Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Monday October 02 2017, @04:18PM   Printer-friendly

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/02/554976369/section-of-las-vegas-strip-is-closed-after-music-festival-shooting

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Monday October 02 2017, @05:02PM (82 children)

    by mendax (2840) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:02PM (#575981)

    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's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Redundant=1, Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:11PM (75 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:11PM (#575986)

    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.

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by LVDOVICVS on Monday October 02 2017, @05:20PM (24 children)

      by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:20PM (#575995)

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." != fer shootin' up the gubmint.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:35PM (#576008)

        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.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @10:13PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @10:13PM (#576254)

          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?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @10:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @10:57PM (#576284)

            YOUR DICK IS SMALL

            Ah, the great intellectuals on the side of the gun banning anti-technologists. You share some interesting bedfellows [kk.org].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:44PM (#576019)

        Found the tax collector who likes salty tea!

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 02 2017, @06:59PM (4 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 02 2017, @06:59PM (#576084) Homepage Journal

        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.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:23PM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:23PM (#576113) Journal

          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!

          --
          We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:29PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:29PM (#576213)

            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].

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @09:44PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @09:44PM (#576224) Journal

              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.

              --
              We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:15PM (#576105)

        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.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:19PM (13 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:19PM (#576110) Journal

        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!

        --
        We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:43PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:43PM (#576176)

          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.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday October 02 2017, @09:08PM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Monday October 02 2017, @09:08PM (#576190) Journal

            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.

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:59PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:59PM (#576240)

            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.

            What does that have to do with the intentions of the founding fathers? Nothing.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Monday October 02 2017, @08:45PM (9 children)

          by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Monday October 02 2017, @08:45PM (#576177)

          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.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @08:54PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @08:54PM (#576186) Journal

            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.

            --
            We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 02 2017, @09:23PM (4 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 02 2017, @09:23PM (#576207) Homepage Journal

            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.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:25AM (3 children)

              by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:25AM (#576355) Journal

              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.

              --
              If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:19AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:19AM (#576399)

                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.

              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday October 03 2017, @05:34PM (1 child)

                by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @05:34PM (#576683) Journal

                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...

                • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 04 2017, @01:48AM

                  by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday October 04 2017, @01:48AM (#576887) Journal

                  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.

                  --
                  If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:34PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:34PM (#576218)

            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.

            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.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by meustrus on Monday October 02 2017, @05:22PM (42 children)

      by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:22PM (#575998)

      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.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:44PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:44PM (#576018)

        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?

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 02 2017, @10:25PM (1 child)

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 02 2017, @10:25PM (#576267)

          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.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:44PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @05:44PM (#576020)

        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.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Monday October 02 2017, @05:58PM (5 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:58PM (#576035)

          > 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.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @06:33PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @06:33PM (#576059)

            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.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 02 2017, @06:39PM (3 children)

              by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:39PM (#576065)

              Funny that, I thought the Civil War was decided by victories on battlefields, between uniformed armies of various governments.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:31PM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:31PM (#576122) Journal

                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.

                --
                We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
                • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 02 2017, @07:46PM (1 child)

                  by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 02 2017, @07:46PM (#576136)

                  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...

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:57PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:57PM (#576142) Journal

                    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.

                    --
                    We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:37PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:37PM (#576129)

          > 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.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:23PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @08:23PM (#576160)

            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?

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @11:03PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @11:03PM (#576291)

              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.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 02 2017, @05:50PM (6 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:50PM (#576029) Journal

        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?

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:33PM (5 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:33PM (#576123) Journal

          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.

          --
          We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:40PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @07:40PM (#576133)

            Runaway and Azuma bonding over war, whatever heals the divide I guess!

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:59PM (3 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:59PM (#576144) Journal

              Don't even start . Azuma is prejudiced against assholes like me. "Enemy of mine enemy" is all you're seeing here.

              --
              We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 02 2017, @09:14PM (2 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 02 2017, @09:14PM (#576199) Journal

                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 am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @11:58PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @11:58PM (#576314)

                  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!

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:31AM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:31AM (#576357) Journal

                    Who the crap are you, duckshirt?

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 02 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:53PM (#576032)

        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.

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 02 2017, @09:51PM

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 02 2017, @09:51PM (#576229)

          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?

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Kalas on Monday October 02 2017, @06:11PM (2 children)

        by Kalas (4247) on Monday October 02 2017, @06:11PM (#576042)

        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.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:37AM (#576359)

          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.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:30AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @06:30AM (#576460) Homepage
          > 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.

          Oh - we get cheap laughs out of it:

          "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" Shooting of Michael Brown ...
          Comedy · Focuses on the shooting of Michael Brown and police militarization in Ferguson, MO. John also discusses the ...
          www.imdb.com/title/tt3953862/
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 02 2017, @07:00PM (9 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 02 2017, @07:00PM (#576085) Homepage Journal

        Resisting tyranny isn't about safety; it's about resisting tyranny. You remember "give me liberty or give me death" by chance?

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 02 2017, @10:02PM (8 children)

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 02 2017, @10:02PM (#576245)

          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.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 02 2017, @10:24PM (7 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 02 2017, @10:24PM (#576263) Homepage Journal

            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.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:15AM (6 children)

              by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:15AM (#576349)

              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?

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 03 2017, @02:03AM (5 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @02:03AM (#576372) Homepage Journal

                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.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 03 2017, @02:09PM (4 children)

                  by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @02:09PM (#576586)

                  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.

                  --
                  If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 03 2017, @04:07PM (3 children)

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @04:07PM (#576638) Homepage Journal

                    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.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 03 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)

                      by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @05:35PM (#576685)

                      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.

                      --
                      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:34PM (1 child)

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:34PM (#576791) Homepage Journal

                        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?

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:50PM

                          by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:50PM (#576801)

                          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.

                          --
                          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:26PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:26PM (#576116) Journal

        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.

        --
        We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 02 2017, @09:59PM

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 02 2017, @09:59PM (#576239)

          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.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:27PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:27PM (#576209)

        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.

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 02 2017, @10:21PM (3 children)

          by meustrus (4961) on Monday October 02 2017, @10:21PM (#576262)

          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>

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 02 2017, @10:26PM (2 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 02 2017, @10:26PM (#576268) Homepage Journal

            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.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:07AM (1 child)

              by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @01:07AM (#576346)

              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.

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:59AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:59AM (#576412)

                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.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Monday October 02 2017, @07:00PM (1 child)

      by tfried (5534) on Monday October 02 2017, @07:00PM (#576086)

      Basic rules for armed revolution:

      1. You need a solid backing in the population, and
      2. 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.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 02 2017, @07:41PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 02 2017, @07:41PM (#576134) Journal

        "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.

        --
        We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
    • (Score: 3, Disagree) by mendax on Monday October 02 2017, @08:40PM (4 children)

      by mendax (2840) on Monday October 02 2017, @08:40PM (#576173)

      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.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:44PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:44PM (#576225)

        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.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 02 2017, @10:29PM (2 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 02 2017, @10:29PM (#576269) Homepage Journal

          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.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @11:11PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @11:11PM (#576295)

            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.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thesis on Monday October 02 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)

    by Thesis (524) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:11PM (#575987)

    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).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @02:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @02:07AM (#576374)

      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.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday October 02 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)

    by edIII (791) on Monday October 02 2017, @05:19PM (#575993)

    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.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 1) by rylyeh on Monday October 02 2017, @09:44PM (2 children)

      by rylyeh (6726) <kadathNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 02 2017, @09:44PM (#576226)

      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.

      --
      "a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @09:22AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @09:22AM (#579707)

        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.

        • (Score: 2) by rylyeh on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:56AM

          by rylyeh (6726) <kadathNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:56AM (#580246)

          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.

          --
          "a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."