|
On January 18 2012 21:15 KaasZerg wrote:
A big legal market for guns floods the black market with guns. A tight and very restricted legal market for guns causes guns to become scarce even in the black market and among criminals. It is leaking in from the legal weaponpool and illegal imports. There is a lot less lethal violence if people have to resort to knives clubs and bare hands. Even less succesfull suicide attemps. A lot of criminals use fake guns to rob stores where I live. But nobody is taking any chances.
If there are a lot of guns around it would take a lot of time for a constricting gunlaw to have much effect.
Meh digressing away drom the topic.
You're totally making sense but that doesn't matter in this fucked up world.
We have extreme gun control rules here and still all the criminals got guns here .. By criminal I don't mean the guy who steals stuff from the supermarket -_-
|
On January 18 2012 12:36 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:33 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 12:14 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:21 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme. The values expressed in the United States constitution were not and are not specific to any point in time. What I mean is that these values are still completely valid today, and these are the core fundamental values that should always be there, especially the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not we are in the 18th century, the 21st century, or the 30th century, these are the values that must be protected. How old of a document the constitution is is completely irrelevant in determining its value. Old is not always bad. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it is outdated. Yes but interpeting those values for a modern society is not so simple. That's the problem I have with "strict constitutionalists". The argument goes something along the lines of "the constitution says this so we must do this". Well that may be true but it doesn't make it right or relevant. In some ways it is similar to religion. You either accept being religious and follow its rules or you don't. You can't (well shouldn't really) be a part time christian. Similarly for being strict about the constitution. I'm not denying that it has benefits, huge benefits. I just don't like people getting credit for just following what the constitution says. It is only relevant when interpeted for modern society. That is what is important. I feel my latest post addresses those concerns adequately. By making amendments to the constitution when necessary we can keep it "up-to-date."
The problem with this approach is that the document gets more complex, harder to interpret and in the end allows crazy stuff to come out of it. When you do not treat it as a divine document, but as a tool that it is, you can just rewrite it completely and properly. While doing so you keep the important parts, lose the irrelevant ones add the new things you wanted to add, making the document clearer and most importantly easy to interpret the intent as the new document can reflect all the changes that happened in the world between the rewrites. When I watch how SCOTUS tries to divine rulings about modern topics from the US constitution it just makes me cringe. And I use the word divine, because this is basically what they are sometimes doing when confronted with modern problems.
It is not like other countries do not have constitutions, but you will not see people discussing problems using a constitution as a basis of ethical decisions or as a basis of political opinions.
|
On January 18 2012 21:26 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 21:15 KaasZerg wrote:
A big legal market for guns floods the black market with guns. A tight and very restricted legal market for guns causes guns to become scarce even in the black market and among criminals. It is leaking in from the legal weaponpool and illegal imports. There is a lot less lethal violence if people have to resort to knives clubs and bare hands. Even less succesfull suicide attemps. A lot of criminals use fake guns to rob stores where I live. But nobody is taking any chances.
If there are a lot of guns around it would take a lot of time for a constricting gunlaw to have much effect.
Meh digressing away drom the topic. You're totally making sense but that doesn't matter in this fucked up world. We have extreme gun control rules here and still all the criminals got guns here .. By criminal I don't mean the guy who steals stuff from the supermarket -_-
If you have few or no gun control laws then maybe the supermarket thief do have a gun though.
|
On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment.
The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios
1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing
2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias
3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens
You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public.
On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.)
Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement.
|
On January 18 2012 14:01 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:37 Probulous wrote:First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists If those are the reasons that the US does not have stricter gun control then you guys have officially gone bat-shit crazy  That's paranoia to the extreme. I mean the right to weaponry must be maintained at all costs? Objectively at what point does changing the amendment becoming reasonable? How many people have to die from random shootings before it gets taken seriously. Your second point is a chicken and egg argument and can disproved by the fact that other countries have tight gun control and have not ended up in chaos (down here for example). How many people must die from car related accidents before there is an amendment banning motor vehicles? There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.Gun stats: The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.Perhaps the real reason there aren't stricter gun control laws has to do with the lack of sensationalism with regard to making decisions and the high value placed on personal freedoms and personal responsibility, as well as the understanding that the single most vital and inalienable right that any human being has in this world is the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm.
You know that vehicles have quite important economic use outside of killing stuff, guns do not.
|
On January 18 2012 21:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios 1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing 2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias 3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public. Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.) Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement.
enslave is a tricky word, however the government does not consist of people of the general public. America started on "by the people for the people" and now is in the state "by the corporations for the corporations" - this is obvious if you read where the candidates get their sponsorship from + what laws pass in order for corporation to have easier time on getting more profit.
|
On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs.
you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons...
|
On January 18 2012 22:05 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 21:48 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios 1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing 2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias 3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public. On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.) Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement. enslave is a tricky word, however the government does not consist of people of the general public. America started on "by the people for the people" and now is in the state "by the corporations for the corporations" - this is obvious if you read where the candidates get their sponsorship from + what laws pass in order for corporation to have easier time on getting more profit.
Actually it still does consist of such people. When I am talking about government I mean not only President and few others, but also army, police, the whole bureaucracy. Most of them are just like any other person. The situation was describing was for example Saddam's Iraq, where Saddam's Sunni tribe monopolized power to a big extent.
|
On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons...
The main problem with his argument in that post is that you can easily turn it around and make it an argument for the other side. It's just him calling other people brainwashed while his opinion is the truth, without providing any supporting facts.
|
On January 18 2012 22:05 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 21:48 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios 1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing 2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias 3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public. On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.) Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement. enslave is a tricky word, however the government does not consist of people of the general public. America started on "by the people for the people" and now is in the state "by the corporations for the corporations" - this is obvious if you read where the candidates get their sponsorship from + what laws pass in order for corporation to have easier time on getting more profit.
I agree with this pretty much, as America got a huge problem with corporatism and simply legalized corruption on K-street.
But so does the EU with its insanely huge bureaucracy, in both instances there is NO transparency for the common people, I can only speak for the EU in particular where "goverment"(to stay in "american speak") is so big that if you do not dedicate your life to it finding out what the heck is going on behind closed doors(who can do that if he has got a job?) there´s no way you are not getting screwed over.
|
On January 18 2012 22:05 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 21:48 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios 1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing 2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias 3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public. On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.) Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement. enslave is a tricky word, however the government does not consist of people of the general public. America started on " by the people for the people" and now is in the state " by the corporations for the corporations" - this is obvious if you read where the candidates get their sponsorship from + what laws pass in order for corporation to have easier time on getting more profit.
Corporations are people here... so whats the problem?
/sarcasm
|
On January 18 2012 22:17 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 22:05 bOneSeven wrote:On January 18 2012 21:48 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios 1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing 2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias 3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public. On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.) Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement. enslave is a tricky word, however the government does not consist of people of the general public. America started on "by the people for the people" and now is in the state "by the corporations for the corporations" - this is obvious if you read where the candidates get their sponsorship from + what laws pass in order for corporation to have easier time on getting more profit. I agree with this pretty much, as America got a huge problem with corporatism and simply legalized corruption on K-street. But so does the EU with its insanely huge bureaucracy, in both instances there is NO transparency for the common people, I can only speak for the EU in particular where "goverment"(to stay in "american speak") is so big that if you do not dedicate your life to it finding out what the heck is going on behind closed doors(who can do that if he has got a job?) there´s no way you are not getting screwed over.
Yeah, I guess we are getting infinitely more screwed here in Europe by this huge faceless bureaucracy....And also we don't have the mechanics ( or at least I'm not aware ) to repel any retard legislation who's getting passed ... At least in USA things are a bit more transparent .. Also you gotta know that Austria is doing fine, like the Western European countries totally fuck the easter/rather poorer countries in Europe..
|
On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons...
That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim.
Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there:
"People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed."
|
On January 18 2012 23:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons... That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim. Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there: "People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed."
No, i think it's just plain stupid to let everyone and anyone own a gun. Guns kill people.
|
On January 18 2012 23:16 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 23:12 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons... That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim. Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there: "People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed." No, i think it's just plain stupid to let everyone and anyone own a gun. Guns kill people.
Robes kill people? (robs should not be allowed).
Hands kill people (hands not allowed).
Big muscles......
Whats your point. WHat kind of universal rule can you apply that disallow private persons to be allowed to own guns, but still be allowed by own knifes and other stuff.
An pointing out the specific stuff that is allowed is not a an unisveral rule.
|
On January 18 2012 23:01 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 22:17 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 22:05 bOneSeven wrote:On January 18 2012 21:48 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. The argument for second amendment is outdated and that is basically it and just showcases why US constitution is outdated. There is no way for any militia to fight against state army that is supporting the state. In essence you have few scenarios 1) Army fully supports the state - militias are useless and will achieve nothing 2) Army does not support the state at all or just slightly - again no need for militias 3) Army is split - part of the army will join the revolution and supply the rest of revolutionaries with weapons that will actually be helpful when fighting the other part of the army. And in this case again there is no need for privately owned weapons before the actual revolution happens You cannot defend yourself with privately owned weapons against a determined professional army with any chance of success. This was not true in 18th century. The best protection against government getting out of control in modern countries is to not let it happen and to have well designed army that is not sheltered from the rest of the public, that is representative of the public. On January 18 2012 13:26 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 13:17 Probulous wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves.As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. Firstly, thanks for being calm and responding to my somewhat ignorant questions. It can be rare in this thread. The bolded bit is what I have a problem with. In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote. I mean, who makes that decision? What is stopping your local county threatening to secede? If the reason you are allowed to bear arms is to prevent the government getting out of control, well surely when I think they have gone to far I can take my semi and start shooting?However, in the meantime, more average citizens go around shooting each other every year for their own stupid reasons. We know that gun control is an effective way of preventing gun crime from studies in other countries. But the reason it never gains any serious traction is because it would require amending the constitution. That is the problem for me, like I said. The constitution is right because it is in the constitution. You can try, but it won't work unless you have allies, and a lot of them. That's the point. The whole idea is that for the citizens to pick up their guns and fight, they need to have overwhelming numbers, which would mean that it is something worth fighting for in the first place. Another thing you said that interested me was "In the 21st century, is really likely that the US is going to become a military state? The possibility that the government will "get out control" such that your local militia needs to rise up and take over is extraordinarily remote." I have two responses to that. First, no matter how remote of a possibility it is, it must be accounted for at all costs, as the consequences of not accounting for it would be far too dire. Second, it may be that the reason for this possibility being so remote is because the second amendment exists. The government knows that they can't enslave us without us putting up a fight. (Enslave is a bit of a strong word but you get my point I hope.) Government won't enslave you as long as the government consists of people of the general public. Unless some group of people will gain overwhelming majority in running the government unopposed there is no threat of enslavement. enslave is a tricky word, however the government does not consist of people of the general public. America started on "by the people for the people" and now is in the state "by the corporations for the corporations" - this is obvious if you read where the candidates get their sponsorship from + what laws pass in order for corporation to have easier time on getting more profit. I agree with this pretty much, as America got a huge problem with corporatism and simply legalized corruption on K-street. But so does the EU with its insanely huge bureaucracy, in both instances there is NO transparency for the common people, I can only speak for the EU in particular where "goverment"(to stay in "american speak") is so big that if you do not dedicate your life to it finding out what the heck is going on behind closed doors(who can do that if he has got a job?) there´s no way you are not getting screwed over. Yeah, I guess we are getting infinitely more screwed hto repel any retard legislation who's getting passed ... At least in USA things are a bit more transparent .. Also you gotta know that Austria is doing fine, like the Western European countries totally fuck the easter/rather poorer countries in Europe..
You explained superbly why an United States of Europe would not work - the blame game is one of the reasons  , which also is the huge advantage of US compared to europe. They are used to being a melting pot, even though there are problems with "white men" having the fear that coloured people could take over... but that´s to expect where different ideologies and interest are in place. My point is on the outside they stand united.
Though I don´t see how Austria is screwing Romania over, what I read in daily(Austrian) newspapers tat there is huge criminal activity coming from your end of the world to western europe. Also that there are insane amounts of money pouring into your country to rebuild infrastructure and establish "order" (system of checks and balances/working courts/ FINALLY try to REALLY get corruption under control) but that there is a ruling elite that gets their hands on that money.
We are talking BILLIONS of Euros. I am not blaming you, but you gotta know yourself that your country got major issues that need alot of work and time to sort out. In the last couple of years we had some major affairs of corruption in Austria as well, but Romania is well known(don´t know the organisation that watches over that stuff - will google it if needed) for corruption and scores poorly in international rankings.
|
On January 18 2012 23:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons... That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim. Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there: "People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed."
no one in their right mind would argue such a thing that self defense is not allowed. in pretty much every developed country there´s a law that under certain circumstances you are allowed to take matters in your own hands and not to give in to the will of the perpetrator. if that´s wise is a whole different matter. America got a different philosophy about that since it was shaped by the events leading to the creation of the constitution. if that´s good or bad, I don´t know and honestly don´t care, since they have to know how they want to live. It simply amuses me how gun lovers and gun haters get onto each other´s throat.
|
Things are indeed strange when a eastern european corruption paradise is blaming the (western european countries or the EU alltogether for taking their money.
ROFL. If anythign your "rulers" are screwing with europe, not the other way around.
@Hider
1: When everyone is telling you that your example/claim/comparison is wrong/terrible it probably is. It's not everyone else not getting it.
2: Guns don't kill people. Agree. But guns tend lead to unneeded deaths and thats why i have a problem with them. Shooting an intruder with your gun, which wamted to rob, not kill you, is not really self defense in my book. Thats protection of my property... Which should not justify me killing someone, now if he attacks me thats a whole diffrent story. But just for "defending my property"? Nah, we got the Police for that.
|
The fact is that America has an impressively large gun culture. It isn't going away and while it may cause some issues, those can mitigated with education and regulation. I go back and forth on the right to bear arms.
The whole "guns don't kill people" is stupid though. It's way easier to kill somebody with a gun even if you aren't trying to kill them.
|
On January 18 2012 23:39 Velr wrote:
Things are indeed strange when a eastern european corruption paradise is blaming the (western european countries or the EU alltogether for taking their money.
ROFL. If anythign your "rulers" are screwing with europe, not the other way around.
@Hider
1: When everyone is telling you that your example/claim/comparison is wrong/terrible it probably is. It's not everyone else not getting it.
2: Guns don't kill people. Agree. But guns tend lead to unneeded deaths and thats why i have a problem with them. Shooting an intruder with your gun, which never wanted to hurt/kill you, he was there to rob you, is not really self defense in my book. Thats protection of my property... Which should not justify me killing someone, now if he attacks me thats a whole diffrent story. But just for "defending my property"? Nah, we got the Police for that.
If everybody told you to jump from a cliff would you do it?
Oh i guess above example is too extreme as well. No you cant argue like that. My comparsion made perfect sense as I wanted to illustrate that i throught that you have been serisouly manipulated through governement. Whether ppl (i guess like 4 people or something commented my comparsion, which = everybody to you? I guess you like to manipulate facts to make your point stronger) agree with that is irrelevant, but that was my opinion of your logic.
2.) Two things here. First of all. Is your prefered system a "utility-maximising" society where the utility of the of the citzens is more important than their individual rights? So if you could kill 1.000 innocent people, to make the rest of the world much more happy would you do that? If you dont want to do that, then what kind of uniserval rule do you use to justfity that minimzy "unneeded" death and take away peoples individual rights.
What is unneeded btw, how do you define that?
Not gonna change anything, but I would still like fact that guns decreases unneeded kills (though I guess it depends on your definition).
How do you know if someone will attack you or not if soembody is robbing your house.If your face to face with a robber in your house would you A) rather have a gun (with ammo), or b) Not have a gun.
Even though you may for some (irrational) reason answer b, how can you justify allowing your personal preferences to deny other people their right to defend them self against the potential risk of the robber trying to attack them (I guess this answer will be indrectly anwered by your universal rule which I am looking forward to).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
