An Anonymous Coward writes:
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
Surely, and at an ever-quickening pace, things just keep getting worse here, all more or less ignored until some galvanizing tragedy like this. As sickening as the loss of life is, I'm just as worried as what this means for our future. Once again the blood of innocents will be used as the fuel to curtail more of our freedoms by people who have no love or respect for our Constitution. I can already see the emotionally charged cries for it in social media. A sad state of affairs all around.
The White House will take swift action, and following the examples of reducing "broadband" threshold and "pollution" limits, will quickly declare that "Mass Shooting" starts at 80 victims.This year the US has already seen 273 mass shooting, according to independent observers (Threshold: 4 people).Next year: 0 (Threshold: 80)
How many of those mass shootings (as defined by 4+ dead people - and does that include a dead murderer?) are related to the War On Drugs, where the parties involved are by law locked out of the court system as a means to resolve disputes?
I'm with you. It's especially alarming that people are calling on Google and Facebook to censor online speech now.
How much more of this can we take?
It really feels like a concentrated effort across a lot of countries to push high level control of society. Democracy is going out, too dangerous to let the little people have a say in how society is run. Silly plebes keep acting like they are different than the cattle they raise.
Democracy is going out, too dangerous to let the little people have a say in how society is run.
Such a silly thing to say, waving one's historical ignorance about like that, with claims that democracies allow the little people to have a say in how society is run... (Hint: there's a reason the United States of America's first form of government was emphatically NOT a democracy, but a representative republic where the republic was to be "bound by chains" of a constitution which was a list of the only things said republic could do.)
Such a silly assumption to make, are you perhaps related to a horse?
I'm with you. It's especially alarming that people are calling on Google and Facebook to censor online speech now.
Link some? I did a quick check on Google News but didn't see any (maybe it was censored :P).
The lone wolf threat is just getting started. At 58 or more deaths and 515 or more injuries, this guy got a pretty high score. However there are innumerable situations where people mass in public and could be picked off like this. The motivation just isn't there for yet an incident like this to happen once a day. But it could be depending on economic and social trends. The lone wolf will eventually upgrade to use the available advances in biology and chemistry (such as an idiot-proof machine that can manufacture chemicals).
Calls to censor the Internet will only become more shrill. It's important to work on decentralization sooner rather than later. We should assume that places like SoylentNews simply can't exist on the clearweb in a few years. Put it on a Tor/Freenet-like service instead, preferably backed by routes that can't easily be shut down and don't involve major Internet nodes. All of this reduces performance a lot, but as long as you can share text + links, you can communicate a lot of useful information.
Your link: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-laws-google-facebook-twitter [theverge.com]
I know about that stuff, that has been ongoing for a while. I was thinking of reactions specific to yesterday's Las Vegas mass shooting, perhaps having exited social media and started to reach editorial pages. Another comment also mentioned what they saw on Facebook (related to free speech rather than gun control).
There might be more momentum behind it once the investigation into the guy's computer(s) and phone(s) leaks.
Ahhhh - understood. No, I've not seen anything specific to this incident - yet. But, we can expect gun nuts and gun control freaks to trot out some victims to say whatever they want them to say . . .
Rest of the world doesn't give a rats ass about US's "protected speech". We don't want Nazis and Fake News on the Internet. Period. If Facebook and Google want to continue to do business in non-US, then they will have to conform to the laws of those nations. And yes, this includes evil, speech-hating nations like Canada, Germany and Japan.
US has some perverted views of freedom of speech. Money is NOT "speech", except in America. Hate speech is not welcome, except in America. Guns are controlled, except in America. Terrorism is not only by religious nuts, except in America where they can't call domestic terrorists terrorists
So, you're pro censorship. At least you can be honest enough to admit that, although not honest enough to put your name on the post. That's better than most, at least.
Conversely, that AC and his tender-eared pals hooked up to OUR Internet, and then started yammering on about how they don't like what they see. They're welcome to piss off back to where they came from and make their own Internet - with blackjack... and hookers!
(As far as Facebook/Twitter, if they made a business presence for themselves in France et al, then they, too, deserve what they'll get.)
Sounds to me like you're using "the blood of innocents" to make your own self-interested claim. And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that what you're specifically talking about is gun ownership.
Let me be the first to say that yes, your right and that of everyone else to own devices purpose-built to kill people should be taken away. No one needs to own something that lets them rain death on a crowd from a hotel room three hundred feet in the air, more than a quarter mile away.
The Constitution, which you appear to claim to love and respect, was designed to be modified as the need arose. Well that time has come.
Nope and nope. Killing human beings is not that difficult, and it is a testament to hope and the decency of humanity that we don't see more things like this. Gun control is about political power, not actually about keeping people safe.
The answer to our problems has always been the same: we need to reduce corruption and stop punishing people for activities which do not expressly violate the rights of others. The islamic issue is much more complicated than the general western civilian's,
I can't wait till we move far enough away from oil that the world can leave the middle east alone and let them sort their shit out. That or Russia / China / US need to all team up and just clean house, then support moderate governments who will be able to get along with the world community. The latter is a horrible idea really which is more likely to fuck things up further.
I can't wait till we move far enough away from oil that the world can leave the middle east alone and let them sort their shit out.
Then why do the gun-lovers keep voting for politicians who want to start wars in the middle east?
The answer to our problems has always been the same: we need to reduce corruption
The gun-lovers happily vote for obviously corrupt people (of course, the other side does a lot of that too, so they're not excused either).
"The gun-lovers happily vote for obviously corrupt people (of course, the other side does a lot of that too, so they're not excused either)."
I read the first part of the sentence, and my blood pressures started going up. I read the parenthetical part of the sentence, and everything was good. Neither party is any better than the other.
Not true. One party has more of a history of warmongering in the middle east than the other. Bush started 2 full-blown wars there, and his dad started 1; the past 3 Democrat presidents didn't start any.
They both have problems with corruption, which is why I put in the parenthetical part, but notice I didn't put any such thing above it when I talked about mideast wars.
And, of course, no Democrat administration has ever started a war, or police action, or even just shot a few shells across a demilitarized zone.
Which president went along with the trumped up CIA "evidence", to start the Vietnam War? Keep looking further back - there were others who started wars that we might have avoided.
I don't need to look farther back: the parties have changed far too much, in many ways, in that span of time to where it's pointless to compare presidents from that long ago to ones from the last couple decades. A big shift happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy, where all the southern racists switched over to the GOP, but there were shifts before that too. It's only really relevant to look at Presidents that are still alive.
Are you going to spout some silliness about Lincoln being a Republican too?
So, what you're saying is, the tiger can change his stripes? I'm not buying that. Democrats in Lincoln's day were busy keeping the black man down - and Democrats today are still trying to keep the black man on the plantation.
More racist garbage just like jmorris. When was your last Klan meeting?
You're saying some part of what he said is untrue? Which bit?
My name, spelled backward, can't be made to rhyme with Klan.
Then Bill Clinton took on Nixon's southern strategy and really made it work. Just look at our burgeoning prison system filled with "super-predators" (you know that's code for "not white folk").
Whatever ... Democrats and Republicans share the exact same foreign policy positions. That's why Bush's two wars became seven under Obama. Anyway, if you think about it, almost every major war we've been in from WWI up to Afghanistan/Iraq, was initiated by a Democrat (*). I guess the Republicans were just trying to catch up so people wouldn't start to doubt their hawkishness, because unlike Democrats, they were mostly talk, no action.
(*) Grenada/Panama, major? Not really; Iraq I? kinda too short.
The stupidity on this board is incredible.
WWII (or rather, America's entry into it), for one, wasn't started by a Democrat, it was started by a Japanese invasion.
And Iraq I wasn't a "war"? Holy shit, you're stupid.
You apparently have no idea the extent to which Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into a corner with sanctions and by ignoring overtures for peace. http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/ [antiwar.com]
Nixon's Southern Strategy
Haven't I bitch slapped you already over that lie? You Progs need that myth to explain how Republicans are the real racists but it is a filthy lie.
Question: Do you believe Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon was a political newb? The only way your theory survives 10 milliseconds is if you answer "Yes." Go look up the election returns from both of Nixon's successful elections and notice the presence of the Dixicrat. So your theory is Nixon, a Progressive / Liberal governor from California, had a devious plan that he thought could get Southern racist Democrats to switch their vote to him vs both the Democrat and the Dixicrat and do it in sufficient number to carry a single State somewhere down South. Remember, the Electoral College is winner take all.
No, the Old South switched Democrat to Republican as the old Yeller Dog Democrats died off and air conditioning brought millions of snowbirds in. As for the switch in Black voting, many have tried to tackle that one, best explanation I have seen is Lyndon Johnson didn't change his mind when he switched from fillibustering civil rights legislation, he simply changed tactics. A civil rights bill + The Great Society simply bought the loyalty of most blacks and reenslaved them on a new plantation... but now they vote for their own oppression. A respected biography of Johnson quotes him as saying he "would have those nIgg*rs voting Democrat for two hundred years." He might be proven wrong but his prediction is on track for now.
You want to believe your racist drivel, go ahead, moron.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
People voting for pieces of shit is as reliable as gravity. Though it's partially because they rarely have another choice.
Bingo. You win the internet.
Gun control is about political power, not actually about keeping people safe.
Except it seems to work in places where they have it. You know, France, Germany, Japan. And before you start listing "terrorists massacres with AKs",
US - 3.60 murders per 100kFrance - 0.21 murders per 100kGermany - 0.07 murders per 100kJapan - 0
And Germany has 30 guns per 100 people. Same as Canada. So not exactly no guns, like Japan. But US has 112 guns per 100 people - more guns than people. And there is no control who has guns. So, you get what you get.
But yes, it is much too late to institute to institute gun control in US and actually reap benefit today. If you instituted gun control like in Germany today in US, it would take decades to get the numbers lower... too many unstable people have access to guns in US already.
Dead is dead, regardless of how it happens. That you would imply otherwise, by using "gun deaths" to imply that death is different depending on how one arrived at that state is misleading, deceitful, and vile.
That's so true! There are a lot, a lot of ways to kill a bunch of people. Before they go on a helicopter ride, you could loosen the bolts to the rotors. A helicopter has two rotors. You do them both to make sure. You loosen them both. The helicopter goes up, the rotors come off, the helicopter comes down. Everyone dies! This isn't the time to talk about gun control. For many reasons, this isn't the time. 🇺🇸
Take out our urban hellholes full of semi civilized orcs who are encouraged to shoot each other up by their Democrat overlords so they can harvest the sorrow for power, compare the numbers again. And don't worry, Europe is importing enough diversity they will soon experience the 'benefits' of a vibrant population.
And I think you refuted your own argument with the last line of your post. The number of guns in the U.S. has been high since before the Founder's told the Brits to bugger themselves but our murder rate only went insane in the modern Progressive era. Why was Dodge City safer per capita than our nation's capital today? Why do you think we have so many more unstable people? Forget gun control, try rebuilding a civilization capable of generating stable citizens again. The problem is people control.
Damn, out of mod points. That one needs to be +5 Bitchslap.
Ugh, you fools have zero concept of how seriously politicians took the race war. It is clearly evident from your earlier post where you try and spin Nixon's actions as NOT racist or something. The real answer is that cities grew rapidly and cultural warfare resulted in minorities without real life opportunities. This resulted in the urban ghettos, and the rest is history. You're a racist piece of shit jmo, and TMB are you encouraging this shit or does the +5 bitchslap go up against jmo's head?
The black community has multiple problems, I agree. What you don't seem to get are they're not the ones you're being told.
70-80% of black children are raised by a single parent. This has the single highest correlation with future poverty of any indicator. So if you actually give a damn about The Black Man, do something about a culture that's breeding piece of shit child abandoners en masse.
Well if the cops didn't lock half of them up and shoot another quarter, the numbers would likely be better.
No, they wouldn't. The ones in jail don't account for near the number of derelict parents. And if they want to stay out of jail, it's easy. Stop being a criminal.
Culture war, you seem to not understand... There has been a staggering amount of effort put into keeping minorities down, very specifically black communities. What you are doing now is victim blaming, "get them to shape up!" without addressing the issues that politicians and white communities created. Your blindness on this issue is awful.
There has been a staggering amount of effort put into keeping minorities down, very specifically black communities.
Bullshit. Prove your assertion. Nobody since the 60s has actually been kept down in any meaningful way by anyone but themselves and Democrats.
What you are doing now is victim blaming...
Bullshit again. The single biggest indicator of future poverty is growing up under a single parent, which 70-80% of black children do. That is not the white man's, or anyone else's, fault. Neither is a crime rate of 3x the national average.
They are not victims of anyone but themselves and the shit-stains who sell them on victimhood.
You know what's really fun? You're probably going to call me a racist for seeing them as equals and refusing to coddle them, then think yourself morally correct for seeing them as inferior and in need of your help.
I can see the argument that promoting single-mother households for black people by means of tax-extorted welfare is indeed promoting poverty among such people. When last I'd checked, that's exactly what welfare, Section 8, SNAP, WIC, etc. were all subsidizing: single black mothers with many children.
Many single black mothers with many children does not a rosy picture for black-skinned people paint. While mothers may not have been victims per se, their children most certainly seem to be.
Probably why it's illegal to own such a weapon without the extensive background checks that come with a ~$20k permit. It's not like the guy was on a suicide mission and could have simply stolen a truck to plough into a crowd of people or anything is it? Do you think trucks should be banned? What about cars? What about corrosive acids? What about boiling water? What about knives? What about pointy sticks?
I'm anti-pointy stick, personally. The Roomie's masculine child has an annoying penchant for swinging them around without paying attention to either the stick or what might be in its way.
Let me be the first to say that yes, your right and that of everyone else to own devices purpose-built to kill people should be taken away. No one needs to own something that lets them rain death on a crowd from a hotel room three hundred feet in the air, more than a quarter mile away.Probably why it's illegal to own such a weapon without the extensive background checks that come with a ~$20k permit.
Probably why it's illegal to own such a weapon without the extensive background checks that come with a ~$20k permit.
What in the world are you talking about? There's no "permit" required to own a machine gun in the US; there is a transfer tax to buy one, but that's only $200.
There is a background check, and it takes anywhere from three months to over a year depending how busy they are, but the real obstacle to buying a machinegun isn't the tax or the background check, it's that the machine gun registry was closed in 1986, so no more machine guns can be registered and thus legal for normal people to possess. The fixed pool of registered machine guns, combined with the ever-increasing number of people who want one, naturally sends the prices up, but it's made even worse because a bunch of rich people buy machine guns as investments. So a registered machine gun of a reasonably common type might go for $10k-20k, even though an identical gun that's not on the registry might cost $1k or less (to military or law enforcement, since nobody else can buy them); machine guns that are rare in transferable form (e.g. those that were brought to market shortly before the registry closed in '86, or foreign-made guns where few were ever imported) can go well over $100k.
I've made some slight simplifications there -- e.g. manufacturers and dealers are also allowed to own unregistered machine guns, in order to sell them to military and law enforcement customers -- but I've covered the essential points, and there's nothing in there like a $20k permit.
I certainly agree we're due for some new amendments, but not the one intended to give citizens a last resort when all legal and peaceful means of redressing govt. oppression have failed. Personally I'd start with one designed to prevent corporations from having so much influence on govt. that we're essentially an oligarchy. How about one ensuring that new technologies can't strip away every expectation on privacy? Or maybe one fixing the clusterfuck that is copyright law?The main thing I had in mind wasn't the second amendment, but in considering my reply (originally something much longer) I've come to the conclusion that upholding the 2nd (never a big concern in my mind before today) is one of the keys in preventing us from going full police state.There's a lot more to be said on the matter, but I'll leave that to people more rested and eloquent than I.
Huh...you live 200 years ago...Govt has tanks, planes, helicopters, heat seaking missiles etc etcimagine a corrupt govt taking on a "redressing" militia with guns even AR [whatever number you may wish to add here]...that can fire 100 or 1000 of bullets per second..they can just gas or nuke or wipe from remote....Nope that reason to have guns by the dozens is gone long ago except as an advert line for sellers of guns and their political cronies.......
'Cause the USA has won all the guerilla wars its recently been involved in. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
Yup! Rifles and other small arms are totally useless.
People in the US need to stop thinking the US military is who they would be fighting. When the shit hits the fan, the military will be on the side of the Constitution along with all us ex-military who are still self-sworn to defend it. Who we will most likely be fighting is a mix of poorly-weaponized IRS agents, big-city crooked police, and expensive mercenaries. We the Armed People could probably handle them without needing the military. With the states' battle-experienced National Guard units it would be a slam dunk. Why do you suppose "they" are so strident about disarming us at every opportunity. Remember the idea being passed around during the last big Disarmament Drive that all ex-military people were to be automatically declared insane and forbidden from having gun permits? This is what they were thinking about.
they can just gas or nuke or wipe from remote....
Our government won't even do that to Baghdad, yet you seriously think they're going to lob nukes at fuckin' NYC?? You're even more delusional than the wanna-be revolutionaries...
Obviously, there are many guns in the United States and many vulnerable gatherings of thousands of people. Even if police are attending to every large gathering, festival, protest, procession, nightclub, etc., offense is easier than defense.
The weapons available to the "lone wolf" are increasing. Total gun control is just unlikely to happen but even if it does people will have fair warning to stockpile, and will have 3D printer/CNC mill options available to them. Attackers will also have an easier time at adopting biological and chemical weapons as technology continues to advance.
Use the plain Internet while it lasts. It's about time to decentralize or STFU.
And gun control foes say that gun control keeps us less safe. Hog wash. Gun control makes it more difficult for lunatics such as this guy from amassing an arsenal such as this guy had.
It keeps us safe from a tyrannical Government, which is always the real threat—that's why it's in the Constitution, and right after the amendment which restricts the Government from curtailing thought/speech.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." != fer shootin' up the gubmint.
How can you deny what is obvious?
Having guns with which to form militias is how the people who created the Constitution were able to rise against and defeat the British Government.
What is being protected? Not just any old State, but a free State. The first amendment establishes freedom of thought as a core principle, and the second amendment is there to make explicit the need to be able to continually defend that freedom.
Back in the day, "well regulated" meant "well equipped". It's acknowledging that in order for a free State to be perpetuated, it must be possible to form militias (groups of citizens), and doing so is only possible when the citizenry is well equipped.
Now, add to that the American history of the Great Equalizer and there's no room for anything but reverence of the Second Amendment. Freedom implies the right to defend oneself, especially from the biggest gang of thugs: Government.
Now, add to that the American history of the Great Equalizer and there's no room for anything but reverence of the Second Amendment.
Fricking paranoid pervert ammosexual! Great equalizer, or are you just compensating for "short-comings" in another area?
YOUR DICK IS SMALL
Ah, the great intellectuals on the side of the gun banning anti-technologists. You share some interesting bedfellows [kk.org].
Found the tax collector who likes salty tea!
I find it interesting that gun control folks like to put emphasis on the militia part and then pretend that it alters the meaning of "the people" into "the state". There's not one place in the constitution or any amendment where the two terms are used interchangeably.
Every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 40 was considered a member of the militia. Each town, and especially each county seat, could call up all of those able bodied males, at any time, for training purposes, or for defense, or even to go on campaign. THAT is the bit that our opponents forget, and when they remember it, they try to parse words into nonsense.
EVERY AMERICAN MALE WHO READS THIS SENTENCE IS A MEMBER OF THE MILITIA BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE!! You didn't get a vote on it. You may never have been ordered to muster for training, but you are still a member. You, me, our sons, grandsons, neighbors, all of us. WE ARE THE MILITIA!
Every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 40 was considered a member of the militia.
Was? Still is! Check out 10 USC 246 [cornell.edu].
You must have noticed that the upper age limit has changed to 45. I think the ages have been played with a couple of times, mostly due to the fact that more of us live past age 40. But, we can recognize the law as deriving from the constitution and early law.
Sweet, I'm about to ETS for the second time here in a couple years then.
Not taking a side here, but I think you may not understand the context of the phrasing. At the time it was written state militias were typical and were tacitly used as protection against the possibility of federal government incursion. The freedom of which that amendment speaks of is not freedom from France or Mexico - it is freedom from the possibility of an over encroaching federal government.
You have apparently not read any of the correspondence of the founding fathers. They most certainly DID intend that if/when the government turned tyrannical, the people should rise up and destroy that government. That was the entire reason and justification for arming the common man. Don't argue, until you have read the letters, journals, diaries, etc of the founding fathers. Start with Thomas Jefferson, please. Tommy was a wild child, for sure!
You have apparently not read any of the correspondence of the founding fathers. They most certainly DID intend that if/when the government turned tyrannical, the people should rise up and destroy that government.
Except if you try to do that with guns, you end up with Syria. If you do it without guns, you end up with something like Russia in 1990. Because the *ARMY* has much bigger guns than you can ever hope to have. IF the ARMY doesn't switch side away from government, you are fucked anyway. So might as well stop your uprising when you realize the ARMY doesn't want to go against the government.
The point of 2nd amendment was to thwart British invasion. Maybe you guys should realize that the British, they ain't coming!
PS. The Swiss have something similar to 2nd amendment, similar reason. Lots of people are even *expected* to have guns at home. Yet their gun control seems to prevent US style idiots.
Machiavelli explains the use and threat of a large standing army very well..http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1232 [upenn.edu]Admittedly, he's describing it from the perspective of holding power, but opressing people is just the flip side.
What does that have to do with the intentions of the founding fathers? Nothing.
It really doesn't matter what the "founding fathers" intentions or desires were. They're dead and it's not their Constitution any more. It's ours.
I believe we've proven yet again that there's no need for people to own these kinds of weapons. I want it changed. If enough other people also want it changed, then the systems designed by the aforementioned fathers of founding are already in place to make this change happen.
Additionally, if you think the weapons you can buy offer a serious challenge to Abrams tanks, Warthogs, and drones with Hellfire missiles, you're delusional.
The people at Tiananmen Square didn't even have a peashooter rifle - but they made a difference, did they not?
It's funny that so many of us who are familiar with the military and it's weapons are willing to stand up and be counted - but people like you think we are delusional. Often times, all that is required is a warm body. Sometimes, that body must demonstrate his willingness to kill or be killed. And sometimes, bodies actually fall. But, one thing is certain - if you're not willing to make a stand, the opposition wins.
I think you might want to have a look back at the 1960s and this place called Vietnam. Technical superiority doesn't go very far when you're fighting guerrilla warfare and all someone has to do to go from a guerrilla to an upstanding citizen is drop their rifle and step around a corner.
That advantage is fading away. Surveillance, CCTV, Face recognition, Gait Recognition, IMSI tracking, RFID in everything, the list goes on of the ways they are trying to eliminate anonymity. Drop your rifle and step around the corner just means that now you have no rifle. They still know who you are.
They still know who you are.
Based upon the reaction to and the continuing saga of Ed Snowden, and not even touching on the gaping holes in your assertions (IMSI and RFID OHNOEZ!) you appear to be vastly overestimating the capabilities of US government agents.
That advantage is fading away. Surveillance, CCTV, Face recognition, Gait Recognition, IMSI tracking, RFID in everything, the list goes on of the ways they are trying to eliminate anonymity. Drop your rifle and step around the corner just means that now you have no rifle. They still know who you are.
So we're starting from a hypothetical world which has armed revolutionaries openly carrying and firing rifles through the city streets...yet you expect the government will still be able to maintain a vast surveillance network? Those CCTV cameras and any other tracking nodes would get knocked out pretty damn quick...
No, that was in response to TMB saying you could drop your rifle and disappear. I think the surveillance state is almost here but society is still a long way from supporting armed revolution.I don't think you will be able to get from there to armed revolutionaries openly carrying and firing rifles without some sort of apocalypse.
it's not their Constitution any more. It's ours.I believe we've proven yet again that there's no need for people to own these kinds of weapons. I want it changed. If enough other people also want it changed, then the systems designed by the aforementioned fathers of founding are already in place to make this change happen.
it's not their Constitution any more. It's ours.
You can try, but you'll have to get past the huge barrier in your way as explained in the majority opinion of 2008's Heller vs DC case, in which the USSC explicitly acknowledged that some rights do not come from government, and that such rights exist regardless of government. One such right was the one involved before the USSC, of whether or not a gun ban in the capital of the USA was legal. It wasn't.
From my very quick reading of the case you site the outcome is based on the existence of the Second amendment. So it would appear that if the Second amendment were to be nullified by another amendment, the right to bear arms could be ended.
You may want to go a little slower next time.
The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. [cornell.edu]
Repealing the Second Amendment would do exactly NOTHING to revoke the right of individual humans to keep and carry all manner of weaponry.
Yeah, I'm sure you feel real safe with your pea-shooters when the Government has tanks. It's time to give up on this idea that private citizens, massed together, can match the might of Government with their second-amendment armaments. That hasn't been true for over a hundred years.
Yeah, I'm sure you feel real safe with your AES-256 when the Government has backdoors in everything from the grub bootloader to Windows. It's time to give up on this idea that private citizens, massed together, can protect their privacy from the might of Government with their backdoored commodity hardware running unaudited binary blobs. That hasn't been true for over a decade.
Let's just get rid of ALL of our rights since the Government can get around them anyway, amiright?
Or upgrade to AES-1024.
Or build community to create a ground-up open sourced computing environment complete with alternatives for strong encryption, peer reviewed by enough independent experts that if they are all compromised we have bigger problems anyway.
Or, you know...keep using less secure tech, stick your head in the sand, and pretend that your communications are still safe. Which would be about the same thing as thinking that your hunting rifle will make any difference in a revolution.
Just because you don't know how to put a rifle to good use doesn't mean others don't.
Firstly, the better half of a century has shown that the Mighty U.S. Military really isn't all that good at insurgent warfare. Indeed, America's longest war has been against a rag-tag team of sand people in Afghanistan. They also did poorly against the Vietcong, and the Koreans.
Yet, none of that matters. Your argument actually rests on a straw man; nobody expects that the whole U.S. military will ever side with a tyrannical leader against the citizens at large—indeed, military personnel are some of the biggest proponents of the second amendment, and many would gladly side against a government rather than fire on citizens. The president doesn't actually have his finger on the button; rather, the president has a nearby phone, which he can use to call a few other button pushers, who in turn signal other button pushers, who ultimately lead to trigger pullers. There are a lot patriots along the way, and they want their guns as citizens.
More to the point, the descent into that possibility of tyranny is curtailed by the fact that the citizenry is so heavily armed. Why else would authoritarian politicians constantly be trying to take guns away from the citizens? It's because a well armed public impedes their authoritarianism.
> It's because a well armed public impedes their authoritarianism.
Bullshit.The US government has gotten more authoritarian since 2001, and you don't see people shooting up the NSA or the CIA, nor freeing the innocent people of Gitmo.A lot of patriotic songs, a thin veil of rule of law, something to lose, and the proud Americans stay at home polishing their guns and dreaming of rising against any oppression, when the frog is already boiling.
As you've admitted, the authoritarianism must be increased generationally, so slowly that nobody quite realizes it.
That being said, the United States has been rocked by tons of examples which have put the authoritarians back on their heels. The Civil War is an example of people (on both sides) being forced by widespread gun ownership to re-evaluate the role of government. Whenever the masses have access to means of violence, or at least a defensive threat of retaliation, it makes the powers-that-be think twice, a back and forth that can be seen even in incidents of domestic anti-government terrorism.
Funny that, I thought the Civil War was decided by victories on battlefields, between uniformed armies of various governments.
Many, if not most, of those uniformed soldiers were members of home town militias. The town musters a company, batallion, or regiment (a very large town, medium sized city for a full regiment) and informs Uncle that the troops are at Uncle's disposal. Very much like the individual state's national guard are hired out to the US government today to campaign overseas.
The individual state's national guards are equipped by the state, labelled and uniformed accordingly.Individuals stockpiling firearms do not fit that discussion. Individuals stockpiling more weapons than they can carry, while talking about protecting their family from bad guys, or their freedom from oppressive government, do not fit the National Guard or "militia at Uncle's service" parallel.If they stockpiled while giving the safe's code to all their neighbors, maybe...
Uhhhhh - the ship's captain, or the regimental commander neither one gives the combo to all of his troops. Maybe a half dozen TRUSTED individuals get the key/combo, but regular troops are locked out.
> military personnel are some of the biggest proponents of the second amendment, and many would gladly side against a government rather than fire on citizens.
Ding!! Wrong. Consider Kent State shootings of unarmed students by National Guard.
A link in case your history is weak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [wikipedia.org]
Or listen to the dirge, "Ohio" by CSNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRE9vMBBe10 [youtube.com] and check out some of the comments--they are a *lot" more coherent than normal YouTube comments.
Anyone that thinks it's rough out there now needs to read some history.
The other poster didn't claim that every member of the military would side against a government rather than fire on citizens.
What is wrong with you people? Why can't you think straight?
The overwhelming vast majority were schooled in government institutions designed by big-industry men who wanted people no smarter than those needed to run industrial machines. Check out John Taylor Gatto's work for specifics on how governments have been used to break down and destroy the greatest learning machine in the known universe: the mind of a child.
You'd be amazed. Look at what the mighty US armed forces suffered in the Middle East, against people mostly armed with said "pea shooters." We'd lose against the government armed forces, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory if there ever was one. What would be left to rule over?
For once, I agree with you whole heartedly. The government will probably win, but they'll lose a hell of a lot more than it was worth.
Runaway and Azuma bonding over war, whatever heals the divide I guess!
Don't even start . Azuma is prejudiced against assholes like me. "Enemy of mine enemy" is all you're seeing here.
I'm not prejudiced against you, you fart-sniffing narcissist. I dislike you because you're fucked in the head and taking it out on everyone else. That's not "prejudice." I didn't come to Soylent hating you (I still don't; I pity you). Don't use words to say what they don't mean.
I think we've made some good progress today. I would like you both to study the little worksheets I made for each of you and we can discuss further next week. Have a hugalicious day!
Who the crap are you, duckshirt?
Additionally, other civilized countries keep their government in check by reminding them that cops and military forces are people, and rarely from the wealthiest groups.
The people has the guns and tanks, or the people have the pitchforks while the tanks stay in their storage. That's working democracy.The police/military commanders know not to order men to get in the way of their fellow men, when the revolt is justified.
I think you'll find that history does not support your assertion. Militaries have always been composed of the common people. That hasn't stopped militaries from carrying out the will of authoritarian governments. Who do you think the redcoats were anyway?
Think of how the public, individuals in our military, and the rest of the world would react to the US openly using tanks against its own citizens.
I haven't been able to find it yet but I remember reading a great analysis (factoring in society, tech, geography, world politics, and more) from a man with much military experience on how our government could never win a civil war. It's a thing to be avoided by all costs by using mass-media to divide us (making everything about politics) and making it more difficult to fight back should it come to that. (restrictions on the 2nd amendment) It even factored in the difference it would make (not much, it turns out) if the second amendment was nullified by a new one.I think the gist of it is that between guerrilla warfare, the military weakening greatly as soldiers desert rather than kill fellow citizens, and a shitload of support from countries worldwide, we'd win against our oppressors eventually.I'll link the paper if I can find it again later.
Why do you think they are pushing the militarization of the police. How many police duties actually require RPGs, APC's, artillery and full combat gear?Police are much more authoritarian than the average grunt, more gung-ho, more willing to kill on command, and the media automatically reports it as police vs bad guys instead of army vs guerillas.
Resisting tyranny isn't about safety; it's about resisting tyranny. You remember "give me liberty or give me death" by chance?
And how do you propose to resist tyrannical tanks and nukes with small arms? We're going to need something a little bigger to make good on the revolutionary promise of the 2nd amendment.
It's called guerrilla warfare. Look it, and our record at fighting against it, up.
And don't even bother bringing up nukes or any other broad scope weapons. The government can't use them against its citizens. It would destroy its own means of feeding itself. The only way we were able to survive the first civil war with anything resembling a government was because the government could still draw resources from the north. When the entire nation is both battlefield and larder, the government stands zero chance.
Yeah, governments don't generally first strike their own citizens. But what kind of credible threat do you pose in a true revolutionary scenario? What is the scenario? Do you even have a plan for how things go down? Or are you just another sucker played by the marketing arm of a massive corporate oligarchy, threatening to eclipse government itself in power and authority, tricked into giving up your money to buy more and more guns you'll never use based on the unrealistic echoes of a past when the federal government really was small enough that personal ownership of small arms presented a credible check against totalitarianism?
I'll leave guessing that up to you. Two things to remember: I own guns and I know exactly how the government boys are trained to use them, because they trained me too.
It really is funny how the supposed revolutionaries tend to be the greatest patriots. I ask again: in what scenario do you and the rest of the loyalists in this discussion rebel against King George? If this were 1776, you'd be the ones quartering redcoats.
A candy-assed little progtard telling a veteran he's cowardly and unpatriotic? I think you need to look up the meaning of them words, boy.
Once again you have read what you want to respond to, not what I said. I literally called you a patriot. And in 1776, it would have been a similar kind of patriotism to side with the British. Which was definitely not a cowardly thing to do since it could get one killed.
Calling me a patriot in one breath then questioning my courage and patriotism in the next? What's a fellow to think except that you're being sarcastic?
OK, I apologize for the over-the-top characterization. I'm definitely not questioning anybody's patriotism here, and I certainly don't think you are a coward.
My point is merely that in a hypothetical revolutionary future, America stands in the space of the British in the revolutionary war that founded America. And I have a really hard time believing that anybody who has argued against me here would be willing to fight against America. You're all too damn patriotic.
I keep hearing that argument. "Gubbermint has ALL THE REAL POWER, so we are HELPLESS!" That argument only exposes your ignorance (not necessarily stupidity, but that is possible as well) of military life. How many US soldiers do you think are willing to turn their weapons against American families, neighborhoods, groups, clubs, political parties, city or county governments? Men who are willing to do so are a very small minority.
If that were true, why did we ever need a right for private citizens to own guns?
I appreciate that I've made myself a target for everyone's preconceived notions about anybody supporting gun control. I should have made the point more clear: while the right to keep and bear arms may have accomplished a revolutionary goal at its inception, it no longer accomplishes that goal. If we intend to make good on the revolutionary promise, we need to find a more realistic way to do so.
As a veteran I can recall us talking about this very thing. I strongly suspect you will find a large number of the people driving those tanks to turn them in the opposite direction.
As they told us repeatedly in training. They break you down not to brainwash you, but to train you how to think on your feet in the moment. Even if ordered to break the law you have not the right but the RESPONSIBILITY to disobey those orders. They Army doesn't WANT robots. Look at the UCMJ. There is no crime of disobeying unlawful orders.
10 U.S. Code § 892 - Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Read the reg it clearly states LAWFUL orders.In fact its considered your DUTY to DISOBEY unlawful orders.
If that's truly the case, we don't need a 2nd amendment at all. Who are we resisting when the military itself is always on our side? </sarcasm>
Look, we get that you hate guns. Might I suggest expatriation then? You're never, under any circumstances, going to get the guns from the hands of American citizens.
And here I thought that if I came right out and said "sarcasm" it would be understood. I guess it really is impossible to be sarcastic on the internet.
Keep Poe's Law [wikipedia.org] in mind. If straightforward rational discussion is your goal, clarity should take priority over wit.
I say this sadly as a fellow fond of wit, or at least my best attempts at it.
Basic rules for armed revolution:
1. You need a solid backing in the population, and2. You need solid military power.
When considering point 2, don't forget to factor in the military force of the government, and the military means of those parts of the "civil" society who will consider you an enemy. Also don't forget to factor in animosities between different factions within your revolution army.
As a rule of thumb, then, if you want to start a successful armed revolution, you need a solid majority of people behind you... ... which, in case you're living in a democracy, kind of means you could just wait for the next election cycle, instead, or use whatever rights you happen to have for peaceful protests.
Oh, you're saying your country's opinion making and elections are rigged by means of government propaganda and brainwash? Well, I feel your pain, but the same basic rules still apply. You still need a majority of people first. And not just a majority against the gubmint, but for at least a vague alternative. Good luck.
"you need a solid majority of people behind you"
Sorry, but that just isn't so. In virtually all conflicts, a large minority, or even the majority, of citizens stand by and watch things happen. So long as life remains easy for the masses, that majority is an overwhelming majority. The harder life gets, the more that majority shrinks.
Maybe you recall stories of brothers meeting on opposite sides of a battle in the US Civil war? Times were tough, so a lot of people took sides. And, they didn't always take the side you might expect.
In fact, you do not need a majority of the people behind you. You only need enough people to make things hard on those people who choose to oppose you.
Yeah, but that's not the arguments usually made by anti-gun control activists after other mass shooting. The argument is that people with guns can defend themselves and others from shooters. In this case, even if everyone at the concert was armed there was no way all those guns would have done a bit of good. Real gun control is the only answer.
You're saying that if someone being shot at in a crowd had been carrying a long-range precision rifle, that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for him to have fired back and hit the one murderer who by definition was exposed to the crowd of victims?
If so, you have mentally departed from reality.
I dunno about you but I'd have been taking cover before even considering returning fire. And, as much as I like them, I'm not likely to take an AR15 to a concert. They're bulky and impractical for casual carrying.
I agree with you in spirit but that particular argument wasn't a good one.
I was pointing out the stupidity of claiming that there was "no way" "more guns" could have helped the problem.
A slightly more practical example could be the hiring of a few trained and tested sharpshooters to be posted in key locations around large venues, with spotters and comms folks to enable defenders to coordinate and have a chance of bringing a repeat attempt at such mass murder to a close much more quickly. (Only slightly more practical because current insurance agencies would never cover such a thing.)
In such an example, as long as the sharpshooters still had line of sight to a murder's perch, they most certainly could use their "more guns" to bring the mass murder to a close much quicker than a case of having no guns at all on the defenders' side.
That actually sounds like a fun job. Shame I'm too old and out of shape for it anymore.
The tools used to wreak havoc are irrelevant to those who wish to inflict harm. There are many more things easily obtainable which can do far more damage. Look at what trucks have done in the EU just for one example. Gun control simply leads to more brave criminals as well. Look at the crime rates in Australia and GB before and after mass confiscation. It is telling.
Full disclosure; I am a gun owner, and I legally collect Title 2 weapons as an investment (some of which can cost more than your car or house).
The crime rate in Australia is not because of the gun ban. Australia has had multiple waves of immigration:
late 40's - 50's - 60's : it was mostly Greeks and Italians, with a solid minority from the rest of Europe. They kept much of their culture, but worked hard, integrated well and improved our society. (Also lots of British, but AU was basically British then anyway)
70's - 80's - early 90's : Cambodians, Vietnamese, Koreans, refugees from any other shit-hole in asia. They also kept much of their culture, worked even harder, took longer to integrate because they were visibly different, but are now a well accepted part of Australian society.
late 90's - 00's - 10's : North african and middle east immigration. They are isolating themselves in ghettoes, refuse to work, are violent and tribal. They demand that we respect their religion while disrespecting everything about Australia. They are the major cause of current crime rates. The leftist media won't report what percentage of crime is recent M.E / N.A. immigrant based, but it is far, far out of proportion to their actual numbers.
No, it wouldn't. From all reports this guy had ZERO priors, ZERO indications that he was a threat at all. Nothing would've made it more difficult for this guy to get guns. Nothing. Whatever routine investigations that are made against prospective gun owners would be passed by this individual, and they would then own the guns.
What you mean to say is that gun control would make it difficult for everyone to obtain drugs, hence make it difficult for him too.
It may be convenient for your argument to say this guy was fucked in the head and showing a thousand signs that he was dangerous, but it isn't true.
I gotta go with edIII on this. This guy was as clean and legal as they come. No regulation of any kind could have stopped him.He also had enough money to buy them illegally or build them. So even a complete ban on all civilian firearms would not have helped here.
If guns were forbidden, anyone who found out he had guns could report him to the police. When guns are outlawed, someone who has a gun is an outlaw.
No argument with you there, but people who live where the police response is slow may need them the defend themselves from humans and other animals.