ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:46 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2002 3:11 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 06:42, actor_au wrote:
Dead Horse, commence beating.

In Australia we outlawed Semi-Automatics ages ago. I think the reasoning behind keeping guns to prevent foreign invaders is a bit ridiculous, your country has 300 million people, short of nuclear strikes controling that many people is next to impossible for any army on Earth, unless India, China and Japan force conscription on every man and woman over 21.
The logistics of invading America from any military means are so close to impossible without Canada's aide and even then its still significantly difficult to move troops, resources and tanks over the northern border in a united push.


Given the current political situation, most of this is true (although civilians, in most cases, are generally rather willing to cooperate with conquering troops; look at World War II for examples. You don't need three hundred million troops to control three hundred million people.). There is, however, no gurantee that the current political situation will continue . Personally, I think civil war or a totalitarian regime (described below) are a lot more likely in the near future than foreign invasion (even though the likelihood of both is very low).

Quote:
The other point about overthrowing an oppressive government is a bit stupid, when government officials do as little as humanly possible to reduce gun ownership, introducing a waiting period, background checks etc are good starts but not really enough. They are basically the ones shoving guns down your throats, so why would you overthrow them? The presense of pro-gun lobby groups taken into account your leaders love the guns.


<i>Given the current government</i>, there is no reason for an armed revolt, that much is true. The whole point of this argument, however, is that the current government is not the only possible government, and that some of the other possible governments can be described using words like <i>totalitarian</i> and <i>dictatorship</i>. The people that wrote the United States Constitution saw fit to include clauses meant to minimize the possibility of this happening, and the Second Amendment is one of them. The flexibility in government provided by that kind of just-in-case clause is one reason the United States has kept its constitution for the last two hundred years, while other democratic countries like France (okay, bad example) have frequently gone through three or four.

The "the American government loves guns" argument might have some truth to it, but seriously, who cares? I might be a paranoid nutcase, but I'm not required to disagree with all my government's opinions... am I?

Quote:
If anyones' read the book <a href = "http://www.cybamuse.com/books/sf/clark.htm#trigger"> The Trigger </a>by Arthur C. Clark and Michael Kube-McDowell its a pretty cool story about a technology which destoys guns and the impact on people everywhere. I thought it was pretty good.


Never read it, but Arthur C. Clarke did expound on the merits of video cameras and other recording devices as a crime-fighting method. He's a smart man, but I doubt he and I would agree on many political issues.

Quote:
<i>Im going to stand in that corner over there with the other bleeding heart liberals, of course in Australia the Liberals are a conservative party so that makes me a conservative with a bleeding heart therefore I am more confused than usual.</i>


Meh. Let's not turn this into a dividing issue; you have one opinion, I have another. Your opinion happens to be wrong, but that's no reason to feel left out, capice?

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Quote:
On 2002-11-11 11:39, Kills Commies wrote:
Well, to be fair, places that basically ban gun ownership (austrailia) have significantly less crime rates than when they were legal.


the UK has far far higher gun crime today than it did 5 years ago after the handgun ban (not really a handgun band, but effectivly one) and has of course also risen since the '87 semi-auto ban

by anyone's figures, there is far more illegal gun ownership and crime now then when guns were legal, far more.

if guns are illegal only criminals will have them, but somehow they seem to have more now than ever before.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Yeah, Switzerland has tons of guns and there is no crime, Japan has no guns and there is no crime, et cetera. We've heard it all before.

I suggest we stay away from arguments by example. There's more than enough "evidence" of that sort for both sides of the gun control debate (most of which is useless due to the presence of other factors) for any debate relying mostly on that to go on forever. It's just a weak argument, basically; without anything resembling scientific rigor, the results could mean anything or (more likely) nothing.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-11-12 15:58 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Quote:
On 2002-11-12 15:57, Pyromancer wrote:
Yeah, Switzerland has tons of guns and there is no crime, Japan has no guns and there is no crime, et cetera. We've heard it all before.


staying away from examples, but not at the same time - Switzerland is a good one, they work on the milita system (kind of) with the whole (male) population being trained and armed by the state, if teh state suddenly trned against the people, every single male (and anyone else with a gun) would have equal training and basic weapons as the security forces they could be pitted against

same goes for outside invasion/criminal actions, all citizans have the ability to defend themselves and their country

i hear that the US milita idea was 2nd ammended with a similar idea in mind, during a few early "the Red Coats are coming back" scares they even handed out muskets to anyone who'd take them in a pre-emptive arming of the masses

does that make Switzerland a better country because it's peopel can handle owning army grade weapons without murdering each other?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2002 5:35 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 351
Location: Orlando, FL
If I've glossed over something, so hurt me, but I only read the first few posts because.. well, I'm tired, so there.

Alright first, I don't know why anyone mentioned nuclear weapons, chemical warfare... okay for starters that is in no way the intention of the 2nd amendment, the underlying and inferred interpretation is that 1) civilian militias, and 2) in the event that a government is unjust, Locke-ian philosophy states that the people have the obligation to rise up against it and overthrow it, and this has been referenced in some Supreme Court case I'm too lazy to look up at the time. This amendment gives them the means to do so.

Furthermore, about that death ray CRAP, that would be covered under the "clear and present danger" clause, which states that certain constitutional rights can be withheld when there is reason to believe that either a clear and present danger or grave and probably evil is present.

Also, whoever it was that said "The political left has never been about freedom" CLEARLY you are way off. I can break it down into two definitions. Republicanism = what the government does is what the government thinks is best for the people. Democracy = the people say what is best for the people, and the government acts. So clearly the "political left" has more to do with freedom than the political right would, unless in the past year or so the bipartisan system has been changed so radically that this standard has been skewed.

Okay, next point, someone mentioned criminals, and stopping them or whatever if they don't have guns. Bullshit. This might deter some smaller crimes, like armed burglary, but when it comes to the larger scale crimes, these people are already aware they are breaking a law, and breaking another one is little difference to them. I think I should also point out that keeping a check on this prohibition of firearms would put a strain on law enforcement groups and flood jails, because obviously people are going to rebel against it and own guns anyway, and focus from matters with higher precedence will be leeched off of to send forces off after these gun-owning individuals. Yea, that makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The best way to avoid those "children deaths" would be to simply place restriction or limitation on handguns, which is the weapon of the overwhelming majority in these situations, since that wouldn't infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, because we already have limits on certain rights which have been deemed acceptable (Freedom of Speech exploitations are countered by slander/libel laws, freedom of assembly as long as it is peaceful, nondisruptive, so on and so forth.)

And I'm too tired to jump on the totalitarian/fascist/autocracy debate bandwagon.

_________________
<center><i>Don't touch the pretty, fucker.</i></center>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2002 8:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-11-16 16:35, Angel On Crack wrote:

Also, whoever it was that said "The political left has never been about freedom" CLEARLY you are way off. I can break it down into two definitions. Republicanism = what the government does is what the government thinks is best for the people. Democracy = the people say what is best for the people, and the government acts. So clearly the "political left" has more to do with freedom than the political right would, unless in the past year or so the bipartisan system has been changed so radically that this standard has been skewed.



Oh, you use caps, so it must be true. Only the important stuff is allowed to use capital letters.

(/sarcasm)

You mistake "the will of the people" for "freedom". Ever heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"? It's a bit melodramatic, but the point is valid; the general population doesn't usually like freedom any more than the government does, as evidenced by the occasional movements to ban anything the public considers distasteful. Guns are a good example, but you could just as well point to pornography, homosexuality or any of a number of traditionally "liberal" issues.

Republicans, in America, tend to want more freedom on economic issues, while Democrats tend to want more freedom on social ones. That is an oversimplification, but it suffices for the purposes of this discussion.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-11-16 19:23 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2002 1:08 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Hmm...the right wants people to have their guns, and the left wants people to have their pr0n and free sexual orientation...both say that, while their stated freedoms are necessary to quality of life, and it would be unconstitutional to ban them, the other side's freedoms are dangerous and/or detrimental to society...just a (mostly) bipartisan observation.

*slaps himself*. M&M has used buzzwords. M&M will have to shut his ears in the oven, err, microwave for this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2002 1:49 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Pretty much, yeah.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:21 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
never heard of the Pink Pistols? they're a gay rights, gun rights group... "armed gays don't get bashed"

ollie.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2002 4:25 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Nope, never heard of them.

"Left" and "right," of course, aren't the only political alignments out there. There's also libertarian and authoritarian groups (I would classify your Gays with Guns as libertarian, on the basis of the given information); of course, things get vastly more complicated with foreign policy is taken into account. Which is why I like to stay away from it.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 6:30 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
Location: Ft Polk, LA
Quote:
On 2002-11-16 19:14, Pyromancer wrote:

Republicans, in America, tend to want more freedom on economic issues, while Democrats tend to want more freedom on social ones. That is an oversimplification, but it suffices for the purposes of this discussion.



Never, ever, ever equate a political party with an ideology. First off, majority political parties have to have a "big tent" culture to survive, so they will always have both wings. Second, they are totally different in character at different levels of government. My parents, both conservatives, voted for a Democrat mayor because she was an honest, right-wing businesswoman, in preference to the sleazy Republican she replaced. Third, the party has little control over who joins it. There is a platform, but it's quite vague and actually abiding by it is up to the candidate. David Duke can run as a Republican and they can completely ostracize him, run other candidates against him in the primaries, but that's it. They don't own any trademark they can enforce or anything like that.

In general, there *is* a substantial difference between the character of the parties. The Democrat party views itself as a patchwork of different cultures with different needs. The strength of this is that they project a more inclusive message, the weakness is that they're 0wn3d by special interest groups (trial lawyers, unions, etc.) and tend to play victim politics. The Republican party views itself as a collection of individuals bound by principles. The strength of this is that they tend to be more consistent, the weakness is that they often practice "benign neglect" (the policy towards blacks since Nixon) and have a hard time selling their message to those so neglected.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 11:47 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
The following post deals exclusively with American politics. If you're not interested in that kind of thing, I suggest you skip it.

Quote:
On 2002-12-19 05:30, sco08y wrote:
Never, ever, ever equate a political party with an ideology. First off, majority political parties have to have a "big tent" culture to survive, so they will always have both wings. Second, they are totally different in character at different levels of government. My parents, both conservatives, voted for a Democrat mayor because she was an honest, right-wing businesswoman, in preference to the sleazy Republican she replaced. Third, the party has little control over who joins it. There is a platform, but it's quite vague and actually abiding by it is up to the candidate. David Duke can run as a Republican and they can completely ostracize him, run other candidates against him in the primaries, but that's it. They don't own any trademark they can enforce or anything like that.


Political parties are based around ideologies; if this was not the case, the platforms of high-level candidates would not hew so closely to the party line. This is especially true in high-level (read: state governorships, federal-level congressmen, and above) positions, mostly since there's a number of mechanisms in place to keep elected party members sticking to the party's ideology at the federal level. That doesn't keep occasional people from jumping ship, of course--just look at 2001--but going seriously against the party line is political suicide without a strong personal following (which tends to be fairly rare). At lower government levels, and even to some degree at the level of Congress, campaigns tend to be governed by personal following and charisma, making party less important; this is supported by the proliferation of minor parties at lower levels of government, as well as by the occasional election of write-in candidates.

At the presidental or (to a lesser extent) congressional level, party ideology becomes vitally important, in direct relation to the degree that personal following becomes insignificant. There's several reasons for this, but most relate to the great differences in scale between local and federal campaigns. In most states' primary elections, for example (I'll take presidential campaigns as an example, as they provide the best illustration of the process), only members of a party can vote for candidates for that party (California, until recently, was an exception to this rule); while it is true that, in most states, candidates can run as any party they please, the character of elections is such that only those conforming closely to the party's general ideology stand a chance of winning the primary election. The "party line" differs by region, it is true, but on a national level it tends to be surprisingly constant (although this can easily piss off extreme members of both wings).

The amount of control parties have over candidates varies by region; in most cases, it takes the form of various measures to control access (candidates listed on ballot cards, and the like). Parties also have almost absolute (except where limited by law) control over campaign money, which is frequently a deciding factor; I'm sure we've all heard that the campaign on which the most money is spent almost always wins. It's worth noting that donations to political parties are not nearly as circumscribed as donations to individual candidates.

Quote:
In general, there *is* a substantial difference between the character of the parties. The Democrat party views itself as a patchwork of different cultures with different needs. The strength of this is that they project a more inclusive message, the weakness is that they're 0wn3d by special interest groups (trial lawyers, unions, etc.) and tend to play victim politics. The Republican party views itself as a collection of individuals bound by principles. The strength of this is that they tend to be more consistent, the weakness is that they often practice "benign neglect" (the policy towards blacks since Nixon) and have a hard time selling their message to those so neglected.


Your comments reflect the prejudices of your political views more than any clear grasp of realities. Many (I can't speak for "most", particularly since I am not a member of the American Democratic Party) Democrats believe the reverse: that the Republican Party is a loose coalition of business and personal interests and that the Democratic Party is bound by a common devotion to personal well-being for all citizens. Both views are self-serving at best and most likely false.

Now, unless you have something to say about guns, will you kindly get the hell out of my thread? If you want to debate the root values of American political parties, there's plenty of space on Kyhm's hard drive to make new threads on.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group