Go Back   Cyber Tech Help Support Forums > General > Open Discussion

Notices

Open Discussion A place to chat with other members about non-technical related topics

Reply
 
Topic Tools
  #1  
Old July 3rd, 2022, 03:11 PM
Ned Seagoon's Avatar
Ned Seagoon Ned Seagoon is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 3,468
Who should we fear?

1) Vladimir Putin and Russia, for the attacks on Ukraine and his threats to use atomic weapons on any countries who come to assist them against his aggression.

2) Xi Jinping and China, for the treatment of minority groups and the increasing militarisation of the Pacific.

3) The US Supreme Court and their interpretation of the US constitution (written 235 years ago) by applying it to the current world view and taking it back many years.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 3rd, 2022, 03:58 PM
Miz's Avatar
Miz Miz is offline
Cyber Tech Help Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Kansas
Age: 76
Posts: 12,112
We should fear the power hungry; the ruthless people who will do anything, damage anyone to achieve their goals.
The worst of these are the ideologues; the ones who blindly believe their religion, whether it be spiritual, secular, political, financial or anything else they have turned into something they worship. Putin and Xi fit into the ideologue category, craving the power they need to bring their ideological dreams into reality.
We in the US have our share of the ideologues and more than our share in elected office at the highest levels.
I, as a citizen of the US, don't fear the Supreme Court's recent rulings which I believe are constitutionally sound. I am concerned but not yet afraid of the grassroots level ideologues, the "useful idiots" rioting, protesting and threatening because they don't agree with those decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 8th, 2022, 12:32 AM
The Dude The Dude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,091
I say #3 Neddie!!

No question....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 14th, 2022, 06:05 PM
SpywareDr SpywareDr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
O/S: Windows 10 Pro
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 672
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 14th, 2022, 08:28 PM
Jaytee's Avatar
Jaytee Jaytee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
O/S: Linux
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
Posts: 3,467
Precisely.. Well said Spyware..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 17th, 2022, 07:10 PM
SpywareDr SpywareDr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
O/S: Windows 10 Pro
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 672
Thanks! ��
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 18th, 2022, 05:37 PM
Miz's Avatar
Miz Miz is offline
Cyber Tech Help Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Kansas
Age: 76
Posts: 12,112
Here's my reasoning for supporting the right to bear arms.
First, it seems to me that if the right to bear arms is a problem for the majority of Americans, a serious campaign would already be mounted to pass an amendment to the Constitution banning all private gun ownership. That there is no such serious campaign indicates the majority support private gun ownership. The US still operates under the theory that the majority rules.
Second, if the right to bear arms were rescinded, it would leave 4.5 million guns in the hands of the military, 1 million in the hands of state and local police and an unknown number owned by various federal and state agencies. I do know that USPS Postal Inspectors, EPA, ATF, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, Customs, FBI, CIA and NSA field agents are all armed. I estimate at least another million owned by federal bureaucracies, none of which are famous for their deep caring about the rights of the average American.
Third, the argument that the Constitution only applies to weapons available when the document was written assumes that the men who wrote it were far too stupid and too ignorant of history to understand that there would be advances in weaponry in the years to come.
I do not believe they were too stupid or ignorant to understand that a "well armed militia" has to have the same firearms as the military to stand a chance against an oppressive government takeover and their writings show that standing a chance against an oppressive government was their reason for including that right.
Finally, I am a 76-year-old woman living alone out in the country in a state that does not require firearms be registered or a permit for open or cocealed carry. I am well armed and experienced in the use of guns. In my 1,000 square mile county there are exactly 4 cops; 1 Sheriff and 3 deputies. The two times I've had to call for help because of a prowler, it took 15 minutes and 20 minutes respectively for a deputy to get to my house. Both times when they got there they agreed that firing a warning shot works wonders. The Sheriff himself showed up once to warn me of "a suspicious bearded man" roaming in my pasture and told me "keep your gun close to you." I'm glad I'm able to own some self protection.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old July 18th, 2022, 10:44 PM
SpywareDr SpywareDr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
O/S: Windows 10 Pro
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miz View Post
I'm glad I'm able to own some self protection.
Ditto! Wouldn't dare be without it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old July 19th, 2022, 05:26 AM
Ned Seagoon's Avatar
Ned Seagoon Ned Seagoon is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 3,468
Not wishing to enter the constitutional side of argument but if the, Right to Bear Arms is justified by self protection, then this argument is flawed. If people can own a gun to protect themselves, how come all those who have been killed were not able to protect themselves?

Perhaps the justification of "self protection" should include: 1) the need to carry the weapon with you at all times, 2) have it loaded, 3)cocked, and 4) with the safety catch off. This is obviously ridiculous, so therefor the whole justification seems ridiculous.

In the Wild West days, obviously people in remote areas without a law officer, did need arms for protection, but now, surely our protection is catered for by a police force internally and the military externally. It is in this country, Australia, why is it different in the USA?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old July 19th, 2022, 12:59 PM
Miz's Avatar
Miz Miz is offline
Cyber Tech Help Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Kansas
Age: 76
Posts: 12,112
The right to bear arms is not the requirement to bear arms. People can always choose to exercise one or more of their rights or not.
Arguing that people are required to carry a gun just because they can carry a gun is, to use your word, ridiculous.
As to why it's different in the US than it is in Australia, probably because the people in the two countries do not share the same history, attitudes, environment and cultures. I don't know enough about the Australian psyche to make a more detailed analysis of the differences.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old July 19th, 2022, 02:51 PM
Ned Seagoon's Avatar
Ned Seagoon Ned Seagoon is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 3,468
My sole concern is for the innocents who are slaughtered regularly in a country which should be the best in the world. There must be a way that the citizens of the US can come together, put the past behind them, take a new world view that addresses the present situation and make changes which address this ongoing slaughter of innocent people.

Some years ago there was an amendment to the US constitution to ban alcohol, some years later there was a subsequent amendment to repeal the former amendment. In light of the regular slaughter of so many, is there not the will of the people and the government, to repeal the US second amendment, in the same way?

Here in Australia, where we are not constrained by anything resembling the second amendment, when similar tragic events occurred, resulting in the death of many at the hands of a single gunman, the then Prime Minister brought together the heads of all the state governments and passed a set of laws to restrict gun ownership. Gun owners were given a period of time to surrender their weapons, for which they were paid a generous sum, by way of compensation, and since then there has been very little mass murder by gunmen.

As a consequence here in Australia, we all feel much safer, and can live our lives free from fear of attack by a deranged gun toting person. Those who need a gun for work or sport can obtain one, subject to some very strict controls. Most people who I know don't own a weapon and don't miss not having one.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old July 19th, 2022, 04:03 PM
SpywareDr SpywareDr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
O/S: Windows 10 Pro
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 672
Follow the traditions or customs of a place being visited. (When in Rome do as he Romans do).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old July 19th, 2022, 05:32 PM
Ned Seagoon's Avatar
Ned Seagoon Ned Seagoon is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 3,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpywareDr View Post
Follow the traditions or customs of a place being visited. (When in Rome do as he Romans do).

Trite
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old July 19th, 2022, 05:43 PM
Miz's Avatar
Miz Miz is offline
Cyber Tech Help Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Kansas
Age: 76
Posts: 12,112
Apparently there is no will of the majority of Americans to rescind the 2nd amendment; at least I cannot find any serious discussion of starting the amending process.
Our lawmakers cannot just get together to amend the constitution. It takes 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress to propose the amendment, then 2/4 majority of the 50 states to ratify and within each state, 2/3 majority of both of their Houses in their legislatures. Most, if not all of the states will put the question on a general election ballot before their legislatures vote on it.
It's a time-consuming process that does not leave the people out of the loop. We just don't trust our government as much as you trust yours.
The sheer size of the population - 340 million Americans vs 25 million Australians - makes reaching a consensus slow. That lack of speed is as the authors of the constitution planned.
The writers of the constitution also believed that a healthy suspicion or at least skepticism toward government should be not only encouraged but built into our system. They succeeded.
*Note: My BA is in American History. I learned this stuff at great expense although I admit I had fun doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old July 20th, 2022, 11:39 AM
Ned Seagoon's Avatar
Ned Seagoon Ned Seagoon is offline
CTH Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
O/S: Windows 10 Home
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 3,468
It's interesting the reaction that has occurred to my original post. I listed 3 items when I first posted and posed my question, "Who should we fear".

The reaction has all been to the third item, "The US Supreme Court and their interpretation of the US constitution" and that reaction has all been directed to the Gun Control aspect of the Supreme Courts interpretation of the US constitution.

I certainly am aware, as an outsider, on that ruling, however there have recently been two other decisions. One of these being about the availability of abortions, and the other about the the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit harmful emissions. While I left my post vague, specifically to capture all three of these decisions, it is the last of these (the EPA decision) which I believe is the one which the world has most to fear. see report

While Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping may throw us into a nuclear WWIII, from which many will die, climate change, brought on by the uncontrolled release of CO2 may well result in a world that becomes uninhabitable for all.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Topic 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

Forum Jump

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FEAR Cant run to my expectations r34l1ty Gaming 6 August 7th, 2007 02:11 AM
Graphic card on FEAR rivalbro Gaming 4 April 16th, 2007 11:12 PM
What do I need to be able to play FEAR, HL2, etc? papuccino1 Hardware 7 January 7th, 2006 04:05 PM
Fear of Alligators hypnotizeminds Jokes Forum 1 January 10th, 2005 06:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 AM.