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.
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.