reading of the 4th Amendment allows officers to invade your home, its just they cannot use the poisonous fruits against you in the courts. That's hardly protection enough against all possible police villainy. Indeed, this very phenomenon was discussed in McDonald v. Chicago. Justice Alito's opinion reminds us that the laws of several Southern states prohibited African-Americans from owning firearms. And we all know the terror they suffered at the hands of local police for the next hundred years.
I am not persuaded to trust local and state gov'ts when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative: assuring that, at the very least, individuals have the right to individual self-protection within the home. |
I think you are still making the mistake of thinking firearms are going to protect you from the police. If a cop illegally comes into your home, what are you going to do, shoot him? Are you going to shoot the rest of the cops who come to arrest you? If you kill them, are you going to fight off the SWAT team they send in to put you down?
While unscrupulous police are a very real problem, it's not a question of being armed as well as the corrupt cop. This isn't the wild west. Once you pick up a gun against the state, whether it's the police, the military, or public officials, you have made a decision that is almost certainly going to result in your death or imprisonment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
One could argue that the increased radicalism and forming of movements that were beginning to consider violence in the 30s and 60s had a significant impact on policy decisions during those eras.
The powers that be were seriously concerned about the rise of Socialism and the potential of "violent anarchists" and such to start a revolution, not some absurd idea considering the unrest going on in Europe.
Then you have the civil disturbances of the 60s and the anti-war movement which was starting to generate things like serious morale problems in the military and an increasingly radical protest movement combined with the urban riots and black militancy.
One could also suggest that indirectly firearms led to the repeal of Prohibition. No one would have cared nearly as much about the rise of the mob if there weren't shootouts and whatnot going on. How could you ban guns when you can't even successfully ban booze and because you banned booze, the cops are bought out by the mob? Now clearly that's a poor moral argument for guns, but if the issue is whether or not guns can successfully bring about political change within a democratic society (without overthrowing the government) then yes, they can.
One cannot downplay the lesson of Prohibition and its effect on American popular political thought. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment that specifically banned the possession of a product at the national level. That's the only one Amendment that does so.
You are talking about repealing a Constitutional Amendment and then replacing it with one forbidding the possession of something. This is what would be necessary in order to ban gun sales to the general public.
Do you see why Americans can be skeptical of this?
It's not just a "hey let's make a law banning guns", it requires a SIGNIFICANT legal and electoral process and would have tremendous legal implications on EVERY aspect of American law. Combine that with the fact that such an act would be most legally, and in significance, to the debacle that was Prohibition means that you must overcome tremendous hurdles.
The non-American anti-gun crowd, have you seriously considered the tremendous legal implications of the gun ban? In order to effectively outlaw guns, which frankly America would be better off without (obvious exceptions for rural hunters and farmers, antique pieces, etc.), you must consider those impacts. Even anti-gun Americans understand the enormous consequences of repealing a right ensconced in the Bill or Rights.
And do understand how significant Prohibition was on this issue and skepticism to it. if your country had something akin to Prohibition (and the cultural significance that was tied to it) you might not be so optimistic about government bans on things. Is there any country in Europe/Anglosphere that has a gun ban that has banned alcohol within the last 100 years? Sure can't picture booze being banned in Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan or Korea.
In fact isn't that something to consider? Booze fuels crime and causes death. Booze murders people. People murder because of booze. Sounds like gun level stuff to me. How easy do you think it would be to ban booze in your non-American country? Do you think people would regard booze as a fundamental right?
As I've said, I enjoy the fact that I live in a gun free country. America would be a better place if 99% of the guns out there were disposed of and 99% of the people couldn't own one. The invasion argument is a little silly (the Pacific & Atlantic are way better defenses than 300 million Americans with guns), self-defense is at best a push when considering the risk of accident/criminal behavior, and while guns CAN cause political change within a functioning government, money and votes are far better tools.
But don't dismiss Americans' concerns about gun bans and their view that it is a protected right. Given the history of the country and their constitution, it would be more of a shock if they HAD banned guns. What do you expect given the circumstances? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| duke of new york wrote: |
| You are not born with the right to own a gun just because you are a human being. |
Actually, yes I am. End of discussion. If you think Americans are EVER going to give this fundamental right up, you've got another thing coming. But feel free to bang your head against the wall all you want... |
Fundamental right? Funny, but I've never noticed anything about firearms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And when they wrote the US Constitution, weren't they just talking about muzzle-loaded black powder guns? |
Yes, the right to self defense and the right to own the best available tools needed for self defense - ie "The right to bear arms" - is a natural right of all human beings in all nations, even if it is not recognized by the various forms of statism that try to control individuals and subjugate them whether under collectivist mob rule or a solitary autocrat.
Natural law is universal and above the UN.
| Quote: |
| If a cop illegally comes into your home, what are you going to do, shoot him? Are you going to shoot the rest of the cops who come to arrest you? If you kill them, are you going to fight off the SWAT team they send in to put you down? |
It would be foolish and you would eventually lose, but you have the right to shoot and to kill if necessary anyone who comes illegally into your home - even if it's a cop or the swat team that follows.
visitorq wrote:
| Quote: |
| As long as you are not committing a crime, you have the right to own anything. |
I would rephrase this, since many things that you have a right to own are presently made illegal.
You have the right to own weapons of self defense, even if your government makes them illegal.
You have the right to possess drugs of any kind, even if your government makes them illegal.
Ultimately, you have the right to own anything that you can possess or use peacefully without harming anyone other than yourself by its use or possession, with the exception of harm you may resonably inflict upon others through self defense.
In the end, governments have no rights. Only people have rights. Each individual has the same rights. There are no group rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As for the "protection against the tyranny of the state" argument, I have already explained that the changes in weapons technology since the eighteenth century mean that the right to bear arms can no longer protect us from the government in the event armed conflict. It's not a fundamental right if it no longer makes sense because of a couple hundred years of technological advances. |
People have the right to possess any weapon their government possesses to be used against that government in defense of liberty.
If we want to live in a peaceful world, we need to disarm the governments, not the people.
Again, governments have no rights. Only people have rights. Each individual has the same rights. There are no group rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
Only in America.
The issue is when they try to export said foolishness when they travel.
|
Your posts in this thread have gotten worse, and that's even after a bad start.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: What are the requirements for taking a firearm / rifle to Canada to hunt?
| Quote: |
The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for deciding whether to let a non-resident bring a firearm into Canada. As a general rule, non-residents may bring a non-restricted rifle or shotgun into Canada for approved purposes such as hunting, target shooting, wilderness protection or in-transit movement by a reasonably direct route to another point outside Canada.
Restricted firearms (mainly handguns and some semi-automatic long guns) can generally only be imported if the person can demonstrate a need for having the firearms in Canada � for example to take part in an organized target-shooting event.
For more information on the documents you will need to import a firearm, please refer to the fact sheet for firearm owners visiting Canada. |
|
|
| 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
