Justin Case writes:
If you have an IP-enabled security camera, you can download some free, open-source software from GitHub and boom—you have a fully functional automated license plate reader, reports ArsTechnica .
Matt Hill, OpenALPR's founder, told Ars technica "I'm a big privacy advocate... now you've got LPR just in the hands of the government, which isn't a good thing."
Will "they" like it when "we" have a crowdsourced database of where and when congressmen, judges and cops go throughout their work day?
Does this level the playing field? Open yet another can of worms? Both?
The issue is that there is the 2nd Amendment and rather than attempt a straight up honest repeal of it, it will just gets eaten up at the corners till it no longer exists. Even if you hate guns, you have to recognize that doing away with the constitution in this manner, like we've come to realize has been done with the 4th Amendment, means you have no protections whatsoever. So instead of crying about the fact that people can legally own guns, and trying to undermine the Constitution and Bill of Rights to correct that issue, propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Any other method is a de facto repeal of everything and a sure fire way to make sure we live under a completely unfettered government, one that even now shoots dead 400 people per year: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/ [usatoday.com] Take a police force like that and put it in the hands of politicians unrestrained by any Constitutional boundaries, and you have death squads. In other words, don't fuck with the Constitution -- if you want to make guns illegal, do that via the Constitutionally sanctioned process which means repealing the 2nd Amendment.
if you want to make guns illegal, do that via the Constitutionally sanctioned process
Same result. When government has nothing to fear, tyranny just comes quicker.
Same result. When government has nothing to fear, tyranny just comes quicker.
And what is it that you think government has to fear from civilian gun ownership?
Let's not even get into the armaments that the Federal government, or even state national guardsmen have.
In most locations, local cops have enough guns, armor and armored vehicles to take on just about anyone with even automatic weapons. And if they can't, there's the state and federal boys. If you think you can hold off the government with guns, you're lying to yourself and others, friend.
Because no one with half a brain (including those authoritarian gub'mint Joes) really believes that any civilian group can hold territory against them.
Eventually there comes a tyrant so nasty that the Military will remember their oath.
Here, let me refresh your memory:http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html [army.mil]
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
You miss my point rather completely, sir.
Which is that the government really doesn't care if you have your long guns and/or hand guns, or even some military style MP5s, AR-15s and the like.
Should we get to the point where we have a significant number of mutinous (for *whatever* reason) military personnel, the government may well have an issue. Especially since local and state guys will likely go off the reservation long before the regular military.
All that said, no one is going to take your precious gun(s) away Frojack. Just relax. Sleep with it tonight. Caress it lovingly and call it by name. It will help.
TFA isn't even about guns. It's about the ridiculous idea that we could somehow use crowdsourcing to "get back at" those who are spying on us.
In any case, we can try to limit the amount of mass surveillance being used against us. Personally, I think we should start with our town/county/city councils and convince those folks (you know, our neighbors) that cameras everywhere and license plate readers are useful in certain circumstances, but often just trample on our rights. Once we get some local legislation limiting the use of such stuff, as well as some sane retention and disclosure standards, we can move outward from there.
Fantasy is really powerful, and is pretty much always better than reality. That said, I recommend against raising a militia and storming the statehouse or the White House or mostly anywhere else. As your mother should have (and likely tried) taught you, "use your words, Frojack!"
People who argue against gun ownership in the United States often make the point you are, that even an AR-15 doesn't matter so much against a military that can drop daisy cutters (or whatever much more powerful armament). But you and they ought to pause and reflect how much difficulty the US military has had in defeating similarly armed adversaries in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. And those are in places where most of the American military and public don't much care if you have to kill 100 innocent children to get 1 bad guy.
Now consider an American military that is tasked with suppressing a rebellious citizenry in its own country. Is a fighter pilot from Des Moines, Iowa really going to be willing to strafe his own neighborhood? What bomber crew will obey orders to carpet bomb suburban Philadelphia? Maybe some would, but not most. Given too many of those orders, and the images of American children lying dead and dismembered in the street because some asshole in Washington DC ordered it, and most American generals would turn those guns on the politicians and the bankers that control them in a hot hurry.
There are other considerations, too, like angry patriots seizing those bases and warehouses full of big, bad weapons and destroying lines of supply for that military and all the other things that go along with guerilla warfare, but you get the picture.
It does matter very much that American citizens have guns.
If the soldiers and police had that much of a conscience why would you need guns to resist them?
Wouldn't killing unarmed people weigh more on your conscience than killing someone pointing a gun at you or your group/tribe members?
Because it's far far far easier to pressure people into arresting innocent civilians than it is to kill them. If the innocent and oppressed don't have weapons, you can use "less-than-lethal" weapons to arrest them. If you have a family locked in their house, you just bash in the front door. If instead they are armed with handguns and rifles, now it's not so simple. Now the cops have to decide if it's really worth murdering the whole family over a stupid/selfish/immoral law.
You seem to think people will have an inate view of what's right. It won't work like that. The government knows propaganda -- they have to do it well to get into government in the first place, it's evolution, survival of the fittest.
The average american will believe what the government needs them to believe, which means that when the government comes for $GROUP the rest of the country will believe that's the right move. The government may even put up a show of being reluctant, just before they put 70,000 Americans in concentration camps.
How did an armed population go then when it came to defending the constitution?
How you get from there to patriots storming government facilities is beyond me.
What's more, just off the top of my head, I came up with five places where the government suppressed armed citizenry without those folks' neighbors providing any support. Waco [wikipedia.org], Ruby Ridge [wikipedia.org], Attica [wikipedia.org], Watts [google.com] and Little Rock [wikipedia.org].
You can call people sheep or cowards or blind to the truth, but in fact, most folks in the United States (unlike places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) believe in our system of government.
Yes, our rights are being curtailed. Yes, our government representatives seem to be wallowing in filthy lucre from those who wish to twist our nation to its own ends. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of Americans believe in and support our constitutional republic.
As Churchill (at least it is most often attributed to him) succinctly put it, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
I'm not an apologist for government and corporate intrusions into our privacy, nor am I sanguine (see what I did there?) about the prospects for fixing things in the near term.
However, AFAICT we're very far away from any sort of widespread civil insurrection in the U.S. and aside from the epidemic of local/state police murdering unarmed people, the government isn't engaged in (despite the paranoid Jade Helm [wikipedia.org] fantasies) in using the military to suppress dissent or anything else in the U.S.
In fact, aside from the (I believe) unconstitutional "constitution free zones" around border crossings, ports and airports, the Posse Comitatus Act [wikipedia.org] is not being broken.
If you think I'm wrong, please provide me with some evidence. N.B., hysterical ramblings from the blogosphere or talk radio aren't evidence.
Now consider an American military that is tasked with suppressing a rebellious citizenry in its own country. Is a fighter pilot from Des Moines, Iowa really going to be willing to strafe his own neighborhood? What bomber crew will obey orders to carpet bomb suburban Philadelphia? Maybe some would, but not most.
Those that would, would quickly find themselves at the receiving end of incoming from soldiers that could actually REMEMBER their oath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_in_officeEventually there comes a tyrant so nasty that the Military will remember their oath.
1) And how the fuck does people shooting presidents help? They still do shitty stuff and they already have term limits. If you think the real power would put up with stuff like "term limits" you're silly. The President is responsible for some stuff but much of the real power has moved elsewhere. Go look at who really is responsible for most of those laws and treaties.
2) Term limits are undemocratic and so is assassination of leaders.
3) The people in the USA don't seem to be so good at picking good leaders with their votes. Who really thinks they will do better picking good leaders with their guns?
4) If you pick your leaders by "most firepower" instead of "most votes" it gets quite hard to change the leader later on- since he would have the "most firepower" and by then he would have eliminated most of the major challengers already. That's why most violent revolutions lead to Dictatorships.
The issue is that there is the 2nd Amendment
No it's not. The issue here is a gun culture in the US that dates back 400 years. The 2nd amendment is a symptom of that culture, and attacking the symptoms rarely works.
"attacking the symptoms rarely works."
I agree. So, the solution would be to kill off all the progressives who happen to be hoplophobes? I could learn to like your thinking . . .
Right now, you're rights to privacy, freedom of speech/religion/press, to a public trial, and guns are all protected by the same document. You fuck with that document on one issue, you fuck with it on all issues. The history doesn't matter -- the issue is whether the government is or is not bound by the Constitution.
Except that this innate "fundamental" right for a person to own a gun goes back a whopping 30 to 40 years. For the previous several hundred years before that the 2nd was a "dead" amendment, meaning that the courts at all levels agreed on what it meant and that there wasn't any challenges based upon it. It wasn't until the NRA pumped millions and millions of dollars into lobbying, sponsoring "2nd Amendment" law professorships, etc. that suddenly there was this epiphany in this dead amendment. A Chief Justice who served for a good deal of the 20th century called the NRA actions a fraud perpetuated on the people.
It is really pathetic to hear people buy into this "fundamental protection" that has been recognized as such for, what, four years now?
This is completely revisionist history and has no basis in fact.
In the era when cannons were the highest level of sophisticated siege weaponry, citizens can and did own them for their own purposes and militia. In fact the truth is the polar opposite of what you stated: it wasn't until comparatively recently (1934 - registration and taxation; 1986 - significantly more burden before purchase) that there was any limitation whatsoever on the private ownership and use of weapons of practically any sort.
If you want to play, we're going to play with facts. Your move.
Wow. "No basis in fact." You mean the NRA didn't fund a professorship [gmu.edu] to "educate people about the 2nd Amendment"?
Do you mean that former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative judge mind you, didn't describe the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun a fraud on the American public [wikipedia.org]?
You mean it wasn't a dead amendment [brennancenter.org]:
From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”
I've got lots of "facts" [pace.edu] (see footnote #3 for instance). Just what the fuck do you have for "facts"? I've got law journals. I've got historians. I'VE GOT A FUCKING CHIEF JUSTICE. What the fuck do you have?
"we're going to play with facts" Are you really that full of yourself? You ain't got shit. It isn't my move, because you're not even in the game, junior.
What the fuck do you have?
The constitution. When the second amendment mentions "the people", it is describing an individual right, just as it did in many other instances. The mere fact that it mentions a well-regulated militia as one reason it was written does not mean that the right hinges on that reason and that reason alone. That was just one justification given.
You're making a mistake here. That the government routinely did not follow the constitution in the past (and still does not do so) does not mean we should continue that tradition. Even the founders violated the constitution in some ways, but we should not follow their example.
If you want the second amendment changed, the only honest way is a constitutional amendment.
> the issue is whether the government is or is not bound by the Constitution.
Such absolutism. Seems like that sort of attitude has been in the news a lot recently.
In case you haven't noticed, the constitution has been interpreted and reinterpreted ever since it was first ratified. That's human nature - no document is sufficiently complete to cover all real-world cases, otherwise the document would be of infinite length. So, the "fuck with that document" train left the station a long time ago and really, anyone who thought it wouldn't was delusional.
The constitution is not an unchanging document; that's why it can be amended. If the government wants powers the constitution did not grant it, it needs to write a constitutional amendment. A government that violates the highest law of the land is not legitimate; it's more akin to a group of thugs that uses force to get its way.
So no, we don't need to cover all real-world cases, because the document can be amended. There is some ambiguity that gives us some wiggle room, but the government has gone far beyond that in many instances and is simply violating the constitution with impunity.
I agree that the train of constitution fuckers left the station years ago and its riders are presently so high on coke and v.iagra that the future of America as constitutional republic is basically hopeless -- especially so when the people the constitution is designed to protect are so willing to roll over and take it up the butt sans lube.