EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
EDIT: And for the record, there are a number of armed police officers that are on the campus, and its not that large of a campus. Every building is a couple of minutes walking distance from eachother. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 04:05 sam!zdat wrote: "It's the economy, stupid" edit: we're being tyrannized by the fantasy of 3 percent compound growth and the "innovation"-fetish and economic pseudo-science and citizens united and our own greed and the gerrymandering and the pollsters and the political strategists and ohio and the corporate media and the 2party system for someone who's not a complete idiot you're such a stooge sometimes, blue edit: corporations have more political power than the people, that's tyranny pure and simple edit: it's tyranny not because a despot is in charge, but because nobody's in charge, and our civilization has lost the power to act rationally in its own long-term interest. we're slaves to the short-term variable reinforcement of market fluctuations. we are literally addicted to making money, and we're destroying ourselves. basically we're being ruled by a bunch of gambling addicts Corporations are just collections of people attempting to make money. Do you own stock? YOU are corporations. Do you have a 401k? YOU are corporations. If you invest money of any type, YOU are corporations. So yeah, we do defer power to those who are good with economics. But you have to defer power to someone. As I asked earlier, what would propose to be a "better" system? Someone asked where the poor guy was on the ballot. A lot of poor people go on ballots. And nobody votes for them. It's not tyranny just because nobody wants to elect them. Humans are selfish creatures. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
This "corporations are people" thing is bullshit and you know it. But of course you don't like "philosophy" because your cliffs-notes education already explained to you how the world works edit: I refuse to play this "if you can't solve all the worlds problems your objections are false" game with you edit: On January 23 2013 04:59 BluePanther wrote: Someone asked where the poor guy was on the ballot. A lot of poor people go on ballots. And nobody votes for them. It's not tyranny just because nobody wants to elect them. Humans are selfish creatures. this is what I mean by strategy. Of course nobody's gonna vote for them, how could they? they don't control any media, they don't have the ideological state apparatus working on their side. edit: and in our society, humans have it pounded into their head that they are selfish. They are indoctrinated with selfishness! don't talk to me about Nature | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:16 zatic wrote: I fail to see how this is about gun ownership guys. Please stay on topic. It has to do with the justification of gun ownership as a mechanism to prevent tyranny. It was followed by a discussion of whether the "current" government could be considered a tyranny. Please follow the conversation. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
But I don't want to talk to BP anyway, so I'll shut up. edit: I like how the neat division of the world into "forum topics" provides the nice illusion that each topic doesn't have to do with every other topic. Kinda like department divisions in the humanities. The idea that it is possible in the first place to "derail" a topic. #themediumisthemessage. but I digress | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:23 BluePanther wrote: [...] It was followed by a discussion of whether the "current" government could be considered a tyranny. Exactly, so please stop that and stay on topic. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:10 sam!zdat wrote: No, I sold all my stock because I decided it was evil This "corporations are people" thing is bullshit and you know it. But of course you don't like "philosophy" because your cliffs-notes education already explained to you how the world works It's not bullshit, but it is rather oversimplified for political reasons. I'm not sure this road is worth going down in this thread. On January 23 2013 05:10 sam!zdat wrote: edit: I refuse to play this "if you can't solve all the worlds problems your objections are false" game with you I'm merely trying to ask what you see as a workable alternative. I don't see the world as perfect at all, but your rhetoric is only rhetoric if you can't propose an alternate system. I embrace the system we currently have because I don't know of an organizational system that is better. If you have one, I'd love to at least hear it (even if I do dismiss it). But calling the most liberal culture in the history of man a "Tyranny" is somewhat contradictory imo. On January 23 2013 05:10 sam!zdat wrote: edit: This is what I mean by strategy. Of course nobody's gonna vote for them, how could they? they don't control any media, they don't have the ideological state apparatus working on their side. ... or nobody agrees with them. We don't live in a society where ideas are repressed. And I find it hard to buy the theory that the USA is a tyranny with freedom of speech. If Congress and the states amended the Constitution to ban guns, would that suddenly be Tyranny because a few people disagree with it yet a media with an agenda convinced people? Hell no, that's not a tyranny; that's a democracy. Tyranny would be more akin to changing the law through executive order without regard for the objections of Congress. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:33 zatic wrote: Exactly, so please stop that and stay on topic. ?? How are we supposed to discuss American gun laws without considering historical context and it's application to modern day politics/law? "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson ^^ This is common language used by founders in their writings, which are used by the Supreme Court of the United States to justify the meaning of our Constitution. It is 100% relevant to a discussion of gun control (within the United States). It is even in the most recent swat down of gun regulation in the USA, DC v. Heller, where the majority states "Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." | ||
|
triforks
United States370 Posts
population then, 4 million now, 313 12k people killed by firearms on average each year now if that same ratio were applied to 1790s, 160 deaths per year. They were also frequently in battles and at war in their own land and exploring with tons of new stuff to worry about. there was also no media or other stuff that may drive murders up. of course they needed guns at that time. but now, theres no exploring left to do really. and for the little there is government regulated more strict laws could put guns only in the hands of people that actually need them. does the guy in detroit need a gun? no. does the guy who lives in the everglades need one maybe for protection? maybe. so there was never a problem at the time when the right to bear arms was first instated, 160 a year would seem like nothing. but we're following a law thats 200 years old, it makes no sense. what if america was born today instead of a few hundred years ago? would our constitution look exactly as it does now? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:44 BluePanther wrote: ?? How are we supposed to discuss American gun laws without considering historical context and it's application to modern day politics/law? "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson ^^ This is common language used by founders in their writings, which are used by the Supreme Court of the United States to justify the meaning of our Constitution. It is 100% relevant to a discussion of gun control (within the United States). Unless you propose that we ban firearms until and unless the US becomes a tyranny, and then make them available to the people for revolution (that makes total sense), then discussing the definition of tyranny, and whether the US has become one is neither relevant, nor contextual, to the discussion of whether we should be allowed to own and carry guns. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:55 Voltaire wrote: I challenge anyone to give one example of how gun control has reduced crime in the US. Either a national, state, or local gun control law. I'm not talking about comparing the US to other countries, as there are a myriad of factors that go into a country's crime rate. And there aren't a myriad of factors that go into the differences between national, state, and local gun control in the United States? I realize you seem to have woken up with Ron Paul on the mind, but that doesn't make repeated demagogic declarations good posts. All forms of gun control in the United States have been ineffective due to incomplete regulation and ineffective application of that regulation (state governments are particularly bad here), not to mention concerns of regional atomization and the difficulties presented by the state paradigm of US civic organization. What say you? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 05:48 triforks wrote: right to bear arms came about in 1791 or something like that population then, 4 million now, 313 12k people killed by firearms on average each year now if that same ratio were applied to 1790s, 160 deaths per year. They were also frequently in battles and at war in their own land and exploring with tons of new stuff to worry about. there was also no media or other stuff that may drive murders up. of course they needed guns at that time. but now, theres no exploring left to do really. and for the little there is government regulated more strict laws could put guns only in the hands of people that actually need them. does the guy in detroit need a gun? no. does the guy who lives in the everglades need one maybe for protection? maybe. so there was never a problem at the time when the right to bear arms was first instated, 160 a year would seem like nothing. but we're following a law thats 200 years old, it makes no sense. what if america was born today instead of a few hundred years ago? would our constitution look exactly as it does now? It has more to do with political theory as it does with practicality. Is it practical? Probably not (although this is very debatable, as this thread has shown). But the important idea was that a people who are unable to defend themselves from over-reach from the government become mere subjects to government power, rather than a group of individuals who create a government to enrich their lives. While the exact meaning of the amendment has shifted more to personal self-defense than militia style defense, the spirit of the amendment is what is important. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:04 farvacola wrote: And there aren't a myriad of factors that go into the differences between national, state, and local gun control in the United States? I realize you seem to have woken up with Ron Paul on the mind, but that doesn't make repeated demagogic declarations good posts. All forms of gun control in the United States have been ineffective due to incomplete regulation and ineffective application of that regulation (state governments are particularly bad here), not to mention concerns of regional atomization and the difficulties presented by the state paradigm of US civic organization. What say you? Of course there are major differences between national, state, and local gun control laws. I think you've missed the entire point of my post. So you think all gun control laws in the history of the US are ineffective because of incomplete regulation and poor enforcement? Okay. Can you provide any example of a different country passing what you deem to be "complete" gun control regulation and then seeing a reduction in crime rates? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:04 farvacola wrote: And there aren't a myriad of factors that go into the differences between national, state, and local gun control in the United States? I realize you seem to have woken up with Ron Paul on the mind, but that doesn't make repeated demagogic declarations good posts. All forms of gun control in the United States have been ineffective due to incomplete regulation and ineffective application of that regulation (state governments are particularly bad here), not to mention concerns of regional atomization and the difficulties presented by the state paradigm of US civic organization. What say you? Honestly, I think you just proved his point. You said governments can't effectively use gun control to deter crime. What makes you think the federal government is going to be more effective than your local government (who actually controls your criminal courts and police force)? | ||
|
triforks
United States370 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:09 BluePanther wrote: It has more to do with political theory as it does with practicality. Is it practical? Probably not (although this is very debatable, as this thread has shown). But the important idea was that a people who are unable to defend themselves from over-reach from the government become mere subjects to government power, rather than a group of individuals who create a government to enrich their lives. While the exact meaning of the amendment has shifted more to personal self-defense than militia style defense, the spirit of the amendment is what is important. are you saying people should have guns because they dont trust the government? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:11 BluePanther wrote: Honestly, I think you just proved his point. You said governments can't effectively use gun control to deter crime. What makes you think the federal government is going to be more effective than your local government (who actually controls your criminal courts and police force)? Read my post again, I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I even answer the question you ask right after the emboldened section. US local, state, and federal gun regulations have been ineffective because they are INCOMPLETE, and it is precisely the discrete nature of state borders that renders regional determination nonsensical, as it allows for a circumvention of local law through simple acts of regional tourism. Furthermore, I've not defined the sort of regulation I'd be in favor of; in fact, I'm not even sure that increasing current regulations a la banning assault weapons or anything of the like makes any sense. What I do know, however, is that state governments are doing a horrible job of making sure that gun regulation infrastructures remain effective, and that there is plenty of room for improvement. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 23 2013 06:21 triforks wrote: are you saying people should have guns because they dont trust the government? I'm not saying whether they should or should not. I'm just saying that is a legal reason they are able to (one of many). My personal feeling is that it only plays a minor role in my support of the 2nd Amendment. For others, it may play more of a role. | ||
| ||
