American exceptionalism at its ugly worst.Originally Posted by treasurecoastskywatch
We do not have a "right to bear arms" in New Zealand - pray tell in what way are we "not free"?
American exceptionalism at its ugly worst.
We do not have a "right to bear arms" in New Zealand - pray tell in what way are we "not free"?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
something a New Zealander will never understand , How will you protect yourself is Austraila invades ? or if your government becomes corrupt and tryranical ? SHEEPLE http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/...deters-tyranny
Yes, because there is a remote chance of Australia invading New Zealand. Have you ever been down there? They're very friendly to each other, apart from the light teasing.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Clock (January 28th, 2013)
I will add that despite a lack of right to "bear arms," New Zealand was ranked the freest country in the world - 5 ranks above the United States.
From the Frasier Institute, the report that annoyed a good chunk of the American public:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploa...an-freedom.pdf
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
Ok ChinaMight want New Zealands sheep because their is a shortage of women in China
And why would a New Zealander not understand freedom - do you have a cogent point to make, or is your knee jsut making random sudden movements??
Feed them Bluff oysters and have a game of Rugby. alternatively why would we bother - the Aus$ is worth heaps more, and their economy is booming, plus about 10% of New Zealanders already live in Australia......How will you protect yourself is Austraila invades ?
appart from marching on Paliament - which is just 200m thataway <--- with no great fences around it? I'd happily punch out a minister or 2...as would many of us.or if your government becomes corrupt and tryranical ?
Better stuill, since we have 3 year terms, vote the stupid buggers out before they get too cocky.
I read that opinion piece on Stuff - here's the counter - Why America embarrasses us all.
I also commented on it pointing out that bearing arms in the US was essentially no use whatsoever - the revolution/War of Independance was won by the Continental Army and the French Navy, and has never been much use in preventing any tyranny since - every time you have had a "tyrannical" president you vote him out. Thus proving that civil society is more powerful than civilian guns.
Actually New Zealand is quite heavily armed - for a country of about 4.4 million people we have about 1.1 million guns. And we had our own "gun buyback" after our worst civilian massacre
As an aside - did you intend to comment about how we can be free without a 2nd amendment at all?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
There are 4-5 times as many sheep in Australia.Ok China
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
The word 'sheeple' is not a real word:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sheeple
So, it's sheep.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
Perhaps the "freedom discussion" should be split off into a thread of its own??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. They undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights.
You would be speaking Japanese if not for America .
Why are you trying to trash New Zealand?
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
No I love New Zealand . why is Mike and others Trashing our Second Admendment ? Our Founding Fathers ? If not for America You would all live under tyranny . This is not debunked either . so remove it from the heading .
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime Free to be Assautled ?
Define "you all," and how would they live under tyranny without us? The United States never played a big role in the history of New Zealand.
You act as though if the United States fell, the entire world would become overrun by tyrants and what not. To think that the U.S. is single-handedly responsible for keeping New Zealand tyranny free is absolutely preposterous - they have a military and can easily defend themselves.
The matter concerns your statement that without the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), there would be no freedom. Unless you're talking just about the United States (which your posts have suggested you're not), New Zealand has proved this wrong. The "debunked" stays unless Mick feels otherwise.
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
If not for the United States during WW2 You would all be living under Japan or Germany . New Zealand like many other countries has allies like the United States as a deterant . You really think New Zealand on its own would have survived WW2 ? Not If either more like when the United states falls we will all live under tyranny . The crime statistics speak for themselves .
As opposed to free to be shot (or a victim of crime)? From the same source...
Murders with firearms.
NZ: 10 - ranked 30th
US: 9,369 - ranked 1st.
Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms
NZ: 13.4615 - ranked 23rd
US: 39.5604 - ranked 7th
Total crime
NZ: 427,230 - ranked 22nd
US: 11,877,218 - ranked 1st
Last edited by hemi; January 28th, 2013 at 07:45 PM.
yes becuase we shoot those who assault us
It's debunked quite simply because it's not true. There are plenty of countries that don't have anything like the 2nd amendment. The UK being one. I grew up in the UK, and I see no difference in freedom between the UK and the US as a result of this difference.
The UK wouldnt exist if not for America , America would not exist if not for the Second Admendment . I also think The UK has for now less freedom , When you have no right to defend yourself you are not free , You are a victim . As a New American you should not only know that ,You should clearly understand it too . If the UK is so free why are you here ? You Are free to be Assaulted in The UK http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
The U.K existed before America even came to light. How does your statement make any sense?
TCSW, have you been outside the United States? If so, where?
The one character aspect I am most proud of is being able to recognize that something can be a total load of crap.
When considering the majority (federalist) and minority (anti-federalist) opinions of the framers of the constitution, the second amendment was not written to protect an individual right to own guns, in fact a proposed amendment to do just that was rejected by the majority.
A Well Regulated Militia': The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective
It Really Was About a Well Regulated MilitiaNeither in 1787 nor in 1789 did Madison and the Federalists have any interest in disarming the state militias, just as they had no interest in imposing a national religion on the American people or denying accused criminals the right to a jury trial. Thus, when the Antifederalists demanded explicit protections on these and other points, Madison was willing to comply. He was not, however, interested in changing the power relations created at the Philadelphia Convention, or in undermining the nation's ability to defend itself from enemies and criminals, foreign or domestic.
Thus, the Second Amendment protected the right of the states to maintain and arm their own militias, as long was they were "well regulated" and ultimately under federal control. The Amendment was not a suicide clause allowing revolutionaries to create private militias to overthrow the national government or even to impede the faithful execution of the law. The Amendment prevented Congress from abolishing the organized, well-regulated militias of the states.
The Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to hunt deer, collect antique weapons, go to the firing range, or even own a licensed pistol. Proponents of the private ownership of hunting rifles, fishing rods, skinning knives or pistols need not fear this analysis of the Second Amendment. Such a constitutional protection was not needed then, and it is not needed today.
Oliver Ellsworth, who would later be Chief Justice of the United States, found the whole notion of specific protections of liberties silly. Frustrated by the constant demands for an endless laundry list of amendments, he argued that
There is no declaration of any kind to preserve the liberty of the press, etc. Nor is liberty of conscience, or of matrimony, or of burial of the dead; it is enough that Congress have no power to prohibit either, and can have no temptation. This objection is answered in that the states have all the power originally, and Congress have only what the states grant them.
Could Congress ban hunting rifles? It would be politically impossible and constitutionally absurd, although it would be possible and reasonable to ban hunting, and hunting rifles, in national parks. May Congress regulate the ownership, sale, use, and interstate transportation of firearms? Surely it can within the constitutional limits of general federal police and commerce powers, just as the states or the national government (where it has regulatory or police power) can regulate burial, marriage, or child custody. But, just as regulations of marriage or burial must be reasonable, so too would regulations of firearms.
This article provides an examination of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, arguing that the provision for a “well regulated militia” was not without cause, but that it provides the key to understand the meaning of the amendment. This argument is contrary to Justice Scalia’s argument in District of Columbia v. Heller. In supporting the claim, the article reviews the context of the adoption of the Bill of Rights in order to understand the relationship between the supporters and the detractors.
Last edited by solrey; January 28th, 2013 at 09:28 PM.
Mattnik (January 28th, 2013)
WW2 if not for the US theyde be speaking German if they were allowed to speak at all . Yes Iv been to 2 mexican border towns . I like to keep a small carbon footprint
The idea that you are not free unless you can own a gun seems to be contradictory.
True freedom comes from the heart and soul not from the ability to shoot another person.
Did you even read those two articles I linked TCSW?
Let's compare shall we? I post two scholarly articles published in law journals written by a professor of law and public policy, who is described as:
http://www.paulfinkelman.com/A specialist in American legal history, constitutional law, and race and the law, Professor Paul Finkelman is the author of more than 150 scholarly articles and more than 30 books. His op-eds and shorter pieces have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and on the Huffington Post. He was recently named the ninth most cited legal historian according to "Brian Leieter's Law School Rankings."
TCSW responds with a Penn and Teller video? Seriously?
Not that I'm making an appeal to authority... but, come on.
And if you think the US saved the UK in WWII TCSW, you obviously know very little about the history of that war.
Too bad, there's a big beautiful world out there full of interesting people and places and fun things to do.Cant think of a country Id want to visit honestly .
Last edited by solrey; January 29th, 2013 at 08:36 AM.
Id agree if we lived in a perfect world . We do not utopia does not exist . Id be more then willing to give up my Right To Bear Arms if we lived in a Utopian society however that is a fantasy .
Leftist professors I do not listen too . Britain would be history if not for America its military and supply lines . Explain how Britain would have survived
So, instead you are a slave to the idea that you need a gun to be "free".
Thats sad.
The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are Bullshit)
#5.
America Won the War Single-Handedly
Claimed By:
Hollywood, WWII-shooters, Cold War politics and chauvinists.
Sixty years of World War II movies, and a decade of WWII video games, have made one thing clear: If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German right now, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Why it's Bullshit:
How America fights a two-front war.
Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman.
There are two radically different histories of WW II, the one that was actually fought, and the one where the US kicked everyone's assess. Guess which one Cold War-era classrooms were allowed to teach? Here's a hint: It's the same one Hollywood chose to film.
Cool party!
World War II wasn't just a clever name. It was a global conflict that included epic acts of heroism by non-Americans like the storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically badass Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. Of course, Americans never hear about any of those unless, as in the case of the classic submarine film U 571, the characters are just straight up switched to Americans. To quote George S. Patton: "Americans love a winner," which you know because you saw Patton, the film that portrayed Field Marshal Bernard "Rommel-killer" Montgomery like a buffoon simply because he was British.
However, there is one Zangief-sized elephant in the room that America loved to leave out of conversation until the end of the Cold War: the Soviet Union. The "Great Patriotic War" as they called it was the single largest military operation in history, and home to perhaps the biggest turning-point of the war: the Battle of Stalingrad.
Cheerio, guv'na!
Understand, the Russia versus Germany part of the war wasn't just a little more important than the part the USA was involved in. It was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 freaking times the number of U.S. casualties.
Sounds pretty brutal for a John Wayne movie? Try figuring in another 13.7 million dead civilians.
Suck it up, Damon.
It's tragic how many kids in the West never heard these stories growing up. One platoon leader in the Red Army named Yakov Pavlov personally rigged a Stalingrad apartment building with enough landmines, rifles and mortars to hold off half the Nazi army. The building was under fire day and night and even had some civilians in the basement, but the fortress never fell. Pavlov himself picked off one dozen tanks from the beast.
Our history books should not have been denied such awesomeness.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
Jazzy (January 29th, 2013),Mattnik (January 29th, 2013),Pete Tar (January 29th, 2013),solrey (January 29th, 2013),Trigger Hippie (January 29th, 2013)
I believe that the Second Amendment frankly, is dated.
Why: Because, quite frankly, the act was made in 1791. After doing a quick calculation, here is the results that we get:
2013-1791=222.
So the act was made 222 years ago, and nobody has ever stopped and thought how much the world has changed since then? The fact that a citizen is able to carry a couple of assault rifles at his house is incredibly unnecessary. What are you going to do with those guns? Shoot some birds? Come on now.
Just because you have no guns doesn't mean that you are completely defenseless. Last time I checked, we had knives in our houses. And Obama isn't abolishing the 2nd Amendment it's having cleared background checks on people to see if they are safe and allowed to have these guns, and he wants to ban assault rifles. In other words, he's updating it for the 21st century.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
How open minded of you.Leftist professors I do not listen too .
They won the Battle of Britain for one, Montgomery had driven the Germans back into Tunisia in North Africa, Germany was at war with Russia spreading German forces across three distant battlefronts. By the time the US got involved the German air force and navy were seriously compromised and they had more than lost the upper hand.Britain would be history if not for America its military and supply lines . Explain how Britain would have survived
Maybe - although the Japs were not intending to ever invade here and if it wasn't for US sanctions on Japan the question would never have arrisen in the first place..
And of course the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with that fact - it was the Navy and Marines and Airforce - regular military - who did all the fighting. Along with Australians and New Zealanders, Indians, dutch, Philipino's, Indonesians, Chinese, Burmese, Papua Nieu-Guineans, Brits and various others too.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Because the Soviet Union sacrificed a massive amount of blood to win the war against Germany.
Hitler failed to invade the UK at a time when the US help to the war effort was quite small. Having thus failed he turned to the USSR - and THAT was where he lost the war - without active US involvement the War might have lasted a lot longer - at least a year - maybe 2 - but make no mistake - without the USSR the "Iron Curtain" would have been along France's Atlantic coastline.
The Western allies made a significant contribution to the USSR's war effort - mostly in aluminium, food, trucks and boots - but it was the Soviets turned all of that into dead Germans, with (IIRC) at least 2/3rds of the Axis armed strength facing them at all times after June 1941.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
America existed before the 2nd amendment, and it has never been actually required to be used to defend it.
The guns the "minute men" owned in 1776 were theirs by right because of the UK's 1689 Bill of Rights - as long as they were Protestants. so if you ascribe the existence of the USA to the private ownership of guns as a right then it is more correct to say that the USA would not exist but for the British having that right "as allowed by law"
Last edited by MikeC; January 29th, 2013 at 11:07 AM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
now that we have gone over some unrelated historical issues, how about anyone actually answering the original question??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
To be fair on the Australia invading New Zealand question, there was some work done on it a couple of years ago. All very tongue in cheek...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv8bkYKbMo0
It is a capital Mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sherlock Holmes
The Federalist Papers are a long read but they provide some good insights into the rationale that went into the Bill of Rights, as they advocate in favor of the constitution and address concerns from the minority anti-federalists. James Madison, one of the authors of several articles that comprise the Federalist Papers, also wrote the Bill of Rights and hence the second amendment. There is much discussion about the need for a well trained standing army in peace time and well trained militias in order to provide security for the people against invasion, insurrection and rebellion. The debate over a check and balance against a federal standing army focuses on well regulated state militias that appoint their own officers. They viewed the untrained, undisciplined citizen as being incapable of providing aforementioned security even going so far as to proclaim that part-time militias would be ineffective and inefficient. There is no mention nor support for an individual right to own guns or "bear arms" as being necessary to maintain liberty, quite the contrary in fact.now that we have gone over some unrelated historical issues, how about anyone actually answering the original question??
http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...apers/fedi.htm
Federalist No. 29 concerns the militia.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed29.htmThe project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Another important aspect is that language in a proposed amendment to establish the right of the individual to own a firearm, as well as to hunt and fish, written by anti-federalists in Pennsylvania was overwhelmingly rejected for inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Sometimes what's left out is even more revealing than what's put in.
Last edited by solrey; January 29th, 2013 at 03:24 PM.
No not the need , just the right to defend oneself . That doesnt mean I have to own a gun . Dont know where you live but where I live and being a business owner who works alone after dark . The need to keep a firearm within reach to defend myself and property is pretty important . Sad ? yes it is but its the real world we live in get use to it .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks