tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post7357527312738839165..comments2024-03-26T03:31:06.199-04:00Comments on Ask a Korean!: Korea's Gunless Fight Against TyrannyT.K. (Ask a Korean!)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-20498540489339289922017-01-09T22:19:18.046-05:002017-01-09T22:19:18.046-05:00Doubt it. Why in God's name would armed South...Doubt it. Why in God's name would armed South Korean civilians be the equivalent of a trained North Korean soldier? Kulindarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16767838709808049335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-53060420536272861652017-01-04T19:39:38.345-05:002017-01-04T19:39:38.345-05:00One other thing, but you said that the Korean cons...One other thing, but you said that the Korean constitution was copied a lot from the American constitution, written by American lawyers, but then you state it doesn't have anything about a right to keep and bear arms, as if that means anything. All that could mean is that the lawyers who wrote it were very biased against the concept of a right to keep and bear arms and/or themselves believed in the states right concept, and thus just decided to not include that aspect of the U.S. constitution in the new Korean constitution seeing it as not being applicable. It wasn't until the 1960s that the idea that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right really began to surface due to new scholarship and it didn't really kick into high-gear until the 1990s. Steamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-3644468236529994842017-01-04T18:35:32.971-05:002017-01-04T18:35:32.971-05:002) You are correct that non-violent resistance has...2) You are correct that non-violent resistance has a great history of working to defeat tyrannies, and that is what should always be tried before any kind of armed resistance. It undermines government propaganda that the resistors are terrorists (as such governments often like to claim) and it attracts people who are sitting on the fence about whether to support the resistance or support the tyranny. <br /><br />Also, violent resistance can easily spiral out of control and just lead to one dictatorship being replaced with another. This is written about right in the Declaration of Independence and has been understood since ancient times (in particular from Rome, when the Roman Republic fell and people saw first-hand the tyranny that breaks out when a representative system of government breaks down). So armed resistance is only for a very, very last resort against a tyranny. Peaceful resistance should always be tried. One reason the Soviet government was unable to send in the Red Army to suppress the Solidarity Movement as they wanted to was that Solidarity was a peaceful movement, so the public relations of it would have been horrible for the Soviets. Had Solidarity been violent, they could have used the Red Army under the guise that they just had to stop the senseless violence. <br /><br />A people in possession of arms is the ultimate check on a tyranny because any would-be tyrant knows that if he tries to oppress the people, it will be incredibly difficult as the whole nation is armed and thus it can stop any attempt at oppression from even starting. An un-armed people, the tyrant might try to oppress. <br /><br />As for why South Koreans are against gun ownership, I would say for the same reason that most in the world are against it:<br /><br />1) They have no understanding of the subject of guns in a society (they assume, wrongly, that civilian gun ownership = lots of violence)<br /><br />2) They do not have much understanding of guns themselves. Koreans undergoing service in their military can give them a basic understanding of guns in terms of their usage, but it isn't going to teach them many of the other aspects about firearms that a civilian gun rights proponent will often understand. We see this in the United States, where an infantry soldier will have a good understanding about the weapons he is issued and how to use them, but otherwise can be completely clueless about the subject of guns overall. <br /><br />3) No understanding of the concept of a right to arms. If people have no understanding of a right, then they are not going to defend it. Koreans are raised in an environment where they are made to understand that guns are only for the government and police to have and not civilians. They do not undergo any exposure to arguments that challenge this notion, that would say it is absurd to say that only the government and law enforcement should have guns. <br /><br />Interestingly, in the United States, many of our combat arms soldiers are among the staunch proponents of civilian arms ownership and possession.Steamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-55862417200310548192017-01-04T18:35:04.978-05:002017-01-04T18:35:04.978-05:00Regarding homicide, keeping a gun in the home does...Regarding homicide, keeping a gun in the home does not increase risk of homicide. 80% of the gun homicide in the United States is from inner-city gang violence and committed by blacks, and that is due to a complex cultural and economic situation with that group going all the way back to slavery. Remove that from the picture and ordinary gun-owning middle-America is extraordinarily peaceful, a model to the rest of the world in terms of showing that mass gun ownership does not lead to violence at all.<br /><br />Regarding the use of arms to resist a tyranny, well a few things:<br /><br />1) You mention a city that resisted a tyrant. And the city was over-run. And yes, that will happen. If it's just a small group of people armed against a professional military force of a tyranny, they will likely lose. If a tyranny took over control of the United States and it was just a few cities here and there trying to fight back, they'd lose. <br /><br />What checks the tyranny is the point you make later on, which is when the entire country rises up against the dictatorship, it runs into major trouble. That is where the people's possessing arms comes into play. Generally-speaking, the people can never match the government in terms of weapons and training. Where they check the government is in their sheer numbers. When the entire population stands against the government, and especially if said population is armed with small arms, the tyranny becomes powerless to fight back, because no amount of military might will stop such a resistance. There are only so many places you can send tanks and infantry, only so many places you can bomb, and so forth. If you're just focusing on one city, then sure, it's easy to oppress it, but the whole of the people themselves is a different matter entirely. And that is where the people's possessing arms comes into play. So your argument that the people possessing arms to resist a tyranny doesn't work because one city fought back and lost doesn't really work. <br /><br />cont'dSteamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-5142703520827768972017-01-04T18:34:42.870-05:002017-01-04T18:34:42.870-05:00One thing people forget as well, or are not even a...One thing people forget as well, or are not even aware of, is that unless otherwise stated in the Constitution, the federal government has very little to no power to limit any of the individual rights, whether the individual right to keep and bear arms or right to free speech or right to privacy or whatnot, regardless of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was just put in there to satisfy the anti-Federalists who wouldn't support ratification without one. But the Federalists themselves were completely against any bill of rights, seeing it as dangerous, because it says the government cannot do things for which it is granted no power to do in the first place, and thus could actually lead to the impression among politicians that the government DOES have the authority to infringe on those rights. We see this today where many think if a right isn't explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights, that the government has the authority to infringe upon it. Some even think the Bill of Rights "grants" we the people our rights. So even if one could claim that the Second Amendment in fact does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, that does not mean that there is no individual right to arms and that the government, without an amendment banning them from such, has any right to infringe upon it. <br /><br />We know for a fact that the right to keep and bear arms was understood as an individual right because the primarily political philosophers who influenced the Founders all stated it. Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, John Locke, all spoke of the importance of arms and the right to self-defense. The modern concept of how a nation-state is to engage in warfare in a civilized fashion is itself grounded in the classical concept of the individual right to self-defense, and this right is spoken of at length in the original texts that established modern international relations in that sense. So the Founders would well have understood the right. <br /><br />cont'dSteamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-51231291580597304002017-01-04T18:34:20.918-05:002017-01-04T18:34:20.918-05:00Furthermore, there is no such thing as an assault ...Furthermore, there is no such thing as an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine. Both of those are completely arbitrary, made-up terms created by gun control proponents. They arbitrarily define what constitutes an "assault weapon." Generally it just goes by the ergonomic features of the weapon (how said ergonomic features make the weapon more deadly is never explained; some, such as a bayonet lug, are particularly absurd as no criminal has ever fixed a bayonet and charged). As such, anything can be labeled as an "assault weapon." The same is true of "high-capacity magazine." The idea that anything over ten rounds is "high-capacity" was made up by the gun control proponents. In reality, what they have done is to redefine standard capacity magazines as being "high-capacity" and defined what are limited or reduced-capacity magazines as being the "normal" sized magazines. The arbitrariness of this was on particular display here in New York state when the state government passed a law right after Newtown that redefined high-capacity magazine as anything over seven rounds (because they already limit one to ten round capacity). Then when it was pointed out to them that there aren't really any seven round magazines, they modified the law to say that one could buy ten round magazines but only load them at home with seven rounds. Yes I am sure that would stop criminals. So technically, so-called "assault weapons bans" and "high-capacity magazine" bans would be among the most blatantly un-Constitutional pieces of legislation there are. <br /><br />Also keep in mind that the Second Amendment, if one goes by the collective right interpretation, refers to formal state militias, which would mean that then the pro-gun states could just form a "militia" which anyone could join, and then be able to own any and all guns they please and the federal government wouldn't be able to do a thing about it because the reasoning of that idea is that the Second Amendment was to protect the right of states to maintain militias to check a potential federal tyranny, so said federal government cannot then dictate to the states how they arm their militias. <br /><br />cont'dSteamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-72928996111780999052017-01-04T18:33:56.893-05:002017-01-04T18:33:56.893-05:00You mention "self-appointed legal scholars,&q...You mention "self-appointed legal scholars," but are you aware of the legal scholarship on this issue? There is a whole lot of it and the individual rights proponents and the states-rights/collective-rights proponents fought it out big-time in the 1990s, with the states/collective-rights proponents ultimately losing. <br /><br />Nor does the Heller decision allow for the banning of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, or taxes and licensing. Laws on the right to keep and bear arms are only to be extremely limited in the same way that they are regarding any of the other rights. For example, obviously someone convicted of murder does not have such a right anymore. But otherwise, there would be no point in even having a protection of the right. One might as well say that the government can ban political speech within the First Amendment. Or require one to have to get a license to engage in free speech or to vote and pay a special tax (poll taxes which we created a specific amendment to outlaw). <br /><br />cont'dSteamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-81267445156094656962017-01-04T18:31:43.622-05:002017-01-04T18:31:43.622-05:00I think you have some major misconceptions about t...I think you have some major misconceptions about the right to keep and bear arms, guns, and the concept of armed resistance. I will try to explain my position on the subject:<br /><br />Regarding Heller, it was far from any laughable decision, nor was it the first Supreme Court case to find that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It was the first SCOTUS case to explicitly rule as such, but prior cases cited the Second where it is very clear that it was understood as protecting an individual right. <br /><br />This is further reinforced by the fact that the right to keep and bear arms was well-understood as an individual right at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and it wouldn't have made much sense to include a collective right interpretation into what was a list of protections of individual rights. The Second Amendment uses the same language to refer to individual rights as the other amendments. <br /><br />The Heller decision never overturned any "hundreds of years of legal precedent" on the Second Amendment. There was no such thing. There were some state and local level gun control laws, but there were also state and local violations of the other rights in the Bill of Rights as well, as that was before incorporation of the Bill of Rights where they came to apply to the states and local governments. We also know from the primary legal scholars of the Constitution at the time of ratification that the Second was understood as protecting an individual right. The collective right interpretation of the Second arose in the early 20th century with the Progressives and was basically based off of a complete ignorance of the history of the right and a willful ignorance of the history of the amendment. The causes of this were much of the history just having been forgotten and a misreading and misunderstanding of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment. <br /><br />The collective right interpretation proponents claim it referred to organized state militias. The problem with this is twofold: for one, there were no organized state militias at the time. Two, "the militia" was well-understood as referring to the general body of citizens capable of bearing arms. It had nothing to do with anything created by a government. That is why if you read the writings from the time, you will find distinctions between "the militia" and "select militia." Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29 explicitly calls for the creation of "select corps of militia" to supplement "the militia at large" and his reasoning for this is that there would be no way to discipline and train the militia to have the skill level of a professional army, because it would require every single person to in addition to their normal daily life and job, to have to train like a soldier. Others however were highly distrustful of select militias, viewing them as being a way for a dictator to keep the equivalent of a standing army on the cheap. When understood in this sense, the states rights interpretation of the Second Amendment falls apart. <br /><br />cont'dSteamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168408910815449710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-37690641716321803342016-08-12T08:03:39.215-04:002016-08-12T08:03:39.215-04:00Honestly this whole argument is faulty, and your o...Honestly this whole argument is faulty, and your own argument can be used against you. Just because in 1987 Korea transitioned into a democracy through a peaceful protest, and Gwanju failed is not a legitimate reason for gun control. Gwangju didn't fail because it was an armed revolt. It failed mostly because 1 Gwanju was literally 166 miles from Chun Doo Hwan's power base in Seoul. 2 Chun cut all communication from within the city, and basically laid siege to it. 3 Chun covered it up as a North Korean backed communist insurrection, so other cities wouldn't follow in its example. Honestly when you launch a peaceful protest to topple a regime, you are relying on international pressure to force it to capitulate. That isn't reliable, I'm not saying that armed revolt has a 100% success rate. I'm saying that it has a higher chance of succeeding statistically, and that people aren't completely relying on international support. For every Peaceful protest that has led to a regime change there are probably 20 that have failed. Peaceful protest has failed Korea more than it has succeeded it. Do you remember what Korea's Independence Day is commemorating? The failed March 1st movement where Koreans tried unsuccessfully to declare independence from Japan and make Korea into a European style Democracy like the ones envisioned by Woodrow Wilson for war torn Europe. 2,000,000 Koreans a large percentage of the population of the peninsula at the time held peaceful demonstrations. And do you know what happened? The Japanese brutally suppressed it, rounded up all the ringleaders and tortured them to death, and the Western world who inspired the movement voiced their support for continued Japanese colonialism. There are even several other peaceful movements like the Donghak Rebillion which started out peacefully that were violently suppressed in Korea's long history. They're are more examples of armed revolutions that toppled numerically, technologically, and logistically superior regimes than there are peaceful protests that do. Like the Red Turban rebellion where bands of untrained Chinese peasants overthrew the logistically and technologically superior Mongol Yuan Dynasty and started the Ming Dynasty. Or the Bolshevik Revolution where discontent Revolutionaries overthrew the Czardom and the Imperial Army with legally purchased weapons. You can't reliably make this argument for gun control.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14749840157947768768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-39646163161052528722016-01-18T07:54:48.648-05:002016-01-18T07:54:48.648-05:00"Korea's Gunless Fight Against Tyranny&qu..."Korea's Gunless Fight Against Tyranny"... a pretty broad title for a country with a border as armed as yours. Maybe if South Korean civilians had guns, U.S. soldiers could finally leave? Let's look into that before we start trying to change America.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02893381569993308871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-78985102462054162482015-09-06T20:56:31.981-04:002015-09-06T20:56:31.981-04:00I just found another article that also shares TK&#...I just found another article that also shares TK's view that guns are useless for overthrowing a dictator.<br /><br />http://geopoliticsmadesuper.com/2015/09/02/the-geopolitical-argument-against-gun-ownership/dialhoanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17434708048667098536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-69059152587098997992014-04-27T15:39:08.593-04:002014-04-27T15:39:08.593-04:00continued from above ...
It is estimated that fi...continued from above ... <br /><br />It is estimated that firearms are used over a million times per year to prevent crimes. This comes right from the FBI. The data is sketchy because the attempted crimes go unreported. A citizen is confronted, pulls a firearm, deters a crime without a shot fired, then goes on about his or her business. For additional information, please visit the Armed Citizen website and read the thousands of cases posted there, documenting how citizens protected themselves with legally possessed firearms.<br /><br />Chicago and Detroit are bastions of gun control, and in these cities, crime is out of control. It isn’t the law abiding citizen that is the problem. It isn’t the availability of legal firearms. It is the culture of thuggery that embraces criminal activity that is the problem. No amount of gun control is going to stop that.<br /><br />You cite a 59% decline in firearms homicides in Australia after the gun buyback (no sources cited). Other sources (I do not feel compelled to cite the sources) fluctuate between 3.2% decrease and a slight increase. Your numbers are suspect, and just as you did with the Supreme Court, cherry picked. In addition, Australia never had a constitutional right to bear arms. The ability to bear arms was granted at the pleasure of the government. And, not all firearms were removed from the public. Many weapons remain legal to own, and certain groups or geographical locations were allowed to continue to own their firearms. The comparison between our two countries is apples and oranges.<br /><br />Public Policy. You build a nice straw man and provide us your OPINION, but nothing factual to assess. You state the public policy is grating and absurd. Nothing factual there. You assert that Americans have no idea about tyranny, because we have not experienced it. Nonsense. Our country was founded because of tyranny and our framers of the Constitution were determined to prevent future tyranny by arming citizens to prevent what they went through in Europe. Americans deploy all over the world to fight tyranny. Rest assured, Americans recognize tyranny when they see it.<br /><br />Your coup de gras is the assertion that your homeland, Korea, achieved democracy through unarmed demonstrations. While your analysis is feasible, it is an oversimplification of what happened, and who was twisting who’s arm to achieve the end result. Korea does not live in a vacuum. The USA and other nations were applying a great deal of pressure to prevent nationwide bloodshed, including US military intervention should the need arise. As it turned out, it did not become necessary, but the threat of intervention, along with the nationwide demonstrations are ultimately what changed the course. And, while the city of Kwangju may have been armed and trained, they faced a superior force. (I was stationed in Korea from 1981 to 1985 and 1987 to 1989. I remember the riots quite well.)<br /><br />You ask if freedom requires civilian gun ownership. The very existence of the US is a strong argument that the answer is yes. You asked your next question, “Why is it that so many oppressed people around the world, who are keenly aware of their oppression and are doing everything to fight for freedom, are not clamoring for the right to civilian gun ownership?” How do you know they are not? Who are you speaking of specifically? Have you spoken with these people? Is it possible that they don’t “clamor” for guns openly, given that they don’t live in a free society and going against the current regimes often results in sudden death?<br /><br />You are as entitled to your opinions as I am. My opinion is that you should stop trying to make America into Korea, or any other nation on earth. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-75605955917397432272014-04-27T15:34:50.278-04:002014-04-27T15:34:50.278-04:00Guns are inherently efficient at killing. The pri...Guns are inherently efficient at killing. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Everything else is ancillary. So, when someone is intent on killing themselves, they look to the most efficient and simple method. Most people who want to kill themselves don’t want to make themselves suffer in the process and they want an irreversible outcome. Which is why they select guns. <br /><br />From 1980 to 1981, I was stationed at Kadena AB, Japan. In a single year, 998 people burned themselves to death. More jumped off cliffs to their deaths. Japan, like Korea, has strict gun control. It didn’t stop people from ending their lives. They chose an efficient, available method. I would bet if they had access to guns, they would have chosen them. Simply removing guns from the environment will not stop people from killing themselves.<br /><br />Guns are not inherently evil. Guns are not jumping off shelves and murdering people. You don’t see mass murder and mayhem in gun stores, where there are large concentrations of guns. It takes a person to actively function the gun. The gun is not the problem. The person is the problem. How do you regulate a person’s mental state in a free society? Do you restrict a person’s freedom based on what you think they might do in order to protect society? Who decides? You? The Government? What if someone decides that you, as a blogger, are a threat and restricts your freedom based on what you might do at a later date? You would sacrifice a right to bear arms for the illusion of being safer, trusting the Government to protect you rather than being self-reliant. Worse, as the arbiter of right and wrong, you have decided that I should not be allowed to carry a weapon. How very arrogant. <br /><br />As a legal argument, you state, "In doing so, the five conservative justices of the Supreme Court overturned hundreds of years of legal precedents that have held, consistently, that there is no individual right to gun ownership under the Constitution.”<br /><br />Your deconstruction is selective. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . [n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” (emphasis added.) <br /><br />In this one statement, the Supreme Court validated the legal right of a citizen to bear arms and that the right was not dependent on the Constitution. <br /><br />continued below ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-26210722495072289952013-04-04T22:50:07.497-04:002013-04-04T22:50:07.497-04:00Mr. the Korean sir, I really wish I could send you...Mr. the Korean sir, I really wish I could send you internet hugs. You basically wrote every single thing that I also believe, just didn't have the facts to prove. I'm really glad that I found your blog, even if what brought me here was something far less serious (fan death, actually), because reading this made me confident in my gun-related beliefs. Thank you, really.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764992767621515558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-76148119192901548492013-04-04T22:46:46.520-04:002013-04-04T22:46:46.520-04:00Well, isn't this lovely. Someone abusing their...Well, isn't this lovely. Someone abusing their freedom of speech to be rude to a person that he doesn't even know. You definitely make my beloved home country seem like a great place that is SUPER accepting. Oh, by the way, awesome grammar. You should be proud of that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764992767621515558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-87730952742367226442013-03-31T20:13:23.333-04:002013-03-31T20:13:23.333-04:00@Hellenic Mellon...I get wut ur saying bout tha su...@Hellenic Mellon...I get wut ur saying bout tha suicides if there tht depressed there gonna do it...an as far as gun control and mass shootings...if someone really wanted to kill a bunch of people they could do it for ALOT LESS OF THE COST OF GUNS AND AMMO just go get uh bunch of manure and diesel fuel an make a bomb...takes care of everybody if they release wanted to kill a lot of ppl y not go that route???DaDoomBroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01584462756984437988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-33272652406834536052013-03-31T19:38:31.108-04:002013-03-31T19:38:31.108-04:00Yeaup number one killer in history DEMOCIDE FUCKER...Yeaup number one killer in history DEMOCIDE FUCKER LOOK THAT UP!!!DaDoomBroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01584462756984437988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-9310322345608845612013-03-31T19:33:55.073-04:002013-03-31T19:33:55.073-04:00SoOoOo...what law scholl did u attend???...btw...u...SoOoOo...what law scholl did u attend???...btw...u should go back home an study sum more your prob from china neways trying to pit the Koreans against Americans I hope u go to a ball game an chock on a hotdawg ya commie basterdDaDoomBroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01584462756984437988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-91678453542716472672013-03-17T14:31:15.505-04:002013-03-17T14:31:15.505-04:00I really have no idea why gun advocates just have ...I really have no idea why gun advocates just have such a hard time distinguishing banning civilian gun ownership, and not have an armed military. NO ONE is advocating the latter, but gun advocates almost always conflate the two. Why is that? I refuse to believe that stupidity is the answer, because that would be just too bleak.T.K. (Ask a Korean!)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-79153899476460760462013-03-17T13:43:59.520-04:002013-03-17T13:43:59.520-04:00Please, don't simplify. If you have a gun, you...Please, don't simplify. If you have a gun, you don't have to shoot it. If you don't have one- you don't have much choice, now do you? Gunless protesting is all you have left.<br /><br />Single killed Korean was killed by friendly fire. If Koreans were better organized, the count would be zero. Single victim vs how many saved? Why would you advocate 'gunless approach' after this? It just doesn't compute...<br /><br />By the way- South Korea can face a serious threat from North. I don't see how GA can be possibly applied here.<br /><br />All I'm saying is that you can't rely on gunless approach in all situations. North Korea is a good example. Tibet is another good example. There're situations when you have to fight back. Whether it's enemy country or your wife's rapist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-58555405071689770672013-03-10T23:46:14.315-04:002013-03-10T23:46:14.315-04:00Interesting article in the Sunday NY times re: sui...Interesting article in the Sunday NY times re: suicide rates and gun ownership http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/sunday-review/suicide-with-no-warning.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130310Merihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855215670449377489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-76890957148693881532013-03-08T18:23:46.168-05:002013-03-08T18:23:46.168-05:00There is a difference between a crime syndicate ha...There is a difference between a crime syndicate having guns along with civilians having guns vs. only crime syndicate having guns.<br /><br />There is no support to the contrary either. I would argue there is more support for my belief because that is how the US won its independence from the English.Helen Melonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18240642149104991799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-5935969924623308372013-03-08T18:20:07.281-05:002013-03-08T18:20:07.281-05:00(2) I don't know much about Gwangju. But I hi...(2) I don't know much about Gwangju. But I highly doubt people in the US could easily get access to a weapons cache for an insurrection. Do you?<br /><br />(3) The Second Amendment doesn't specify internal vs. external invasion. Security of a free state can refer to both. <br /><br />(4) Look at countries with the highest suicide rates. Korea, Japan, etc. There are no guns there. Possession of guns doesn't lead to higher rates of suicide. There's no reason to believe these people who shot themselves wouldn't have resorted to other definitive methods. For example, men are more likely to use guns while women are more likely to use pills. To argue that men would resort to taking pills in the absence of a gun isn't a strong argument. Maybe they would try jumping off the Golden Gate bridge.<br /><br />(5) "Structure of the Constitution" - where are you getting that? Back in the days when the Second Amendment was written, almost everyone had guns. So it's more plausible that that is what the framers intended. If you make the argument that it doesn't matter what the frames intended, Second Amendment should be abolished because it no longer makes sense, then I think that is a legitimate argument. What part of Stevens' opinion did you find so convincing?Helen Melonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18240642149104991799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-71393700876691685722013-03-08T12:11:10.107-05:002013-03-08T12:11:10.107-05:00Why yes, I actually do.Why yes, I actually do.T.K. (Ask a Korean!)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-83270617734372985352013-03-08T12:08:47.994-05:002013-03-08T12:08:47.994-05:00LOL, do you even know any SEALs?
LOL, do you even know any SEALs?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com