It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionLawmaker in Chicago wants to ban Violent Video games(98 posts)(98 posts)
(98 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
kohlrak: Jefferson was quite open about his motivations. The thing to fundamentally understand about the United States' foundation is that it simultaneously doesn't trust government, while also understanding that anarchy is not good, either. The first 10 amendments was called "The Bill of Rights" specifically for that reason: it was to set hard limits on the federal government.

But, notice the underlined portion. It is for that same reason that the first amendment does not apply to companies. But, the founders were very clear: have some quotes.
avatar
Gudadantza: I mean this, for example, one of the quotes from the web you linked:

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

What I mean is that in revolutionary times it was a convenient ammendment to protect themselves from external and internal barebones federal government. Lack of laws, lack of control and all of this in a germinal state.

But The militia that, for example, Elbridge Gerry of Massachussets is reffering to, He and and others and the second ammendment itself is what later was called the National Guard, not exactly the Army itself. For reasons all you americans know.
That Guard is the modern times well regulated militia, in my point of view.
Continue reading the quotes. Take the time to understand the mentality. You'll find it was repeated that the idea of "a standing army" (that is to say, government ordained military) was something that they feared. It's quite clear they were aiming towards something like Switzerland.
When two hundred years have passed, when a lot of laws where created, control systems for the federal government and states themselves were created, and when the young democracy is not so young anymore, I consider that the interpretation of the second ammendment should be different than in the eighteenth century. It should be considered a legacy and treated it in consecuence.
Ironically enough, they have quotes for that mentality, too. Seriously, look at politics today. We have Antifa in the streets as well as the proud boys. Obviously some very violent people feel neglected by the government. There's a reasonable presumption that this would not be the case if they could solve their own problems. That sounds scary, but, well, we use the same mentality right now to guarantee that nations don't nuke one another: the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Orkhepaj: the cars should have burkas , they are too sexy and some poor criminals cant resist the urge to take them for themselves
Developers should make protester reskins.
Posted February 24, 2021
Wouldn´t it be easier to ban violent people?
Posted February 24, 2021
low rated
avatar
Gudadantza: I mean this, for example, one of the quotes from the web you linked:

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

What I mean is that in revolutionary times it was a convenient ammendment to protect themselves from external and internal barebones federal government. Lack of laws, lack of control and all of this in a germinal state.

But The militia that, for example, Elbridge Gerry of Massachussets is reffering to, He and and others and the second ammendment itself is what later was called the National Guard, not exactly the Army itself. For reasons all you americans know.
That Guard is the modern times well regulated militia, in my point of view.
avatar
kohlrak: Continue reading the quotes. Take the time to understand the mentality. You'll find it was repeated that the idea of "a standing army" (that is to say, government ordained military) was something that they feared. It's quite clear they were aiming towards something like Switzerland.

When two hundred years have passed, when a lot of laws where created, control systems for the federal government and states themselves were created, and when the young democracy is not so young anymore, I consider that the interpretation of the second ammendment should be different than in the eighteenth century. It should be considered a legacy and treated it in consecuence.
avatar
kohlrak: Ironically enough, they have quotes for that mentality, too. Seriously, look at politics today. We have Antifa in the streets as well as the proud boys. Obviously some very violent people feel neglected by the government. There's a reasonable presumption that this would not be the case if they could solve their own problems. That sounds scary, but, well, we use the same mentality right now to guarantee that nations don't nuke one another: the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
What I say is that The National Guard as an evolution of the revoltionary militia, was created as a workaround to a "standing army" into the country, not permitted. Specially reffering to the "tories" or an inner dictatorial central power. In my point of view times have changed at least in that regard and it is no 1789.

The second ammendment is about a well regulated militia, the people(?), with the right to have weapons.

Today that well regulated militia is well regulated as the National Guard, the people with the right to have weapons. Not a dement with a high caliber unnecesary military arsenal.

The problems you are talking about are problems in the rest of the world. And they are solved of suffered without the need of a fundamentalist vision of arms for all freedom. And the results are similar in any place.

Well, I stop here, as I said it is your country, you will know how to manage it. But I know that in USA there are people wanting a revision of this theme.

Greetings
Post edited February 24, 2021 by Gudadantza
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Oddeus: Wouldn´t it be easier to ban violent people?
then who would be our leaders ?:O
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Oddeus: Wouldn´t it be easier to ban violent people?
avatar
Orkhepaj: then who would be our leaders ?:O
Game designers?
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
kohlrak: Continue reading the quotes. Take the time to understand the mentality. You'll find it was repeated that the idea of "a standing army" (that is to say, government ordained military) was something that they feared. It's quite clear they were aiming towards something like Switzerland.

Ironically enough, they have quotes for that mentality, too. Seriously, look at politics today. We have Antifa in the streets as well as the proud boys. Obviously some very violent people feel neglected by the government. There's a reasonable presumption that this would not be the case if they could solve their own problems. That sounds scary, but, well, we use the same mentality right now to guarantee that nations don't nuke one another: the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
avatar
Gudadantza: What I say is that The National Guard as an evolution of the revoltionary militia, was created as a workaround to a "standing army" into the country, not permitted. Specially reffering to the "tories" or an inner dictatorial central power. In my point of view times have changed at least in that regard and it is no 1789.

The second ammendment is about a well regulated militia, the people(?), with the right to have weapons.

Today that well regulated militia is well regulated as the National Guard, the people with the right to have weapons. Not a dement with a high caliber unnecesary military arsenal.
I was going to separate the last line from the rest, but, well, i think this is the crux of the issue: that's a false dichotomy and fearmongering. What creates this problem of which you speak about below? It's quite clear, especially with the demented people to be feared that you reference: the shooters seem to have a predisposition towards suicide. And when you talk with such people, what do they usually say is their reason? Usually they ramble on about reasons, but, fundamentally, they feel they lack self-ownership, and going out with a bang (bang bang bang bang bang bang bang etc) is a way of reclaiming that, on their way out. They feel they cannot own their plight, and it's no surprise: how many people who aren't suicidal also take responsibility for their actions instead of passing the buck? What is this thing we call the "corporate" shield for? I would certainly agree that the people of today cannot handle a complete deregulation of firearms and military power: the appeals to fearmongering aren't unjustified. The question, however, is how we went from the times that the notion was laughable to the situation that we're in? I think it's obvious: every system in our life has gotten too big for us to be able to see our part in it shy of being some surf. I don't think many would disagree with the notion of accountability being dead, or the notion that most of us are just surfs is inaccurate. Meanwhile, the era of which we speak is most certainly a time where even the surfs felt at least some degree of self-determination and self-ownership.
The problems you are talking about are problems in the rest of the world. And they are solved of suffered without the need of a fundamentalist vision of arms for all freedom. And the results are similar in any place.
If you have the solution, why has the problem not been prevented? I mean, surely, if there was a plan that clearly worked, unquestionably, why has it not been implemented?
Well, I stop here, as I said it is your country, you will know how to manage it. But I know that in USA there are people wanting a revision of this theme.

Greetings
Yeah, and i notice the people who want to revise this theme are people of power, usually. It seems the comments are more relevant than one would think at first glance.
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Gudadantza: What I say is that The National Guard as an evolution of the revoltionary militia, was created as a workaround to a "standing army" into the country, not permitted. Specially reffering to the "tories" or an inner dictatorial central power. In my point of view times have changed at least in that regard and it is no 1789.

The second ammendment is about a well regulated militia, the people(?), with the right to have weapons.

Today that well regulated militia is well regulated as the National Guard, the people with the right to have weapons. Not a dement with a high caliber unnecesary military arsenal.

The problems you are talking about are problems in the rest of the world. And they are solved of suffered without the need of a fundamentalist vision of arms for all freedom. And the results are similar in any place.

Well, I stop here, as I said it is your country, you will know how to manage it. I know that in USA there is people wanting a revision of this theme.

Greetings
national guard is not a militia it is part of the army which is ofc government regulated and such cant be a militia
high caliber unnecessary? assault rifles are not high caliber weapons
is everything fundamentalist what is not your view?
imho giving up freedom to believe others will defend your rights is what fundamentalist
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Leroux: Grand Theft Auto taught me everything I needed to know about carjacking. Ever since I first saw how easy it was (open door, throw out driver, go!), I wanted to become a carjacker myself. Sadly, most cars over here seem to be locked or in motion, and the drivers put up much more resistance than anticipated. I wish I was in Chicago ...
Don't forget: You get bonus points if you run people over with their own car (double the normal points in the original GTA iirc).
Posted February 24, 2021
Just wondering what is considered a violent videogame?

Like is super Mario considered a violent video game because you can jump / shoot fireballs at the enemies.

Is postal 2 considered a violent game because you can be violent. But the violence is optional you can complete postal 2 by not harming anyone.

Also there has always been violence. Just look at the world before videogames.
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Gudadantza: I mean this, for example, one of the quotes from the web you linked:

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

What I mean is that in revolutionary times it was a convenient ammendment to protect themselves from external and internal barebones federal government. Lack of laws, lack of control and all of this in a germinal state.

But The militia that, for example, Elbridge Gerry of Massachussets is reffering to, He and and others and the second ammendment itself is what later was called the National Guard, not exactly the Army itself. For reasons all you americans know.
That Guard is the modern times well regulated militia, in my point of view.

When two hundred years have passed, when a lot of laws where created, control systems for the federal government and states themselves were created, and when the young democracy is not so young anymore, I consider that the interpretation of the second ammendment should be different than in the eighteenth century. It should be considered a legacy and treated it in consecuence.
The National Guard can be conscripted to function under the Federal government and is then under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. And militia that can, at a moment's notice, become part of the US Federal army is not a militia of the people, but an arm of the federal government. The second amendment was designed to balance power between the people and the government.
Posted February 24, 2021
high rated
avatar
huppumies: Oh hey, it's the 1990s again. Neat. It'd be almost nostalgic if it wasn't so stupid.
LOL I came in here to make almost this exact comment! Beaten to it! ;)
Posted February 24, 2021
high rated
I am glad this discussion is civil.

There are a few misconceptions about the Second Amendment here.

Some think that it applies only to the National Guard.

The National Guard is a militia, but it is not the only militia. It is what the creators of the USA called a "select militia"- a militia composed of only a tiny subset of the people, and under total federal control.

The militia referred to in the Second Amendment is the entire body of the people capable of using weapons. State and Federal laws used to to require all able bodied men to own a gun and ammunition. As well as gun ownership being a right, it was also considered a legal obligation. Men would belong to the militia group and meet serval times yearly for training. Widespread ownership of military weapons makes it much more difficult for a government to oppress the people- they are much less likely to even try to do so, as it raises the costs.

I see some of the commentators here are Italian and Spanish. Both of your countries suffered under fascist dictators. I would like for you to consider that the state should not have a monopoly on weapons. That gives governments more trust than they deserve. It makes it a lot more difficult to load people onto boxcars if they all have military rifles.

When the British government started abusing the American colonists, they attempted to take away our weapons. That is what triggered the American Revolution- gun control.

James Madison and the others who wrote the bill of rights wanted to be sure that the governmental military power would always be counterbalanced to the general citizenry being armed with military weapons.

If a person is not in a organized militia group, does this right no longer exist?

No, the militia depends on private gun ownership. Private gun ownership does not depend on the militia.

Believe it or not, wikipedia actually has a very clear discussion on the purposes of the Second Amendment:


[url=]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary[/url]
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Gudadantza: I mean this, for example, one of the quotes from the web you linked:

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

What I mean is that in revolutionary times it was a convenient ammendment to protect themselves from external and internal barebones federal government. Lack of laws, lack of control and all of this in a germinal state.

But The militia that, for example, Elbridge Gerry of Massachussets is reffering to, He and and others and the second ammendment itself is what later was called the National Guard, not exactly the Army itself. For reasons all you americans know.
That Guard is the modern times well regulated militia, in my point of view.

When two hundred years have passed, when a lot of laws where created, control systems for the federal government and states themselves were created, and when the young democracy is not so young anymore, I consider that the interpretation of the second ammendment should be different than in the eighteenth century. It should be considered a legacy and treated it in consecuence.
avatar
paladin181: The National Guard can be conscripted to function under the Federal government and is then under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. And militia that can, at a moment's notice, become part of the US Federal army is not a militia of the people, but an arm of the federal government. The second amendment was designed to balance power between the people and the government.
So your point of view is that the federal government is not the people and it is not elected by the people or for the people? Who were the founder fathers? a group of anarchists or they wanted to create a nation instead, with a federal type of government and separate powers?

A State Government or a Federal Government, meanwhile they are respectful with the rules and they are democratic, are the representants of the people in a "representative democracy" USA and the majority or the european governments are representative, not direct democracy.

That, for the good or for the bad, was something the founding fathers wanted to evade at all cost. A direct democracy and an unbalanced game of powers.
Posted February 24, 2021
avatar
Aplomado: I am glad this discussion is civil.

There are a few misconceptions about the Second Amendment here.

Some think that it applies only to the National Guard.

The National Guard is a militia, but it is not the only militia. It is what the creators of the USA called a "select militia"- a militia composed of only a tiny subset of the people, and under total federal control.

The militia referred to in the Second Amendment is the entire body of the people capable of using weapons. State and Federal laws used to to require all able bodied men to own a gun and ammunition. As well as gun ownership being a right, it was also considered a legal obligation. Men would belong to the militia group and meet serval times yearly for training. Widespread ownership of military weapons makes it much more difficult for a government to oppress the people- they are much less likely to even try to do so, as it raises the costs.

I see some of the commentators here are Italian and Spanish. Both of your countries suffered under fascist dictators. I would like for you to consider that the state should not have a monopoly on weapons. That gives governments more trust than they deserve. It makes it a lot more difficult to load people onto boxcars if they all have military rifles.

When the British government started abusing the American colonists, they attempted to take away our weapons. That is what triggered the American Revolution- gun control.

James Madison and the others who wrote the bill of rights wanted to be sure that the governmental military power would always be counterbalanced to the general citizenry being armed with military weapons.

If a person is not in a organized militia group, does this right no longer exist?

No, the militia depends on private gun ownership. Private gun ownership does not depend on the militia.

Believe it or not, wikipedia actually has a very clear discussion on the purposes of the Second Amendment:

[url=]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary[/url]
Very interesting info about the theme, Thanks.

One think I do not agree. In Spain, when the fascist generals rebeled against the republic government the people was armed at par with the loyal part of the republican army, police, etc for combat the "coup".
And that without a "second ammendment". So If it is needed, people can be armed depending the state of things. If it needs to happen, it happens. Obviously without legal constitutional umbrella.

Greetings
Post edited February 24, 2021 by Gudadantza
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionLawmaker in Chicago wants to ban Violent Video games(98 posts)(98 posts)
(98 posts)