Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.



Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old November 4th, 2013 (10:02 PM).
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
I'd like to state my opinion on this issue in detail and see what you all think. I'm not college educated so my terminology and structure is rather basic, sorry.

So basically, a nations Constitution is like the religious equivalent of having Ten Commandments for its government. They decide what rights people should have and how a country should be run by the elected officials, hopefully through free and fair elections With me so far? Cool. Whenever a new bill, law or act is going to be passed, lawmakers will use the constitution as a reference guide to determine whether a law would be considered legal or not under the rules of the State. If not, well bye bye, into the flaming waste paper basket it goes.

A constitution is thought by many to be set in stone, once it's written poof, you can't change it, because any amendments that are made are surely to slowly take away your rights as a citizen to democratic freedom. And for the most part sure, I'd agree with that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Look what happened with the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution Outlawing alcoholic beverages during Prohibition, popular at the time of its induction, however very soon Prohibition was hated by many, with huge demand for illegal alcohol and the rise of organized criminal gangsters like Al Capone. Eventually Prohibition was scrapped with the 21st Amendment made to specifically repeal its effects. That to me is evidence that parts of a Constitution can be modified downright removed in the interest of public interest.

The problems lawmakers and politicians face now though are that even though most Constitutions provide inherently good core values and regulations as a framework for passing laws and running a country, many were written well into the past where the world was in a very different situation with very different ideals to what we face now.

For example, this clause from a chapter detailing the powers of the Australian parliament:
Spoiler:
"51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: -(xxvi.) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws"

And this from Section 25: "For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted."


LOLOLOL, so technically the Australian parliament has the power to make discriminatory laws for people based on race, and disallow certain races from voting. Obviously this was written in 1900, a remnant of racist White Australia policy and wouldn't be invoked today, but shouldn't these sections be removed?

The point i'm trying to make is that a constitution can and if necessary should be modified to keep up with the times. The biggest example I can think of for this is, wait for it...


The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, popularly known as "the right to bear arms" Ooh yes i'm going there :D

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

My first point is that this was written in the 18th century, when warfare between nations could very easily break out and you would need conscription of civilians with guns to bolster very small standing armies, like in the American Civil War where most men would be called away from their homes to fight. The phrasing of the Second Amendment here could have two different meanings here. Either you completely ignore the first line and purely read peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed, OR it means that bearing arms is only needed to maintain a well regulated militia. The problems with this are:

-Any war between nations that would threaten American security at home and require civilians to fight would most likely be nuclear, and over very quickly.
-The U.S has very clearly got the most professional and well equipped standing military with many times more funding than the nearest competitor, it does not need civilians to be firearm ready to fight, even if conscription was required in a war you would have weapons and training supplied.
-The National Guard IS a well regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state (in emergency), as is the police force, both of which are very capable and bound by tight laws and regulations in this day and age, therefore no civilian assistance is required.

Secondly, let's just look at the second part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Even if you completely ignore the first line, that's pretty clear, right? Well yes. But it is my opinion that this point needs to reworded to fit modern times. It should not mean "everyone gets a gun, any type of gun, as many firearms as they like with as much ammunition as you please and zero or very few questions asked." This literal interpretation of 18th century gun lobbyists like the NRA is leading to Americas horrifically high rates of shootings. Not to mention it completely disregards the line "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment! (Australia's last mass shooting was in 1996)

My modern interpretation would be "All citizens have a right to apply to bear arms in a safe and responsible manner" which would be expanded with the following clauses.
-Very strict background checks, proper registry of weapons, face to face purchase
-Limited weapon types, namely bolt action rifles and pump shotguns with low magazine capacity,small amounts of ammo purchasable as well, expended ammo accounted for. This is basically all you need for culling animals, hunting and perhaps emergency self defence.
-Only allowed to be fired on your personal private property (if safe, i.e on a farm not your house), approved shooting range or hunting ground.
-NO concealed carry permits! I know criminals ignore this but everyone being armed in public places just leads to more capability for shootings. In public only the police need to carry guns, besides if the only firearms available to civilians were very slow loading, low range weapons non lethal options like tasers could be used for civilian self defence (like my best friend who thinks only police need tasers too )
-NO bearing arms that are expressly designed for killing people due to capacity, caliber, fire rate, range etc. It is literally almost impossible to get a semi automatic firearm in Australia if you aren't a cop. And since the chances of a civilian being armed with one and pointing it at you here are just so infinitesimally small you don't actually need one!
Less firearms= less shootings.

I have not mentioned illegal firearms once but if you think about it all firearms were legal once, they all come out of the same factory, if high risk legal firearms were being strictly controlled and produced in limited capacity very, very few would get "lost" and end up in the hands of criminals. Those that do are coming from external sources, as such border protection and customs needs to be tightened, which is interesting but not the focal point of this discussion.

Basically all I just outlined still preserves Americas right to bear arms but in a safe and responsible fashion, so make me President

Question time!
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)
-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?
-Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)

Ciao for nao peeps
__________________
Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old November 4th, 2013 (10:44 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)

Heh. It's already pretty good that the American constitution is so closely consulted on a day to day basis and it's good enough that it's violated only "secretly". The Constitution of the People Republic of China guarantees next to ALL the rights but it's not really meaningful as a guideline as there's no body to enforce it.

More to come. I thought about either responding in full now or next morning and I guess this is my compromise
__________________
#363 Spheal
Supporter Collab January 2015
mod of nothing
paired to Axeliira
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old November 5th, 2013 (12:28 AM).
countryemo's Avatar
countryemo
The Day I've been running from
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Littleroot Town
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Send a message via Skype™ to countryemo
I think a lot of people forget it was written 200 years ago, and a lot has changed. I think I remember there was something saying you can add more or subtract some. Gov class was a while ago.Also I believe rights need to be limited, imagine if we had freedom of everything, it would be a mess.
As for Gun Contol, it's a very debatable topic. Here in Washington state, you can just buy some big guns from someones car trunk. I'm not sure if I agree with strict background checks, I mean once the gun is out there it can be stolen, borrowed, accessed without a check of whos using the weapon. I mean I guess if it was a legal sale (Dad selling his gun to his cousin), the buyer would have to go register the weapon in his name, and it could be a crime to not do so. I guess that makes sense.

Yeah, do we really need to own all these big guns? Hunting and Self Defense don't need them, their used for killing people in wars or mass shootings, no other use than that. But I have heard they are fun. so I guess have special shooting ranges where you can use one, but I guess you can shoot the place up. Limiting Ammo is eh.
Concealed weapons.. I could agree. What if you get in a fight and you have a gun. You're likley to use it without thinking, but to that agree the police can't always be there. Think of it this way, school bullying. You're told to tell a teacher and not do anything but that. But if you get the teacher instead of doing it yourself it could get worse/dead. So I guess maybe stricter on the concealed weapons, anger management, ect.
__________________
PC Mentions: Best Little Sister ever | Credits | My Amazing Pair

Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old November 5th, 2013 (08:50 AM).
Senusret's Avatar
Senusret
Snowpoint City
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Medical Research Triangle
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
Send a message via Skype™ to Senusret
Quote originally posted by countryemo:
I think a lot of people forget it was written 200 years ago, and a lot has changed. I think I remember there was something saying you can add more or subtract some. Gov class was a while ago.Also I believe rights need to be limited, imagine if we had freedom of everything, it would be a mess.
Unlike many other national constitutions, the United States Constitution was specifically written to stand the test of time. We didn't need any other amendments other than the Bill of Rights, as all that did was open up our constitution to be rewritten by fascists. Is that not fascist in itself?
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old November 5th, 2013 (09:00 AM).
krisags87's Avatar
krisags87
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Mexico
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
I support the 2nd Amendment. First of all, we don't need GUN control in this country. We need NUT control! It's never the responsible gun owners that do anything horrible. And no matter how many backround checks or fences we have to cross or hoops we have to jump through, that won't stop a NUT from stealing/taking a gun and doing something terrible. Criminals don't follow laws anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old November 5th, 2013 (10:26 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
The US Constitution was meant to be a "living document" or whatever the term is, subject to changes as needed. So even if you think that what matters most in American law is what the founding fathers wanted, what they wanted was for the Constitution to change with it and not become stagnant.

As far as I know not all modern countries even have that kind of system where a single set of rules stay in place forever unless changed, like in the UK which (I believe) periodically does a spring cleaning of their laws.

As much as I believe that there are certain rights that shouldn't be infringed, I wonder if having a rather short, vague set of rules is the best thing to have as the pinnacle of lawmaking in a country. It creates a kind of orthodoxy that makes it hard to change with the times.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old November 5th, 2013 (10:31 AM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Ehh all this talk about what the Founding Fathers meant and what the Constitution is supposed to be - none of it matters in the face of sheer power. It doesn't matter who meant what, to me, all that matters is what one is willing to do about it. If I was a politician in the United States, I couldn't care less about what the Constitution is or isn't supposed to be. I'll still be selling my vision the best I could. If a policy is "constitutionally conservative" then I'll justify it on the basis of constitution. If a policy is goes against the Constitution, I'll argue that the Constitution is archaic and not up to date. At the end of the day, I'll say whatever works best for me.
__________________
#363 Spheal
Supporter Collab January 2015
mod of nothing
paired to Axeliira
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old November 5th, 2013 (11:07 AM).
pokecole's Avatar
pokecole
Future children everywhere..
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Springfield, South Dakota
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Quote originally posted by O07_eleven:
Question time!
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)
-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?
-Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)
1: I believe that some change of the 2nd amendment is needed, or at least laws need to be put into place with stricter background checks and less ammo capacity and such are needed. No matter how any laws and amendments are put into place, there will still be criminals who won't think of purchasing a gun legally or following laws before they go and shoot some people, but if you take away some guns that have high ammo capacity and are designed for killing, it will definitely help.
2: ^
3: Yes, but what government hasn't disobeyed the rules from time to time? No one is perfect and government officials are no exception. (For sure)
__________________
What use is a future when you can't escape the past?

Proud Yugioh Player. I'll just pretend I'm not seeing all the card advantage in your hand and on your field while I'm beating you down with monsters.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old November 5th, 2013 (11:48 AM). Edited November 5th, 2013 by CarcharOdin.
CarcharOdin's Avatar
CarcharOdin
Master of The Universe
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Monterey, California, USA
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
Quote originally posted by O07_eleven:
Question time!
-What do you think of this issue? (changing of the 2nd or any amendments, is it necessary, how, and perhaps why)
-Are there points of your constitution that are silly and need changing?
-Do you feel your government has secretly violated it's constitution through certain laws or actions? (NSA stuff)
1. See below

2. I do think the constitution does need some rewriting in order to reflect on modern times in order to clear things up and alleviate all these debates. For example, I'm pretty damn sure the second amendment guarantees the average citizen the right to own a firearm, even semi-automatic ones (ironically, handguns are responsible for most violent gun crime and yet public enemy number one is always the AR-15 or something similar to it), yet people still argue otherwise. Unfortunately, there isn't a single soul I'd entrust the responsibility of rewriting the Constitution to. Not even myself.

3. If the NSA stuff is anything to go by, then yes. The unfortunate thing about government is that it never has and probably never will work with the best interests of the people in mind; it's either appealing to the interests of the party, lobbyists, or it's treated as a mere job instead of a public responsibility. It is also inherently coercive, which generally flies in the face of liberty.
__________________


My Proposed PokeCommunity Dungeons & Dragons game. Leave a comment if interested.
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old November 5th, 2013 (12:33 PM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by BlahISuck:
Ehh all this talk about what the Founding Fathers meant and what the Constitution is supposed to be - none of it matters in the face of sheer power. It doesn't matter who meant what, to me, all that matters is what one is willing to do about it. If I was a politician in the United States, I couldn't care less about what the Constitution is or isn't supposed to be. I'll still be selling my vision the best I could. If a policy is "constitutionally conservative" then I'll justify it on the basis of constitution. If a policy is goes against the Constitution, I'll argue that the Constitution is archaic and not up to date. At the end of the day, I'll say whatever works best for me.
Except in the US we're all taught at a young age about how special the Constitution is, how we're the first real democracy, how the founding fathers were great thinkers, etc. To say there's a problem with the Constitution publicly is like admitting you're an atheist or gay. Some politicians can do it if they're in certain parts of the country, but in a lot of places you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.

Of course what you suggest is the better approach since it would cut through some of the bull and get into matters of what is and isn't good policy. That's part of why I'm waffling on the whole idea of whether it's best to have a constitution at all.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old November 5th, 2013 (12:54 PM). Edited November 5th, 2013 by Rezilia.
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
Quote originally posted by CarcharOdin:
3. If the NSA stuff is anything to go by, then yes. The unfortunate thing about government is that it never has and probably never will work with the best interests of the people in mind; it's either appealing to the interests of the party, lobbyists, or it's treated as a mere job instead of a public responsibility. It is also inherently coercive, which generally flies in the face of liberty.
^This.

@OP

I'll NEVER vote for you for president. Why? Because like most people on here, you favor taking away guns from the people while still allowing law enforcement and the feds to use guns. This is WRONG.

Why is this wrong?

As I said in another thread - the Founding Fathers believed in the Right to Revolution. That is, a government should let its citizens change it if they find it wrong - and if the government refuses to do so, all manner of revolution is justified.

So, if you want to change the second amendment, it should be changed to this:

"A well-regulated militia is essential to the peace and prosperity of a nation and its citizens. However, if a militia is deemed harmful to its citizens, the citizens themselves have the right to change or disband said militia in order to eliminate the harmful parts of the militia. At this time and by this regard, the citizens will have the right to bear arms. In addition, a citizen may evoke their right to bear arms in order to protect their own lives and the lives of other citizens if a militia over them is not able to protect them at any point.

By the above, a militia's main interest is in aiding its citizens. If ever the government(s) over the citizens become harmful to the citizens in any form, it is both the right and duty of the militia to protect the citizens' interests. In order to protect the citizens and their rights, the militia must not enforce lethal action upon a citizen unless absolutely necessary - no matter said crime of citizen. In addition, violent action is not justified upon any citizen if they are neither accused of a crime nor a danger to others.

The policies and rights detailed in this Amendment shall not be infringed."


By this, threat of military action will keep the government from doing anything against the desires of the citizens, which decreases terrorist activity exponentially. Also, in order for those times when the right to bear arms is justified to be a thing, the people will have the ability to KEEP arms - and then only BEAR those arms at said times. At the same time, the people can dismantle the militia if it is harmful to them and recreate it to better protect them and their rights. So, if the government finds ANY way of bypassing the power the military - and by that, the citizens - has over it, the citizens can change the military (and law enforcement, etc) to counter the bypass.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old November 5th, 2013 (01:00 PM). Edited November 5th, 2013 by Limerent.
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by Scarf:
Of course what you suggest is the better approach since it would cut through some of the bull and get into matters of what is and isn't good policy. That's part of why I'm waffling on the whole idea of whether it's best to have a constitution at all.
I think it's a good idea to have some form of constitution, to some extent they protect the people from government tyranny as America is so obsessively paranoid about, if there was no constitution you could have a very extremist political party voted into power, if they hold a majority they'll be able to pass whatever they want with very little to stop them, the problem now is the constitution is so vague and out of date as you said it is actually preventing the implementation of good policy, inhibiting the public interest and justice due to selfish interests groups hiding behind the guise of freedom.

I'll agree with you that the U.S constitution needs a very, very large overhaul with very clear language to represent modern times. Like, I remember Republicans initially blocking Obamacare on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Are. You. Serious? For a first world country it should be laid out very clearly in a Constitution/Bill of rights that a government should at least be responsible for access to the most basic healthcare. That's a human right.

Having no constitution would be fine for a moderate, people serving government. Many American politicians do not fit that description. Correct me if i'm wrong but maybe you could have "assumed rights", see I don't think Aus actually has a Bill like you do, our rights are determined by laws on how society should work and the basic, universal U.N rights that apply to everyone.

Damn, my hopes of becoming the American president are dashed...
@Rezilia, I like many others believe the continued freedom of a nation can be achieved without guns. All it takes is the citizens to take an in interest in politics, involve themselves in the debate of lawmaking and if necessary let their voices be heard by voting against the politicians whose policies are against their agenda. Guns are not a stable defense against oppression, peaceful political protest and involvement is. All guns do are make the day to day safety worse for all Americans. Maybe what you actually need is mandatory voting to force the inclusion of all American opinions and stronger laws about regulating media, so news can't become puppets for a political party e.g Fox=Republican. As well as more education focused on the value of proper engagememt in the political system, and how to do that. Let me just say in my final high school years tasks are often purely based upon critical thinking- you learn about a subject, make a decision, provide evidence. Skills like that are needed more than weapons.
__________________
Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old November 5th, 2013 (01:32 PM).
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/23/boehner-more-people-will-lose-insurance-obamacare/

Obamacare goes against the liberty of individuals - that alone may not be unconstitutional, but it DOES go against the core ideals of the nation since the very beginning.

In addition, 100,000s of people PER STATE are going to lose ALL of their health insurance and they won't be able to get any new insurance since Obamacare isn't allowing it.

--

I'm sick and tired of people praising Obamacare when they aren't even looking at the properly collected data showing how many problems it's been causing.

There are many jobs throughout the nation that come WITH health insurance automatically, so this isn't just an issue affecting individuals - it affects businesses everywhere as well.

And per typical Obama NO ONE is being given enough details about the plan and its contents to predict what they should do as it rolls around - which means both people and businesses are going into turmoil without any explanation as to WHY.


The Republicans, being businessman for the most part, understood this and THAT is why they denied Obamacare - because Obama is being an absolute bunghole and isn't releasing enough information about Obamacare for ANYONE to deal with the changes without being thrown into the jaws of death.


So next time you think it's a great idea for government to handle our health insurance - which, by the way, means life and death in this terrible economy - think again.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old November 5th, 2013 (02:16 PM). Edited November 5th, 2013 by Limerent.
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Here you don't even need any insurance to get quite comprehensive, affordable healthcare, you just need to be a citizen, you can get extra private health insurance to extend you coverage, in fact it's encouraged through extra tax once you're older than 33, but what I meant was it should be written into a bill of rights that government is liable to provide that basic cover.

Your article says health insurance companies are dumping users because they are losing them money and want the public system to deal with it. That to me looks more like corporate greed than political bungling. And the only reason people couldn't sign up to government healthcare mentioned in the article was technical issues- not Obamacare deliberately leaving people out in the cold. The reality is their site is being bombarded by hundreds of millions of people, once they iron out the kinks HEALTHCARE 4 EVERY111!!! Even PC goes down once it gets past a certain load.

Anyway, why does America need guns, the use of VIOLENCE, to ensure political freedom? Currently you are absolutely free to vote, mail your representative, start rallies and petitions etc. The solution to maintaining those liberties is to actually use them, not requiring guns so you can shoot policemen one day when you decide the government isn't serving your interests. America is nowhere near the level of tyranny or poverty that constitutes the acceptability of popular armed revolt, think Czarist Russia where in 1905 the October manifesto promised democratic parliament but the country was still ruled by a single man not afraid to use brutal power, that was a legitimate uprising. I don't see American police or soldiers slaughtering hundreds of unarmed, peaceful protesters like on Bloody Sunday or in the Lena Goldfields massacre. Until then unchecked availability of firearms just causes crime, unrest and the deaths of human beings. You can avoid becoming that scenario by exercising your democratic freedoms to influence the country.

Your comment about not voting me for president because I'd take away guns- everyone should be eligible to own a firearm if they choose, if they're in line with tight safety restrictions, to reduce gun related crimes. This next part is purely opinion and not arguing a point, but the rest of the world seeing a first world country being absolutely of the paranoid of the power structure that they ultimately control and want to one day kill with guns as very silly. Especially since said guns are causing tragic deaths everyday in their communities, but people still hold freedom to kill others over an actual safe country where you are actually free to walk down the street without the risk of being shot.

Finally, say the interest of the American people was to change the Constitution, only allow responsible gun ownership and not have a clause stating firearms were to be always be kept unregulated for the nowadays unrealistic (in first world countries) goal of overthrowing governments. This was decided through a fair referendum. Would you go on a shooting spree and kill people because it was against your views? If so you're a terrorist trying to push a political agenda through force, sorry.
__________________
Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old November 5th, 2013 (02:27 PM).
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
We wouldn't need revolution in the first place if we operated under Direct Democracy. However, we don't. We operate under Representative Democracy, which means if our Representatives don't actually represent our interests - but instead, their own - then the system fails. Whenever a nation fails, it's time to change it. Period.

And we ALWAYS need violence to counter violence if the non-violent option fails. Just standing in the way of a gun, talking someone down, won't automatically have them NOT shoot you. They could very well kill you regardless, and you could have averted it if you shot them first.

#logic
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old November 5th, 2013 (02:37 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Yeah the question of "needing" violence is moot because it's clear that groups always have and always will resort to violence if they perceive that's what's needed. It's just a part of human nature. I think a more pertinent question would be whether a certain political system gives groups the ability to affect it or vent out their angers without resorting to violence. When these tensions or disagreements are considered to be expressed "in" the political system, they become institutionalized - in a way part of the system. When this happens, the act of protesting and other non-violent options become more satisfactory in themselves, and I feel that people are deterred from violence because it becomes "appropriate" to be peaceful and not rebel. Yes, the liberal way of doing things is able to pacify the wrath of the people. While in some instances it allows changes to occur more easily, in others it can modulate changes and prevent people from fighting even before it begins.

Of course, none of what I said here is verifiable nor deniable, but at least there's a logic to it.
__________________
#363 Spheal
Supporter Collab January 2015
mod of nothing
paired to Axeliira
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old November 5th, 2013 (03:08 PM). Edited November 5th, 2013 by Limerent.
Limerent's Avatar
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by BlahISuck:
Yeah the question of "needing" violence is moot because it's clear that groups always have and always will resort to violence if they perceive that's what's needed. It's just a part of human nature. I think a more pertinent question would be whether a certain political system gives groups the ability to affect it or vent out their angers without resorting to violence. When these tensions or disagreements are considered to be expressed "in" the political system, they become institutionalized - in a way part of the system. When this happens, the act of protesting and other non-violent options become more satisfactory in themselves, and I feel that people are deterred from violence because it becomes "appropriate" to be peaceful and not rebel. Yes, the liberal way of doing things is able to pacify the wrath of the people. While in some instances it allows changes to occur more easily, in others it can modulate changes and prevent people from fighting even before it begins.

Of course, none of what I said here is verifiable nor deniable, but at least there's a logic to it.
True, I think most people would genuinely prefer to use a peaceful way of protest to you know, avoid dying. Unless you're a terrorist or have spiritual beliefs that allay your fear of death, like Buddhists monks who set themselves on fire or Taliban who blow themselves up for virgins. I've edited my previous post for more detail too.

The main flaw gun lobbyists here are upset about are "If we don't have guns, when the authority abuses us we won't be able to fight back" Apart from guns causing massive social problems when streets aren't safe because everyone has the capability to kill each other very easily, the motto of most police departments is "To protect and serve". I imagine if you know, you actually had huge government crackdowns, some people would actively find guns and start fighting back, but I see most police as honest, hard working, members of your community, not corrupt and power hungry like say in Egypt. They are there to make your world safe and enforce the law, if the law became to suppress you then it's just a gamble but many police would also rebel, as well as the military, and overthrow the government. Police and soldiers are not a mindless army of robots set to kill you, so you must kill them. They are also people, who will also stand up against injustice.

Quote:
And we ALWAYS need violence to counter violence if the non-violent option fails. Just standing in the way of a gun, talking someone down, won't automatically have them NOT shoot you. They could very well kill you regardless, and you could have averted it if you shot them first.
This is the largest difference in cultural attitude I have seen between people of two reasonably well off Western nations. Government and police forces do not want to shoot you. They are there to serve the aspirations of a countries people and protect you. The only reason they'll try and shoot you is if you point a gun at them. Don't have a gun=almost impossible to get shot in this day and age, even if you're engaging in violent protest, which you shouldn't because that's endangering police and others lives, anyway they'll pull out tasers, riot gear, bean bags, water hoses etc. before they shoot you. Civilians having unrestricted access to guns greatly increases gun violence towards other civilians. It also increases the numbers of times police have to use lethal force, hence why you think you're being "oppressed", when in reality the police are just doing what they have to to protect the community.
__________________
Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old November 5th, 2013 (05:21 PM).
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
You DID read the whole thing about the boy getting shot, didn't you? The police didn't use tasers, riot gear, bean bags, or water hoses before they shot him down multiple times. They just shot him - as the FIRST measure.

And when did I say the police or military were bad? I never said that. I said the government is bad. I was, in my previous post, referring more to citizens being able to shoot the criminal first before the criminal shot them, but if you want to bring the police into it then here we go: The police "protect and serve" the government BEFORE the people. They should protect the people BEFORE the government.

That keeps the government from using power against the citizens to an unreasonable extent and keeps the citizens from ever needing guns against the government - as the police and military use the guns FOR them.

See what I mean?
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old November 5th, 2013 (08:04 PM).
Water Gym Leader's Avatar
Water Gym Leader
Arlyn Aquos
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pacifidlog Town
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to Water Gym Leader
Basically we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves over the government over other people. Yet The government wants more control by taking away out last protection from them. They say they'll keep us safe but I was once robbed in front of an off duty police officer who did nothing. If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed.
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.
__________________

3DS FC: 0903-4056-8403
3DS XL FC: 0404-6887-6558
~~DIVING DEEP~~ (A Water Pokemon Fan Club)
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old November 5th, 2013 (10:17 PM).
Cerberus87's Avatar
Cerberus87
Mega Houndoom, baby!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Brazil
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Nature: Lonely
The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to create a possibility of revolution. No state allows people that, no legal order creates the possibility of its own destruction. Revolution is outlawed by default since it aims to disrupt and overthrow the current order.

Besides, guns don't need to be legal for people to use them in an act against the government. Smuggling exists.

Personally I'm against civilians carrying guns because I don't want a random schmuck shooting at me because I rubbed him the wrong way. Because that's what happens when you give people a sense of empowerment. Other things can be used to kill people, yes, but a gun's primary function is to harm, which is not the case with the other things.
__________________

3DS FC: 3282-2423-7870 (PM if you add) (Bug-type Safari)

Please give Boomburst to Pidgeot, GF!!!
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old November 5th, 2013 (11:33 PM).
Magic's Avatar
Magic
キュウコン
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Quote originally posted by Water Gym Leader:
Basically we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves over the government over other people. Yet The government wants more control by taking away out last protection from them. They say they'll keep us safe but I was once robbed in front of an off duty police officer who did nothing. If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed.
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.
"If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed."

If you had a gun, the robber might have pulled out a weapon as well - what then? You've just escalated the problem to one where someone has to die. I would much rather leave them too it and call the police.

FYI - Off duty police officer is off duty. No radio for backup and no legal cover.
Reply With Quote
  #22    
Old November 6th, 2013 (05:07 AM).
Went's Avatar
Went
Team Magma Grunt
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Send a message via Skype™ to Went
Quote originally posted by Water Gym Leader:
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.
A knife is useful for cooking and certain manual works. A pressure cooker is designed basically to cook food. Chains are supposed to be used to tie stuff. A car is a transportation device. A baseball bat has been created to be used to play baseball. Water allows us to stay alive. A pillow is helpful to sleep. Stairs allow us to have two-story houses. Hands come by default and are used for everything.

A gun is a machine designed to kill whose only possible utility is killing.

The point is, to drown someone, you need to hold him one-on-one. Same goes for almost half the stuff you described. Using a car to kill someone is either way more expensive or involves stealing, and is much more difficult to make it work- the person can jump out the way. A gun only requires you to point at someone and pull a trigger from far away. No need to expose yourself, no need to fight, small chance of failing and even if you don't kill them , you'll cause very serious damage. In movies, you don't see villains saying "Move and we'll go and try to choke you with a pillow!" for a reason.

I stand by my idea: guns should be controlled like cars. Require a training course, a permit, register everything on the way. Nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23    
Old November 6th, 2013 (09:34 AM). Edited November 6th, 2013 by Livewire.
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
The Young Wolf
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Winterfell
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Quote originally posted by Water Gym Leader:
Basically we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves over the government over other people. Yet The government wants more control by taking away out last protection from them. They say they'll keep us safe but I was once robbed in front of an off duty police officer who did nothing. If I had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed.
And to all the people who says guns kill people and need to be outlawed...then by that logic so should knives, pressure cookers, chains, cars, baseball bats, water, pillows, stairs, and hands. All of those kill people too. The government wants to control all of our lives.
No, the second amendment in its original context dealt with the state's individual rights vs federal authority, it's a leftover from the period of time where we were trying to work out all the kinks in the duel-federalist system we enjoy now, trying to reconcile individualistic, factious thinking at a state level with a unified federal identity. It was primarily southern statist blowhards, deathly afraid that the continental army and the feds would become another monarchy and suppress individual state rights - you know, like the right to enslave people. Best way to counter that threat is to have state run, state funded militias, loyal only to a particular state and its Governor. You have to remember in this time period, the U.S. was still very very sectarian - people from Virginia called themselves Virginians first and foremost, not Americans. Not just yet, anyway. They did not think about national identity in the same way we did. So the second amendment is essentially the southern elite's paranoia in the form of a constitutional amendment. (mind you it was an amendment, it was added later)
__________________

HOUSE STARK
BS | D&D | PM | VM
Reply With Quote
  #24    
Old November 6th, 2013 (02:06 PM).
AzuGazer's Avatar
AzuGazer
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Quote originally posted by Went:
A knife is useful for cooking and certain manual works. A pressure cooker is designed basically to cook food. Chains are supposed to be used to tie stuff. A car is a transportation device. A baseball bat has been created to be used to play baseball. Water allows us to stay alive. A pillow is helpful to sleep. Stairs allow us to have two-story houses. Hands come by default and are used for everything.

A gun is a machine designed to kill whose only possible utility is killing.

The point is, to drown someone, you need to hold him one-on-one. Same goes for almost half the stuff you described. Using a car to kill someone is either way more expensive or involves stealing, and is much more difficult to make it work- the person can jump out the way. A gun only requires you to point at someone and pull a trigger from far away. No need to expose yourself, no need to fight, small chance of failing and even if you don't kill them , you'll cause very serious damage. In movies, you don't see villains saying "Move and we'll go and try to choke you with a pillow!" for a reason.

I stand by my idea: guns should be controlled like cars. Require a training course, a permit, register everything on the way. Nothing more, nothing less.

Guns are useful for stopping arguments and fights even before and during. just aim at the sky. it's mere presents will stop anything. they are also useful for announcing the start of something to competitors and audience. you know, start guns. they are even useful for stopping people in their track without intended bloodshed. just some electricity. Like Taser guns. There is also a BB gun with is used for whatever.

i really do think there should be more gun control... just i can't think of how much because im not sure how much there is right now.
__________________
ALMOST HALLOWEEN!!!
(which i don't celebrate)
Reply With Quote
  #25    
Old November 6th, 2013 (04:03 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote originally posted by AzuGazer:
Guns are useful for stopping arguments and fights even before and during. just aim at the sky. it's mere presents will stop anything. they are also useful for announcing the start of something to competitors and audience. you know, start guns. they are even useful for stopping people in their track without intended bloodshed. just some electricity. Like Taser guns. There is also a BB gun with is used for whatever.

i really do think there should be more gun control... just i can't think of how much because im not sure how much there is right now.
They're also useful for stopping arguments and fights violently after they escalate, usually involving caps blasted up someone's ass. Tasers aren't weapons, neither are start guns.

Dual-use-thus-equivalent arguments are overdone.
__________________
#363 Spheal
Supporter Collab January 2015
mod of nothing
paired to Axeliira
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 03:05 PM.