Sometimes Peaceful Protest Works
- Thread starter 230RN
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't really need a gun if I was living in Shanghai, a place where you can wander all through the streets all through the night, and don't have to worry about anything. If I am a sportsman who shoots a rifle, I wouldn't mind having to store it locked and unloaded, in Shanghai, Beijing, or Zhaoxing. After all, many citizens are also militiamen who own varieties of small arms, but since we are not in times of war, there is no need to keep it loaded in a bright and well governed city.
However, what if I am a trading post manager on the frontier in Tibet, Qinghai, or Xinjiang, where there is much general banditry going on? Then owning a fully loaded rifle, automatic or semi auto, and a pistol as well, would be a critical thing.
Tony Blair once said that the measure of a country was how many wanted in... and more importantly, how many want OUT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...United_States#Third_wave_.281980s_to_today.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...United_States#Third_wave_.281980s_to_today.29
How come everybody I met in Chinatown over the past few years want nothing than to go back IN?
When one never leaves his home country, he will never learn the facts. Only when he has experienced the "outside", will he value the importance of home.
Brian Dale
Member
Where is your home, Rachen?Rachen said:
United States Oath of Citizenship. It is required by all naturalized citizens.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
So the question is, how could you have sworn to "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" if you still call China your home? When my ancestors came to America a few hundred years ago from Europe, they took the same Oath of Citizenship. They even changed their names so that they would be easier to pronounce and spell in English. They went to war and served our country in several conflicts.
I have roots in Europe, but the United States is my birthplace, home, and only country I will defend.
If the United States and China ever go to war, who do you sympathize with?
This post isn't meant to be insulting, or challenging your allegance to the U.S.
It is simply to make everyone think.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
So the question is, how could you have sworn to "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" if you still call China your home? When my ancestors came to America a few hundred years ago from Europe, they took the same Oath of Citizenship. They even changed their names so that they would be easier to pronounce and spell in English. They went to war and served our country in several conflicts.
I have roots in Europe, but the United States is my birthplace, home, and only country I will defend.
If the United States and China ever go to war, who do you sympathize with?
This post isn't meant to be insulting, or challenging your allegance to the U.S.
It is simply to make everyone think.
Both the People's Republic of China and the United States of America is my home. That is why I want to become a history teacher working for Sino American Friendship. Two great nations, two great people, yet many hostilities and misunderstandings and stereotyping on both sides.
I want to eliminate these hostilities as well as educate and enlighten people, thats why I want to become a teacher and writer as my formal life goal.
I want to eliminate these hostilities as well as educate and enlighten people, thats why I want to become a teacher and writer as my formal life goal.
Rachen what if you as a gun entusiast wanted to bring your gun home?
I can't belive you support a goverment which dosen't trust you
You're a smart man how can you be an advocate for 2nd Ammnd rights yet support the gun laws in the CCP which are worse than CA? Using logical reasoning how is this possible?
I can't belive you support a goverment which dosen't trust you
You're a smart man how can you be an advocate for 2nd Ammnd rights yet support the gun laws in the CCP which are worse than CA? Using logical reasoning how is this possible?
The answer to that question is that the United States and China will NEVER get into a war, no matter how the ill-wishers want that to happen. If China and the US get into a war, humanity will end, and the entire world will end. Maybe not everyone are history majors or philosophers, but can you see the dire and terrifying consequences of such a war if it were to happen?
When I was living in Shanghai when I was younger, I had a neighbor who was a sportsman and hunter and he showed me his rifles, a Mauser, Arisaka, and an extremely rare Winchester .358 magnum. He has a permit to own these since he passed the government's tests, and he even takes these rifles out to hunting expeditions in Russia and Outer Mongolia, but once you fill out the appropriate paperwork, you should be able to transport your guns.
CA is just ridiculous. They don't even allow you to defend yourself or home. The CCP has something similar to castle doctrine in place, especially in the West, where banditry is rife and a great portion of the citizens are armed.
I agree CA is ridiculous however, you can keep your possessions in your house without tests and keep in mind you are comparing your best province with our worst.
You dodged my question and the one above about your alliegence.
can you please tell me using logical reasoning how uneducated idiots in the US are allowed to own purchase weapons and store them with them or even carry them about with only a drivers licsence, and China dosen't trust it's most esteemed citizens even the ones who have memorized the constitution to keep 1 handgun in their home because they happen to live in a city?
Does that make sense to you?
You dodged my question and the one above about your alliegence.
can you please tell me using logical reasoning how uneducated idiots in the US are allowed to own purchase weapons and store them with them or even carry them about with only a drivers licsence, and China dosen't trust it's most esteemed citizens even the ones who have memorized the constitution to keep 1 handgun in their home because they happen to live in a city?
Does that make sense to you?
Like I said in a previous post, in the States there is a solid foundation of gun ownership, while in the PRC, we are only just starting out with our own constitution. It takes so much strength to run a country as big as China, of course it will take time before China can reach to a level like the US with a solid foundation for gun rights, widespread gun ownership, and even an established sportsman culture.
I am going to retire now, have a nice cup of ginseng, and work on a my novel for a bit. If any of you have any questions, feel free to post them, I will answer them tomorrow when I come back. And keep them high road too.
Ergosphere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 227
I will admit that you have an argument here.... albeit a weak one. However... Tibet also had a long history as an independent nation as well, including some time in the 20th century. And until it was re-conquered in the 1950's, even when Tibet was a Chinese territory, it was always autonomous. That is not truly the case today.
The truth is, a good historical argument can be made either way. A reasonable person will also look at the situation between the present government and populace, rather than purely historical arguments.
On the contrary, for example if Montana or Texas decided to secede in the case of a disastrous Heller decision, I would support that. People have a right to self-government and if their government is oppressive or not representative, they have the right to stand against it, or to form a new government.
That's pure FUD. There are plenty of small and weak countries in the world that have not fallen to "merciless land-hungry prowlers." Lichtenstein, anyone? Andorra? Costa Rica doesn't even have a military. And I don't believe that Tibet is vital to the integrity (either politically, militarily, economically, or culturally) of the rest of China.
Obviously not as a unified nation, by definition... but yes, nations can be divided and stand just fine. For example, look at the Czech and Slovak republics, or the various former Soviet republics. Granted, they're mostly not nice places (politically) now, but they weren't nice under Soviet rule either.
Yes, really. Your knowledge of the history of the Korean War is inaccurate. But then, your posts make it obvious to everyone that your knowledge of Chinese history is deficient, because you've bought into CCP propaganda which often differs from the truth.
Last edited:
We can only lose from the inside.
Nicely put arthurcw.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time and life was great for Hitler's Germany, as long as you were a Nazi and Soviet Russia was a pretty terrific, for party members and Pol Pot's agrarian revolution was a complete success for the reeducated 1/2 the population he didn't kill. And North Korea has been a stunning success as we all know (thank you RED China for saving them). South Korea is a total disaster from what I understand. (I'm sure Rachen has some great propaganda about that too).
When you "weed" out the dissidents the only ones left are the sheep who are just happy to still be breathing and thankful for some peace and "security". They have not only lost their liberty but the very concept of liberty has been beaten and "educated" out of them.
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. "Everyone has the right to free will and making their own choices, until they slip in the wrong path." Of course in China, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... long list I'm afraid, that wrong path is more about political or religious philosophy than what we think of as crime. Slip and they kill/brainwash (torture) you. I guess that "right to fee will" you speak of ain't so "free" and ain't much of a right.
I can only surmise that Rachen is a sophomore in college who just discovered Utopian social philosophy. Or he is the beneficiary of some of that fine communist "education". Rachen may actually believe in his heart and soul that he is correct. That Mao is the great leader that can save us all. He is one of the sheep that survived happy for their bowl of rice a day.
Or Rachen is an anti American anti gun anti liberty left wing stalking horse sent to draw us out and waste out time and energy. (a well know leftist tactic btw but I'm enjoying the exercise for now though I don't respect any of his opinions and won't give it a second thought)
Oh... and how about Tibet? Taiwan?
When your philosophy, whether political, religious or economic is imposed or enforced with force it loses its claim of legitimacy. "We're killing you for your own good" just doesn't cut it with Americans.
The United States of America is based on the principle that the INDIVIDUAL has value and rights that supersede the STATE's. We don't always live up to that ideal but generally that is the common philosophy. At least for now.
If you don't get that then you are welcome to leave or live here quietly, it is a free country. You are not welcome to overturn the applecart.
Our revolution is older than China's so I guess you are young yet. Perhaps, when you grow up, you will learn to value the individual again instead of suppressing and killing them off. The question is at what cost?
To crush the Tiena min revolt the government had to bring in outside (Mongolian?) military units because the local army wouldn't or couldn't be trusted to murder its' own people. An entire system built on lies. Not uncommon. Especially when you don't even pretend to have a free press. About that "free" internet the Chinese have. Not so free is it? Oh I know it's for their own good. Right?
To paraphrase: Those who trade freedom and liberty for security and stability deserve, and will get, neither.
We will rot from the inside because worms like Rachen are teaching in and running our schools and getting themselves elected to public office. Just like Khrushchev promised they would.
Well, that was kind of fun.
Nicely put arthurcw.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time and life was great for Hitler's Germany, as long as you were a Nazi and Soviet Russia was a pretty terrific, for party members and Pol Pot's agrarian revolution was a complete success for the reeducated 1/2 the population he didn't kill. And North Korea has been a stunning success as we all know (thank you RED China for saving them). South Korea is a total disaster from what I understand. (I'm sure Rachen has some great propaganda about that too).
When you "weed" out the dissidents the only ones left are the sheep who are just happy to still be breathing and thankful for some peace and "security". They have not only lost their liberty but the very concept of liberty has been beaten and "educated" out of them.
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. "Everyone has the right to free will and making their own choices, until they slip in the wrong path." Of course in China, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... long list I'm afraid, that wrong path is more about political or religious philosophy than what we think of as crime. Slip and they kill/brainwash (torture) you. I guess that "right to fee will" you speak of ain't so "free" and ain't much of a right.
I can only surmise that Rachen is a sophomore in college who just discovered Utopian social philosophy. Or he is the beneficiary of some of that fine communist "education". Rachen may actually believe in his heart and soul that he is correct. That Mao is the great leader that can save us all. He is one of the sheep that survived happy for their bowl of rice a day.
Or Rachen is an anti American anti gun anti liberty left wing stalking horse sent to draw us out and waste out time and energy. (a well know leftist tactic btw but I'm enjoying the exercise for now though I don't respect any of his opinions and won't give it a second thought)
Oh... and how about Tibet? Taiwan?
When your philosophy, whether political, religious or economic is imposed or enforced with force it loses its claim of legitimacy. "We're killing you for your own good" just doesn't cut it with Americans.
The United States of America is based on the principle that the INDIVIDUAL has value and rights that supersede the STATE's. We don't always live up to that ideal but generally that is the common philosophy. At least for now.
If you don't get that then you are welcome to leave or live here quietly, it is a free country. You are not welcome to overturn the applecart.
Our revolution is older than China's so I guess you are young yet. Perhaps, when you grow up, you will learn to value the individual again instead of suppressing and killing them off. The question is at what cost?
To crush the Tiena min revolt the government had to bring in outside (Mongolian?) military units because the local army wouldn't or couldn't be trusted to murder its' own people. An entire system built on lies. Not uncommon. Especially when you don't even pretend to have a free press. About that "free" internet the Chinese have. Not so free is it? Oh I know it's for their own good. Right?
To paraphrase: Those who trade freedom and liberty for security and stability deserve, and will get, neither.
We will rot from the inside because worms like Rachen are teaching in and running our schools and getting themselves elected to public office. Just like Khrushchev promised they would.
Well, that was kind of fun.
OP
OP
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
So who took it from them in the first place?
Who forced their intentions on the people such that they cannot now freely own firearms?
Or, for that matter, pornography.
Sorry, Rachen, I'm trying to understand you, but it seems to me there's a lot of conflict in your posts --on the one hand, you seem to believe in personal freedoms, but on the other, you seem to foster the idea that the State has the right to deny these freedoms.
For the benefit of the State.
The notion persists in my mind that if it came to a choice between individual rights and control by the State, you'd prefer a controlling State.
I realize that in the hypothetical situation that all the Chinese population were suddenly armed as well as the Army, it would rapidly devolve into a warlord society. Thus I understand your caution that "you," meaning China as a whole, must take small steps toward firearms freedom.
But, again, how did the population get to its present unarmed situation?
And sometimes it doesn't.
I'll reply directly to the OP now.
I've often argued that peaceful protest works only as long as the "oppressor" sees itself ultimately as civilized in the western sense.
Gandhi ultimately won in India (got the Brits to leave) because the Brits saw themselves as the good guys. They had rules of law and decorum. They were civilized and realized that they would have to act most uncivilized to continue to dominate India.
Dr. King, following Gandhi's lead, succeeded for the same reason.
The whole success of passive resistance and non-violent non-compliance rests on the civilized nature of the majority of both the "oppressor" and the oppressed and a free press to get the story out.
When the oppressor is simply willing to pay the price of wiping out or crushing the resistance... the resistance is gone.
Our founding fathers knew this. 2nd Amendment.
I'll reply directly to the OP now.
I've often argued that peaceful protest works only as long as the "oppressor" sees itself ultimately as civilized in the western sense.
Gandhi ultimately won in India (got the Brits to leave) because the Brits saw themselves as the good guys. They had rules of law and decorum. They were civilized and realized that they would have to act most uncivilized to continue to dominate India.
Dr. King, following Gandhi's lead, succeeded for the same reason.
The whole success of passive resistance and non-violent non-compliance rests on the civilized nature of the majority of both the "oppressor" and the oppressed and a free press to get the story out.
When the oppressor is simply willing to pay the price of wiping out or crushing the resistance... the resistance is gone.
Our founding fathers knew this. 2nd Amendment.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Rachen,
Have you ever stopped to think that your government may be, well, lying about anything?
That's sort of the starting point in American politics: The Government is not to be Trusted.
Have you ever stopped to think that your government may be, well, lying about anything?
That's sort of the starting point in American politics: The Government is not to be Trusted.
Dysfunctional Individual
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 80
I'm afraid an obvious retort could be something like:
The point is that arms are not the only -- or even the most important -- aspect of the equation.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
so you were raised here and never enjoyed the peoples paradise? and chose not to now?
Medusa
Member
Living in a country that has actually been under communist occupation (collective farms - kolhos and other socialist pleasures) I'd have to think for a while what to say, so I'll write here later. But for start, any religion/believing/goverment that includes "communist" has to be burned in hell, for good.
Later:
Add "socialist" to that. I've seen enough of "socialist paradise".
1. There are people as such here - citizen of one country, but still calling other country their home. One can't be both, either one or another. A lot of these people complain how the are persecuted here and how their "home" is superior and ideal, but when asked - why not go there for good, they don't as the life here is enormously better than there. So it's hippocracy or simply beaing a two-faced snake.
When trouble was stirred up (over the ridicilous issue, the bronze soldier, fueled by the Russia) these two-faced snakes sloganed Rossia Rossia and robbed street kiosks and stores, to express their love to their true home and hatred towards the place they're living in.
So sorry that I can't take such persons seriously or respect them (like the US/China snake here). Make up the mind which one is it: one can have allegiance towards one master (country) only, anything else and the person is compromised.
There's no point of flattering, by calling names such as "sleeper", we refer to this type of persons as 5th eschelon.
2. Chinese people are nice (yes, been there, done that) as could be said about any country's average citizen, but expressing how their goverment is superior one? No $***? As said, I've seen a few of those senile old men, how they are superior and know what people truly want. Red nazis, all that they are, their actions being the wettest dreams their good idol Adolf might had.
3. Who's history are we talking about? History depends of the talker and his/her ideology. Soviet Union was also a peace loving and non-violent country, where everybody was loved and happy, and which was critiqued by violent and agressive imperialist swines, so they brainwashed me (at least tried). Yeah right.
This reminds me a story - old red army vet was talking to young and eager pioneers about conquering the Berlin. Eventually the story goes to the german women. "But german women, I tell you without any reservation, were so much lusting our men. It often happened that you kick down the door with jackboot, run in and shoot a burst into the ceiling, and they were shivering from the great excitement. They wanted to get laid so much"
Later:
Add "socialist" to that. I've seen enough of "socialist paradise".
1. There are people as such here - citizen of one country, but still calling other country their home. One can't be both, either one or another. A lot of these people complain how the are persecuted here and how their "home" is superior and ideal, but when asked - why not go there for good, they don't as the life here is enormously better than there. So it's hippocracy or simply beaing a two-faced snake.
When trouble was stirred up (over the ridicilous issue, the bronze soldier, fueled by the Russia) these two-faced snakes sloganed Rossia Rossia and robbed street kiosks and stores, to express their love to their true home and hatred towards the place they're living in.
So sorry that I can't take such persons seriously or respect them (like the US/China snake here). Make up the mind which one is it: one can have allegiance towards one master (country) only, anything else and the person is compromised.
There's no point of flattering, by calling names such as "sleeper", we refer to this type of persons as 5th eschelon.
2. Chinese people are nice (yes, been there, done that) as could be said about any country's average citizen, but expressing how their goverment is superior one? No $***? As said, I've seen a few of those senile old men, how they are superior and know what people truly want. Red nazis, all that they are, their actions being the wettest dreams their good idol Adolf might had.
3. Who's history are we talking about? History depends of the talker and his/her ideology. Soviet Union was also a peace loving and non-violent country, where everybody was loved and happy, and which was critiqued by violent and agressive imperialist swines, so they brainwashed me (at least tried). Yeah right.
This reminds me a story - old red army vet was talking to young and eager pioneers about conquering the Berlin. Eventually the story goes to the german women. "But german women, I tell you without any reservation, were so much lusting our men. It often happened that you kick down the door with jackboot, run in and shoot a burst into the ceiling, and they were shivering from the great excitement. They wanted to get laid so much"
Last edited:
MarcusWendt
Member
The thought of you teaching history in any country but China scares me.
You may be studying history here, but you don't believe it. You believe what your communist masters have brainwashed you with. Now you spread lies and propaganda, that is not teaching history.
Rudy Kohn
Member
Rachen, I spent a little time going over some of your old posts, because I seemed to recall you promoting individual liberties a great deal elsewhere--for example, telling people to vote libertarian, etc.
Looking back, there are a few things that really bug me, but one in particular stands out--
In a post from quite a while back, you express affection for the Confederate army, going so far as to call them the "People's" army.
You also call the Tibetan separatists traitors in this thread.
My point is this--as far as I understand, when you get down to it, the Confederacy and the Tibetans have a lot of similarities.
Both had former leaders who swore allegiance to another country.
Both had significantly different cultural properties than the rest of the country.
Both eventually decided in favor of separation--that is, they wanted to achieve self-determination or independence.
Both fought for their independence. Both lost.
You extol one group, but vilify the other. I find this very confusing.
What are the differences that allow you to feel so differently about these two groups?
I admit I'm no history expert, but something about this seems self-contradictory to me.
On a slightly different note, the idea that a person can sign away the rights of his descendents is perhaps a bad one. At least, what I've read by Thomas Paine leads me to think this way. I think it was Rights of Man in which he made this argument, but I'm not 100% sure. In any case, he made such an argument and I found myself more or less in agreement.
Looking back, there are a few things that really bug me, but one in particular stands out--
In a post from quite a while back, you express affection for the Confederate army, going so far as to call them the "People's" army.
You also call the Tibetan separatists traitors in this thread.
My point is this--as far as I understand, when you get down to it, the Confederacy and the Tibetans have a lot of similarities.
Both had former leaders who swore allegiance to another country.
Both had significantly different cultural properties than the rest of the country.
Both eventually decided in favor of separation--that is, they wanted to achieve self-determination or independence.
Both fought for their independence. Both lost.
You extol one group, but vilify the other. I find this very confusing.
What are the differences that allow you to feel so differently about these two groups?
I admit I'm no history expert, but something about this seems self-contradictory to me.
On a slightly different note, the idea that a person can sign away the rights of his descendents is perhaps a bad one. At least, what I've read by Thomas Paine leads me to think this way. I think it was Rights of Man in which he made this argument, but I'm not 100% sure. In any case, he made such an argument and I found myself more or less in agreement.
- Status