What's new

20 states demand secession from US

Obambam

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 17, 2011
3,646
0
3,828
Country
China
Location
China
:lol: As if mindless shooting is the only thing guns are used for.


The sad part for your criticism is that there are far more instances of gun owners defending themselves against criminals than there are sensationalized public shootings. I am a gun owner/shooter for all of my adult life and have a concealed carry permit and actually discouraged a couple of low lifes from whatever it was they were planning with only a hint of what I carried.

Wrong, the sad part is Americans are oblivious to the fact that they are living in a country with one of the highest gun crimes and gun related deaths. Credits to the excellence of your marksmen.

Heck, probably am a better marksman than any PLA trooper. :lol:

and now you may give yourself a pat on the back :lol:

If they turned 'handful', then they are not peaceful.

Wrong assumption. For instance you don't attack a toddler for being a 'handful'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
12,580
348
12,529
Country
China
Location
Australia
True, but it still does not change the fact that nothing is being done to prevent police brutality. They are only getting more power to abuse civilian rights. For instance the cops can now smash your door down if you do not answer within a minute or if they don't call out "I'll be there!". Whatever you do, do not remain silent or flush the toilet, they can break down the door due to their suspicious belief that you are "'Suspicious'. All this can now be done without warrant. Which contradicts the 4th Amendment.

Supreme Court: Justices give police more leeway in home searches - Los Angeles Times



It is not just about "making amendment" they have to enforce and adhere to the law - preventing similar cases from happening.



It doesn't stop the cops cornering the protesters and falsely claiming that they are blocking the pavements and spraying them does it? I think some of the laws are too losely defined and are often taken advantage of by the cops. Does this not interfere with their freedom of speech and protest?



We will just have to see about that. I'm sure he knows what he is doing, it was one of the things on top of his list to be done after winning the election.



New mechanisms can be agreed upon, meaning it does not apply only on small arms.



Then this man's belief and how he gave the ATT a green light should not be of concern to all these gun and wannabe gun owners:




If you allow that to happen then something is seriously wrong with your country.



There is a reason why America is right up there in gun related crimes compared to places like UK and Australia.
Japan is the perfect example of a functional society without guns backed by low rates of gun crime:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic



It will undoubtedly still exist, but that is not the point here. The point is to significantly reduce the levels of gun related crimes.



It could be more, but you never know. not everyone have access to computers at home. For instance people living in the streets, victims of Hurricane Sandy who are still being denied power, not to mention ones who are simply to lazy to do anything about it. Moreover the White House has to give the public an answer when each petition reaches a certain threshold. In this case it is around the 25k mark. This is happening across 20 plus states. Which is a clear indicator that something is not right and something needs to be done.



Perhaps he will do just that, but it may not go down without a fight. With guns people can fight for their freedom, but not without guns. Perhaps this is the true reason why Obama wants guns out of the streets and be in the hands of the military.



Of course you can't. It is merely an apparatus allowing them to let off some steam. Problem is, the government now have the intention to take away their guns. What exactly can the unarmed do against the military?

It will be another repeat of the South Korean "5.18 Gwangju Democratization Movement".



I don't blame you as there is little coverage of this:

North American Military Agreement Signed by the U.S. and Canada | Global Research





At least he got the number of letters right ;)



It's not about the West forcing them to change religion, it is them toppling their government and implementing the so called "democratic" system. Each country, like you said, should have its own rights to govern in ways they deem fit. Not by arming separatists, calling them freedom fighters and helping them destroy a country.

First of all, forgive me for not breaking your paragraph down as i am really tired so i will just bunch my response together, i will come back and fix the format of my response in a later time.

1.) About the Civil liberty things. You cannot literally assume people who will play nice and follow the amendment to the limit, same way you cannot assume people to follow your law to the limit, otherwise we will not be having cops and no jail nor a legal system. Part of society is to believe people can raticify the wrong they were doing, NOT prevent them from doing in the first place. That's why we don't generally shoot poeple if they commit a serious crime on the spot....

Just beause there are law, does not mean everyone will follow them, same goes to constition, just because there are constitution, doesn't mean everyone will playby it.

2.) when there a "Probably clause" 4th Amendment can be broken, you have to balance the situation when you are going toilet and taking a dump and the police came with when there are someone in your home and holding a gun to your head when the police came. You can choose to look at one side of the problem, or both side. But in the end, if there are suspicious sign (Not answering the police is suspicious) police can break in the door even without a warrant. Simply they don't know if you call the police because you can't take a dump with your constiupation or you called the police because someone holding a gun on your head. I would say, better safe then sorry.

3.) See point one, you cannot assume there are law and everyone will follow. If so, we don't need the police, not criminal justice system.

4.) Well, how you see from your TV 5000 miles away does not represent a truth representation, unless you yourselve have been sitting in a peaceful rally and America's Police suddenly came and Teargas your ***** without any provokation, then we can talk, what you precieve as "Peaceful" and what the duty officer preceive as "Peaceful" usually is of different standard, you have to be there to judge it.

5.) ATT is non binding

Arms Trade Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ATT is part of a larger global effort begun in 2001 with the adoption of a non-legally binding program of action at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2001. This program was formally called the “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” (PoA).[2]

Later put forward in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates led by Óscar Arias, the ATT was first addressed in the UN in December 2006 when the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”.

The arms trade treaty, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. This hypothesis was ultimately disproven through progressive improvements in scholarship in the 2000s. The global size, scope, and impact of the entirely illicit international trade in small arms turned out to be much smaller and less of a concern to countries themselves than first hypothesized, with internal societal factors rising in relative importance.

According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed."[3] The authors go on to elaborate that..."For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders."[4]

Well, since it's non-binding and Republican hold majority of senate(Last time i check) I don't really think the ATT is gonna pass no matter how Obama try.

6.) You do know what small arms means right? Small arms is small caliber weapon, which usually mean any weapoin below .50 cal, it does not make any different to US civilian even if the scope of ATT expand beyond Small arms, as US Citizens in general cannot purchase non-small arms weaponry (When you talk about non-small arm weapon mean artillery and tanks......) Small arms mean all sort of pistol, rifle and rocket launcher......

7.) for soem reaosn i cannot watch the youtube video on your post, my screen frozen on obama on the background of National Urban League, i have been having some internet issue lately with all the rain and storm in Australia. I cannot comment on this point.

8-10.) If you want to discuss gun crime and gun law i am all for it, but this is not the post to do it, all i can say is, i can give you about million example on our coutnry why guns in good and you can probably give me a million example in your country why gun is bad. But in end, you live in your country and i live in mine, so your statistic do not support my country and mines did not support yours.

11.)say all 59 million who vote for Romney sign the petition, still consider less than 1/6 of American population, i pretty much doubt there will be more than 10 millions, again, you don't live in America, you don't really know how casual these petition mean to normal American. Again, not all those people who sign the petition are "American" , some are people living in America for a visa and you can virtually sign those petition if you are living outside US, you don't need your social security number to sign thsoe petition. I will not be surprise if there are more than total number of US Citzien sign those petition, as everybody can sign it, even Chinese living in China.

12.) What fight? You either let those poeple secede or you ask them to leave, there are no fight involved. You can try and see if people are gonna duel it out with the government, i would say there are not enough concern to whatever the FBI, DHS facing everyday, there will not be increase threat if there are a lot of people sign those petition, as i said you are sane enough to sign petition, you are not crazy enough to fight.

13.) As i said, there are NO plan to take away the American Guns, even if we talk about ATT did get through the US Senate (WHich is about 10% possibility) ATT do not retrospectively apply to people who already own gun (You do not hand in/Surrender guns even if ATT gone through), and they are not limiting the legal ownership of gun owner, rather the illicit trading of guns, so they are more targetting the Gun Dealer than average joe who buy guns.

Hence i said, you don't really know American Gun culture and Gun law.

14.) The word domestic emergency have a lot of meaning, not only civil war. Domestic emergency can mean anything from Earthquake to Super Storm or terrorist attack like September the 11. If the stem of civil war was there long before these petition, and the pact was to specifically designed to deal with a Civil War situation, then would the Pact should be signed long before 2008? Plus what canadian can do in the event of America Civil War i wonder, have you look at Canadian National Defence power? It's even smaller than a state of Texas :)

The pact will make more sense if Canadian is in domestic trouble and we send troop to helf them. Not the otherway around.

15. They did got the right number, yes.

16.) No, America war is about money, actually every war this earth fought is about money (execpt maybe for WW2, even WW1 is about money) the fact is, look at all the war american fought in the last 100 years. Did we change the German in WW1? No, Did we change the Spanish and Mexican system? No, did we change the South Korean? No (They were align to the US before the war not after). Did we change the Vietnamese? No, Did we change the Panama government? No, Do we change the Kuwait Government? No, Do we change the Iraqi Government? No, Do we change the Afghanistan? No.

Can you name one government we impose on our "Political System" to them?

I don't understand this, most people accuse American Start war to get money, in the mean time they accuse of us of changing the government, you can only do one, you cannot do both. Except if we invade your country and we stay and annexed them as part of America. Otheriwse we are not into your political system, we are only into your money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hammer-fist

FULL MEMBER
Oct 8, 2012
1,221
0
1,821
Am going to put this as politely as possible but the highlighted is a dumbas$ argument.

- What is a 'nation'?

It is a group of people that shares a common bond. That bond can contain one thing or many things, such as language, history, distinctive culture from the dominant culture, religion, and/or even physical characteristics.

- What is a 'state'?

It is a group of people that exercises some form of political control over the nation.

- What is a 'country'?

It is a geographical locale such as Europe is a country. So is Asia. The word 'country' can be used to include politically recognized borders for which a nation with a state exercises absolute controls over. So Europe is a country that contains many countries. Same for Asia or Africa. The word 'state' can also be used in place of 'country' to mean the same.

A 'nation' can be 'stateless'. The Roma or Gypsies is a stateless (no government) nation. So was global Jewry prior to the establishment of Israel, which is a political entity created in 1949. Viet Nam was a country that once contained two 'states': North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam. Today's Korea contains two 'states': North Korea and South Korea.

The Tibetans may have Chinese blood in them, but there is no doubt they are a distinctive nation from the Chinese nation. Same for the Mongols. The French, Germans, and Italians may have a common genetic and cultural ancestry some time back, but there is no doubt each is a nation in its own right with undeniably distinctive cultures, language, and history, if not genetics.

So when the US, or anyone for that matter, advises 'self determination' for a nation, it is within the contexts of people and statehood as outlined above.

What make the US unique is that the US is country of immigrants, even from its founding. So we can toss out genetics, which is usually the dominant factor in classifying a people from an anthropological perspective. We can strain contexts and call American English as one cultural adhesive for an American nation (people) but no scientists take that seriously. We can try to use cultural distinctiveness because even though there are uniqueness between Texas and New York but people in each culture can easily transplant themselves and be comfortable in their new environments and that both the cowboy and the cityslicker can claim to be proud Americans.

The point is much more complex but for this stupid thread, the point can be distilled down to this: For the US, it is not possible for a group to proclaim 'self determination', unless we want to include the outlier Amish people for this. So in order for a group inside the US and under federal government jurisdiction to demand some sort of self determination, they must be bonded in some other ways and for now, that bond is thru state governments.

Way too pedantic and over-complicating a simple issue.

If a people of a certain area feel that they no longer want to be ruled by a certain authority (as the 13 states of the original USA did) then they have the right to at the very least request separation, if not get it.

Even the US constitution makes it clear that governments are clearly a means to an end which is the welfare of the people and if government fails in that then the people have the right to remove it and form another government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So if the federal government in Washington (as the imperial government in London in 1776) is seen as being unfit to rule then it is the "right of the People to alter or abolish it" so states could morally (though legally under US law they require federal approval, but hey legally the 13 US states "illegally" waged war against their government and King, the British government) ask for separation from Washington.

Right-wing American's inability to take criticism and abusing people by calling them "dumbass" etc, is just another proof of how dangerous the American right (which has a wide spectrum of sub-groups such as the neo-cons who illegally invaded Iraq, Timothy McVeigh style thugs who bombed Oklahama, KKK style racists etc) can be.
 

Hammer-fist

FULL MEMBER
Oct 8, 2012
1,221
0
1,821
People in Europe and Canada always say the US has one of the worst democracies in the developed world. There are many reasons. This whole protest just gave the world another reason why the US should not be a role model for developing nations. In a country like Canada it's extremely easy for a province to break from Canada. All you need is a referendum and if the majority vote for freedom then that's it. In fact there have been 2 such referendums in the province of Quebec in previous decades. Can something like this happen in "murica" the land of the free?

lol what a joke.

Well said.

Notice how emotional and abusive these right-wing Americans become with even the use of "F-- off" over what they also simultaneously (and contradictorily) argue is a non-issue and something not to be taken seriously.

A true democrat would simply calmly refute your argument.

Anyway you are right the US is seen as a strange country by the rest of the world, including the west, where even the slightest deviation from hardcore capitalism and absence of government support is seen as "socialism" if not "communism".
 

Hammer-fist

FULL MEMBER
Oct 8, 2012
1,221
0
1,821
By the way if anyone is interested and proof that I do not think secession is a major problem (now) here is a quote from me from elsewhere:

Secession or anything like that is so unlikely that it is essentially a non-issue.

One indication of that is many states have tried to secede from another state e.g. 'South California' but that has never succeeded.

Constitutionally the US does not permit secession by any state, ironic given the active "concern" the US has in encouraging the rights of constituent parts of other countries to be able to secede if they wish under the rhetoric of "self-determination".

bangladesh2050.com • View topic - US presidential elections
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
12,580
348
12,529
Country
China
Location
Australia
Well said.

Notice how emotional and abusive these right-wing Americans become with even the use of "F-- off" over what they also simultaneously (and contradictorily) argue is a non-issue and something not to be taken seriously.

A true democrat would simply calmly refute your argument.

Anyway you are right the US is seen as a strange country by the rest of the world, including the west, where even the slightest deviation from hardcore capitalism and absence of government support is seen as "socialism" if not "communism".

i love how people label people right wing just because they say f off to other, if so i guess most people are right wing in thsi world.

Political system is not some bread or biscuit you bought in your local supermarket, you cannot shop around and compare those system as they are designed from different people to different people, you can only express your own view to your system unless you lived in America, you cannot say either American system are good or bad.

I laugh at people who try to compare American politic without even living in America. Then again, people lived in America would generally not reply to thread like this, if you look back on all 24 pages, how many post are left by Pakistani or Chinese who make a big fuzz on those petition and how many people really do know what extend those petition represent? I rest my case.
 

Zabaniyah

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 24, 2011
14,923
7
12,443
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Secession is precisely what the original 13 American states did by seceding from the British Empire against the will of the British.

If enough people want independence/secession in a certain region (I am not even referring to these petitions, 25,000 doesn't mean much in states with millions of people, nor can it be completely ignored) then at the very least Washington has to address their concerns.

Washington could never forcibly keep a state against its will if the vast majority there wanted independence.

The hypocritical US calls this the right of "self-determination" and encourages it when it breaks up other countries around the world, but somehow this right doesn't extend to American citizens themselves?

That was a pretty dumb thing to say :lol:
 

Zabaniyah

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 24, 2011
14,923
7
12,443
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
People in Europe and Canada always say the US has one of the worst democracies in the developed world. There are many reasons. This whole protest just gave the world another reason why the US should not be a role model for developing nations. In a country like Canada it's extremely easy for a province to break from Canada. All you need is a referendum and if the majority vote for freedom then that's it. In fact there have been 2 such referendums in the province of Quebec in previous decades. Can something like this happen in "murica" the land of the free?

lol what a joke.

Well, nobody is forcing anyone to follow America's model. And do you have any proof to back that statement?

It was nice to see Romney say that he intends to work with Obama to overcome America's challenges. This is something we do not see in the developing world democracies (mostly a mudslinging contest 24/7).
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
26,553
140
24,639
Country
United States
Location
United States
Wrong, the sad part is Americans are oblivious to the fact that they are living in a country with one of the highest gun crimes and gun related deaths. Credits to the excellence of your marksmen.
Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia to defend their country. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the worldv.
The old saying is true: Guns do not kill, people do.

and now you may give yourself a pat on the back :lol:
Yes I do and I will, considering how often Chinese who have no relevant experience in many subjects bloviate as if they are experts.

Wrong assumption. For instance you don't attack a toddler for being a 'handful'.
Toddlers do not engage in mob demonstrations.
 

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 28, 2009
26,553
140
24,639
Country
United States
Location
United States
Way too pedantic and over-complicating a simple issue.
I expected something like this from someone who prefers quick and easy simplifications over deliberate and critical thinking.

If a people of a certain area feel that they no longer want to be ruled by a certain authority (as the 13 states of the original USA did) then they have the right to at the very least request separation, if not get it.
And exercised their right -- they did. However, an exercise of a right does not mean the motivating reason was appropriate or reasonably thought out.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom