|
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 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Kimbop wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
That they do... or rather, they seem to get drawn into the same old arguments. And the apology is mutual if I seemed a little short.
It's a sad case, to be sure. And one I think might have been prevented. But I know that there are a number of people on this board, and many Americans in R/L, that adamantly believe in expanding their right to bear arms.
And I've come to realize... there's nothing that'll change that. And that's ok. They can have their assault rifles, and bodyarmor.. and whatever.
I simply would prefer not to live around 'em.
No hate.
Just would prefer to live in a different system. |
But... you can get assault rifles and body armor in Canada. And Europe. You are completely missing the point, which is: gun violence in the US is statistically higher because of its demographics, not its gun laws. Most gun crime in the US is committed by its broad underclass, which demographically does not exist in Finland, Switzerland, Canada, etc.
People are to blame, not guns. |
Simple question - is it the same process as in the US? |
Totally irrelevant. The end result is the same: the criminals can obtain the guns if they want. How about you quit dodging the issue and acknowledge what he is (obviously) saying? |
Wow, so the process of HOW someone may/or may not obtain a gun is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT?
To who/what?
It's relevant to me. I think it's important.
| visitorq wrote: |
Listen to you... Do you actually think anyone gives to figs whether you want to live in the US or not? Thou doth protest way too much. You betray your own sensitivity to the issue. Nobody else cares. You would prefer to live in a country where you are deprived the basic right to own a gun (and are rather declared by the state to be guilty until proven innocent), then have at it~ |
Take a quick look back at who replied to who. Pretty sure you replied to my post about not wanting to live in the US. Prior to that, I didn't reply to you at all.
So when it comes to caring, you seem to have an awfully big crush on me and my posts. If ya didn't care at all, why bother replying to me?
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Do you mean the process of purchasing and acquiring assault rifles?
Because in a number of cases...all you need is a basic possession and acquisition license to buy one. About the only difference is that the clip must be modified to hold no more than five rounds. So it's not all that much harder in Canada than in the U.S to get your hands on one of these. |
Ok, now we're talking. So, how long does it take to get the required licenses in Canada? How many hurdles/tests?
What's the fastest way someone could buy one legally in Canada?
Now, what's the easiest/fastest way one could buy one in the US?
Last edited by Captain Corea on Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Second Amendment wrote: |
| 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 |
Nothing about this sentence implies to me that 100 round clips and assault weapons are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. |
Penn and Teller wrapped this up pretty well, not to mention Supreme Court rulings on the topic. Who can keep and bear arms? The People. Thanks for contributing.
The framers intended for citizens to be able to keep massive quantities of gunpowder (which could be used as bombs to kill FAR more than 12 people) so they could use their rifles to defend their lives, property or freedom. Why do we have mass murderers (using rifles) now and not then (using gunpowder bombs)? That's the important question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
"]Do you mean the process of purchasing and acquiring assault rifles?
Because in a number of cases...all you need is a basic possession and acquisition license to buy one. About the only difference is that the clip must be modified to hold no more than five rounds. So it's not all that much harder in Canada than in the U.S to get your hands on one of these. |
Ok, now we're talking.
(1) So, how long does it take to get the required licenses in Canada? How many hurdles/tests?
(2) What's the fastest way someone could buy one legally in Canada?
(3) Now, what's the easiest/fastest way one could buy one in the US? |
( questions numbered to provide clarification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence
| Quote: |
1) Safety Training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course[1] (CFSC) for a Non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course[2] (CRFSC) for a restricted licence. In most cases, the Non-restricted class is a prerequisite to obtain the Restricted licence. Information on the locations and availability of these courses can be found here.
2) Applying for a licence: Currently there is only one type of licence available to new applicants, the Possession/Acquisition Licence (PAL). Canadian citizens, as well as non-residents, can request a PAL by filling out form CAFC921
3) Security Screening: Background checks and investigations are performed. All applicants are screened and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants.
Licences are typically valid for five (5) years and must be renewed prior to expiry to maintain all classes. Once licensed, an individual can apply for a firearm transfer;[3] and an Authorization To Transport[4] (ATT) for restricted firearms. |
So questions one and two are answered in the above quote from wiki...link provided for further reading on the subject should you so desire.
As for number 3...it depends on the particular state although in general it seems tougher to get then in Canada...see bolded part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#United_States
| Quote: |
United States
Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[22] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does that also include gun shows? The Wiki link is for Canada (thanks), but I'm not exactly clear about the US. I was under the impression it was a lot faster, in many cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Does that also include gun shows? The Wiki link is for Canada (thanks), but I'm not exactly clear about the US. I was under the impression it was a lot faster, in many cases. |
In the US, you just need to be able to pass an instant background check (takes about 20 minutes) if you purchase from a licensed dealer. If you can't pass a background check then it's very easy to find private sellers online or at gun shows who will sell you guns no questions asked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Second Amendment wrote: |
| 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 |
Nothing about this sentence implies to me that 100 round clips and assault weapons are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. |
Penn and Teller wrapped this up pretty well, not to mention Supreme Court rulings on the topic. Who can keep and bear arms? The People. Thanks for contributing. |
So you ask for the intention, and when provided it, respond snidely. That Penn and Teller clip is garbage; there's nothing clumsy or difficult to understand about the wording of the Amendment, he's just deliberately misinterpreting it in order to defend his pro-gun position, which is why you've chosen to agree with him. I for one am not saying the writer of that Amendment used clumsy wording, I'm saying guys like you and Mr. Magic there are misreading it.
Now, as far as the Supreme Court goes, let's look at some citations:
From Heller and MacDonald:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In short, your gun isn't for you to go shoot at militia members while living out your little revolutionary fantasy. Your gun is so that you can be a militia member.
Robertson vs. Baldwin:
"The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons"
United States vs. Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
Nothing in the Second Amendment ensures your right to 100 round clips and assault weapons. It grants you the right to bear unspecified arms towards a specified end. You and some magician might disagree with this, but the Supreme Court is another matter. Your entire case seems to rest upon an opinion written by Antonin Scalia, a man who is completely happy to ignore judicial precedent and act as an activist for his own personal causes, serving on a court with several other like-minded individuals. It was another one of those ridiculous 5-4 cases, with the dissent mirroring the historic opinion that the first half of the Second Amendment actually had some sort of functional meaning. Importantly, though, even Scalia said:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Scalia is a total nut, and you & Penn are even to the right of him with your ultra-extreme "hur hur hur, shall not be infringed!" interpretation.
| comm wrote: |
| The framers intended ... |
... for the citizens to bear arms for the sake of maintaining a well-regulated militia. This is the nice thing about writing: they wrote down what they meant. We don't need to play the "Penn, Teller, & Comm guess what the Founders intended through the power of magic!" game here.
| comm wrote: |
| Why do we have mass murderers (using rifles) now and not then (using gunpowder bombs)? That's the important question. |
Because "gunpowder bombs" are a stupidly ineffective way to mass murder people, while assault rifles engineered specifically to mass murder people are unsurprisingly good at it. I understand you have this idea in your head that barrels of gunpowder are somehow weapons on a scale similar to assault rifles, but they simply aren't. I'm completely unafraid of you coming at me with a barrel of gunpowder, and totally afraid of you coming at me with an assault rifle. Hell, I'm more afraid of a knife than a barrel of gunpowder. Can we stop acting like we're living in a Tom and Jerry cartoon here? Modern weaponry is totally disproportionate to anything that existed during that era.
People who behave like you're behaving here are frustrating. A lot of us simply want a reasonable, middle-ground gun policy, where most firearms are available to the citizenry with reasonable regulation of distribution, while genuinely dangerous ones which are likely to result in social chaos are kept out of the hands of those with no Earthly use for them. That's an achievable vision, and one which would make most people happy, but then the extreme-right gun lobby has to roll into town and start screaming bloody murder about how they need assault rifles with 100-bullet clips, and more importantly, have a right to them. It pushes otherwise moderate people who simply want a society which optimally combines freedom and safety to themselves grow more radical in order to deal with it. It's not a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Second Amendment wrote: |
| 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 |
Nothing about this sentence implies to me that 100 round clips and assault weapons are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. |
Penn and Teller wrapped this up pretty well, not to mention Supreme Court rulings on the topic. Who can keep and bear arms? The People. Thanks for contributing.
The framers intended for citizens to be able to keep massive quantities of gunpowder (which could be used as bombs to kill FAR more than 12 people) so they could use their rifles to defend their lives, property or freedom. Why do we have mass murderers (using rifles) now and not then (using gunpowder bombs)? That's the important question. |
Yes, you are obviously right. Anyone with an iota of common sense can understand that restricting the weapons potential militia members (ie. ALL citizens) can bear would totally undermine the purpose of having militias in the first place: to win a war against a force of tyranny (whether foreign or domestic). The idea of limiting firearm ownership to primitive muskets when the enemy is carrying all manner of deadly firepower is ridiculous. It is obvious that the founders intended the public to be armed (not only in the constitution, but in their other writings on the subject), and that that basic right shall not be infringed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| People who behave like you're behaving here are frustrating. A lot of us simply want a reasonable, middle-ground gun policy, where most firearms are available to the citizenry with reasonable regulation of distribution, while genuinely dangerous ones which are likely to result in social chaos are kept out of the hands of those with no Earthly use for them. |
Of course I can agree to that. Though I can see one use for many of these weapons being fighting a well equipped modern military.
I don't disagree that felons or the mentally ill should be prevented from being armed. I don't disagree that there can and should be minimum qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. I don't disagree that concealed carry is not guaranteed in the Constitution. And if we can get past the militia of strawmen you've rallied, you'll see that, by your own post, the People who have the right to bear arms are intended to possess weapons worthy of participation in a militia.
Your quote from U.S. vs. Miller argues that the reason a sawed off shotgun can be prohibited is because it is not "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense". The entire premise of that case is settled on the fact that citizens can bear arms which may contribute to the common defense, and that a sawed off shotgun doesn't fit the bill. On the other hand, an assault rifle with a 100 round clip IS a part of ordinary military equipment and CAN contribute to the common defense. Thanks for finding that for me, by the way.
Last edited by comm on Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Does that also include gun shows? The Wiki link is for Canada (thanks), but I'm not exactly clear about the US. I was under the impression it was a lot faster, in many cases. |
In the US, you just need to be able to pass an instant background check (takes about 20 minutes) if you purchase from a licensed dealer. If you can't pass a background check then it's very easy to find private sellers online or at gun shows who will sell you guns no questions asked. |
So, no background check required? No waiting? If so, that sounds like what I've heard before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
In the US, you just need to be able to pass an instant background check (takes about 20 minutes) if you purchase from a licensed dealer. If you can't pass a background check then it's very easy to find private sellers online or at gun shows who will sell you guns no questions asked. |
So, no background check required? No waiting? If so, that sounds like what I've heard before.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that's the non legal route of getting a gun. At least that's what it sounds like. If it's that easy than that means I could've gone out a gotten a gun when I was in the US and I'm pretty sure it would illegal for me to do so.
Every time a maniac with a gun makes a name of himself, people on both sides make the exact same argument made thousands of times before and nobody changes their minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, it's not possible to buy a gun at a gun show?
I thought it was... with little to no waiting period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've heard that you can buy guns at gun shows but I always assumed there was some sort of procedure that made it legal. But a quick skimming of wikipedia shows that it depends on the state as some regulate sales and do back ground checks, and there's a some controversy around it as well.
Shite. That means if I went to a less regulated state, I could've walked in, pretended I was American and get myself a gun? America, *beep* yeah! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
Your quote from U.S. vs. Miller argues that the reason a sawed off shotgun can be prohibited is because it is not "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense". The entire premise of that case is settled on the fact that citizens can bear arms which may contribute to the common defense, and that a sawed off shotgun doesn't fit the bill. On the other hand, an assault rifle with a 100 round clip IS a part of ordinary military equipment and CAN contribute to the common defense. Thanks for finding that for me, by the way. |
The current Supreme Court has rejected that interpretation of Miller.
"Read in isolation, Miller�s phrase 'part of ordinary military equipment' could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act�s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller�s 'ordinary military equipment' language must be read in tandem with what comes after: '[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179....
"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'...
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service�M-16 rifles and the like�may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment�s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
(D.C. v. Heller, 2008) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fosterman wrote: |
A lunatic like that would of killed those innocent people regardless if he had a gun or not.
|
 Yeaaah but.... wouldn't it have been a lot harder? With no gun he could have been wrestled to the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Second Amendment wrote: |
| 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 |
Nothing about this sentence implies to me that 100 round clips and assault weapons are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. |
Penn and Teller wrapped this up pretty well, not to mention Supreme Court rulings on the topic. Who can keep and bear arms? The People. Thanks for contributing.
The framers intended for citizens to be able to keep massive quantities of gunpowder (which could be used as bombs to kill FAR more than 12 people) so they could use their rifles to defend their lives, property or freedom. Why do we have mass murderers (using rifles) now and not then (using gunpowder bombs)? That's the important question. |
They also intended to keep millions in perpetual bondage, but apparently that doesn't bring their judgment into question at all. |
|
| 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
