Slashdot Mirror

"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."

The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.

Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)

ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.

The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"

He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.

WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES

Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."

Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.

What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.

Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.

New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.

There are at least two reasons for this.

The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)

The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.

THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN

It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.

We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.

Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..

And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.

Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.

But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.

THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE

We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.

We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.

If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.

To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.

This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.

We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.

If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.

But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.

FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."

The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.

Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)

ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.

The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"

He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.

WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES

Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."

Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.

What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.

Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.

New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.

There are at least two reasons for this.

The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)

The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.

THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN

It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.

We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.

Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..

And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.

Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.

But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.

THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE

We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.

We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.

If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.

To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.

This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.

We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.

If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.

But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.

FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

Rabbi R. Mermelstein commented ... The Iceman was obviously a proto-Nazi intent on killing all perceived "lesser races" rather than some sort of noble hunter fatally injured in a "hunting accident"

Continued "misinformation" being spread by modern-day neo-nazi organizations has been picked up by normally straight-thinking, clear-headed organizations (e.g. NRA). As a consequence, this continued desire to disarm the "undesirables" (e.g. Jews, Homos, AMWAY believers, Republicans, etc) as prevalent today as it was during the Bronze Age continues.

The young woman shouted "911" prior to the brutal rape. Had she waited the six-weeks it would have taken for the Regional Law Enforcement Organization to respond, she would have been killed vice the Iceman.

It is sick that there are some out there who have necrophelic fantasies about some Ice WOMAN.

Only by exercising her human right to self-defense was this member of a "lesser race" able to survive her brutal rape, kill her assailant (i.e. the Iceman) rather than be killed, and struggle across the Alps to freedom.

Rabbi R. Mermelstein commented ... The Iceman was obviously a proto-Nazi intent on killing all perceived "lesser races" rather than some sort of noble hunter fatally injured in a "hunting accident"

Continued "misinformation" being spread by modern-day neo-nazi organizations has been picked up by normally straight-thinking, clear-headed organizations (e.g. NRA). As a consequence, this continued desire to disarm the "undesirables" (e.g. Jews, Homos, AMWAY believers, Republicans, etc) as prevalent today as it was during the Bronze Age continues.

The young woman shouted "911" prior to the brutal rape. Had she waited the six-weeks it would have taken for the Regional Law Enforcement Organization to respond, she would have been killed vice the Iceman.

It is sick that there are some out there who have necrophelic fantasies about some Ice WOMAN.

Only by exercising her human right to self-defense was this member of a "lesser race" able to survive her brutal rape, kill her assailant (i.e. the Iceman) rather than be killed, and struggle across the Alps to freedom.

The biggest violation that you missed was perpetrated by FDR during WWII. This was the closest America has come to a "final solution" so recently (terrifying).

Previously it was the American Indian (from our modern standpoint it is fortunate for America that the American Indian lacked access [GUN CONTROL in action] to a sufficient quantity of guns and ammunition to preserve their way of life ... visit some reservations to get a clearer picture ... the ones who faught are all dead now so we can't ask why they faught)

Because the second amendment, and those championing "gun rights", have never protected their rights and they never will. NOT EXACTLY ==> Guns Save Lives [News] Stories (eleven-pages of hyperlinks ... there would be more for 2001/2000 but there seems to be growing censorship of publishing these stories - memory hole???)

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." (Please check this out as I only copy 'n pasted from a non-CA gov't website ... maybe it is misquoted ... whether misquoted or not you can still "Dial 911 and [wait to] die" ;-);-);-)

Of Holocausts and Gun Control (Washington University Law Quarterly)

GAMBLING WITH YOUR LIFE Is 911 an acceptable option?

Statistics the Gun Haters Don't Talk About

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Taking Aim at Gun Control

"Dial 911 and Die (Radio Commercial)"

GUN CONTROL: A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT

The First Million Mom March

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field

Gun Control Advocates Purvey Deadly Myths

Research related to "Gun Control

"Genocide Delayed"

Jews and "Gun Control": Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear?

The Racist Origins of US Gun Control: Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans

Post your mailing address so I can send you a yard signs and window stickers that say "The people in this home are unarmed. We depend on 911" and "Protected by 911"

I would post more links to DATA but the hour is late and we are beginning to go off topic from the First Amendment issue. Although I raised the other twenty-six Amendments as a "tangential editorial comment"

The biggest violation that you missed was perpetrated by FDR during WWII. This was the closest America has come to a "final solution" so recently (terrifying).

Previously it was the American Indian (from our modern standpoint it is fortunate for America that the American Indian lacked access [GUN CONTROL in action] to a sufficient quantity of guns and ammunition to preserve their way of life ... visit some reservations to get a clearer picture ... the ones who faught are all dead now so we can't ask why they faught)

Because the second amendment, and those championing "gun rights", have never protected their rights and they never will. NOT EXACTLY ==> Guns Save Lives [News] Stories (eleven-pages of hyperlinks ... there would be more for 2001/2000 but there seems to be growing censorship of publishing these stories - memory hole???)

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." (Please check this out as I only copy 'n pasted from a non-CA gov't website ... maybe it is misquoted ... whether misquoted or not you can still "Dial 911 and [wait to] die" ;-);-);-)

Of Holocausts and Gun Control (Washington University Law Quarterly)

GAMBLING WITH YOUR LIFE Is 911 an acceptable option?

Statistics the Gun Haters Don't Talk About

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Taking Aim at Gun Control

"Dial 911 and Die (Radio Commercial)"

GUN CONTROL: A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT

The First Million Mom March

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field

Gun Control Advocates Purvey Deadly Myths

Research related to "Gun Control

"Genocide Delayed"

Jews and "Gun Control": Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear?

The Racist Origins of US Gun Control: Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans

Post your mailing address so I can send you a yard signs and window stickers that say "The people in this home are unarmed. We depend on 911" and "Protected by 911"

I would post more links to DATA but the hour is late and we are beginning to go off topic from the First Amendment issue. Although I raised the other twenty-six Amendments as a "tangential editorial comment"

The biggest violation that you missed was perpetrated by FDR during WWII. This was the closest America has come to a "final solution" so recently (terrifying).

Previously it was the American Indian (from our modern standpoint it is fortunate for America that the American Indian lacked access [GUN CONTROL in action] to a sufficient quantity of guns and ammunition to preserve their way of life ... visit some reservations to get a clearer picture ... the ones who faught are all dead now so we can't ask why they faught)

Because the second amendment, and those championing "gun rights", have never protected their rights and they never will. NOT EXACTLY ==> Guns Save Lives [News] Stories (eleven-pages of hyperlinks ... there would be more for 2001/2000 but there seems to be growing censorship of publishing these stories - memory hole???)

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." (Please check this out as I only copy 'n pasted from a non-CA gov't website ... maybe it is misquoted ... whether misquoted or not you can still "Dial 911 and [wait to] die" ;-);-);-)

Of Holocausts and Gun Control (Washington University Law Quarterly)

GAMBLING WITH YOUR LIFE Is 911 an acceptable option?

Statistics the Gun Haters Don't Talk About

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Taking Aim at Gun Control

"Dial 911 and Die (Radio Commercial)"

GUN CONTROL: A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT

The First Million Mom March

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field

Gun Control Advocates Purvey Deadly Myths

Research related to "Gun Control

"Genocide Delayed"

Jews and "Gun Control": Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear?

The Racist Origins of US Gun Control: Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans

Post your mailing address so I can send you a yard signs and window stickers that say "The people in this home are unarmed. We depend on 911" and "Protected by 911"

I would post more links to DATA but the hour is late and we are beginning to go off topic from the First Amendment issue. Although I raised the other twenty-six Amendments as a "tangential editorial comment"

By not infringing on, or restricting, the peaceful carrying of arms.

To oversimplify, prohibition doesn't work, be it alcohol, drug, gun or any prohibition without, as you specify, "infringing on the rights of all citizens". You might want to read what Machiavelli had to say on the subject. Gun control is not a new idea, regardless of what the media and prohibitionists tell you. It has been tried, and failed, throughout history.

Punish abuse. Prosecute those who harm others, regardless of weapon. To stigmatize "firearms" obfuscates the issue of violence and predatory action which is what you actually want to "do something about".

Every emotional railing against "firearms" for their effectiveness diverts attention from the fact that, yes, they are effective in the hands of a weaker, smaller victim in defense against larger, stronger, or even multiple attackers. Had Bernie Geotz(sp?) in NY several years ago caused the same injuries to his attackers by using karate moves, or an umbrella, even if his attackers had died he would have been hailed as a hero for defending himself.

But no, he chose to defend himself from attack by using a firearm, and that's all anyone remembers.

If you're on /., you're most likely someone who works with logic, definate rules, cause and effect. You wouldn't expect 2+2=7 no matter how many times someone said it was 7. So, in effect, do the math: Criminals break the law. Prohibition disarms only those who abide the law, who are by definition not criminals. Therefore, prohibiton doesn't work.

As far as "paranoid militias" go, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Bob-

It did. All of the Confederate States were re-admitted to the union.

Waco is a different animal. Think Athens, Tennessee, 1946.

At Waco, they were supposed to be serving a search warrant, which the ATF neglected to bring with them. They did not have any arrest warrants at the time.

Can anyone really be "armed" successfully against the gov't anymore?

Not by your self. And not if the government is willing to kill hundreds of people to enforce its will. And lie, cover up, manufacture evidence etc. to justify those killings. Think Ruby Ridge.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownershipis a nonprofit organization that is decidedly not insulted by such comparisons. In fact, they publish a side-by-side comparison of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 with the German gun control laws of 1928 and 1938. The similarities are striking.

For an interesting perspective on police != protection, you might read Dial 911 and Die, which was put together by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Even if you're not ESR with a tallit and sidelocks, you might be interested.

PS, moderators, a post's pro-firearms content is insufficient cause for moderating it down.

For an interesting perspective on police != protection, you might read Dial 911 and Die, which was put together by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Even if you're not ESR with a tallit and sidelocks, you might be interested.

PS, moderators, a post's pro-firearms content is insufficient cause for moderating it down.

Deterence: If a portion of the populance is armed, and not readily distinguishable from those that are unarmed, a criminal has no way of knowing which person that they may encounter is a Free Lunch, and which one is Bad News. This leads to overall safety. A good example of this is this article which details the Israelis' response to school massacres by the PLO.

Reaction: Of couse, some people are not swayed by the possibility they might get shot. This is where an armed, trained citizen is the answer. In fact, in most cases, simply the fact that the victim posesses a gun is enough to stop the encounter. Rarely is there a need for shooting, but when it happens, it's certainly conclusive.

-----------

And record who bought what

No. Bad Idea. REALLY BAD IDEA! Registration always leads to confiscation. The Germans themselves should know this. Under the Democratic Weimar Republic in Germany, laws were passed requiring all guns in Germany to be registered with the authorities. They did this for the same reasons for which ill-informed people are currently trying to restrict gun ownership in the United States today. They wanted to "reduce crime" and "protect children". The result: the Nazi's, under Hitler, used the list of registered gun owners made during the Democratic Weimar Republic to go door to door confiscating all privately held weapons. And once the German people were disarmed (thanks to 'gun registration' laws passed with the best intentions by the previous government) it took a World War and millions of deaths to remove the Nazi's from power and bring Germany back to freedom. Remember, Hitler may have been freely elected to power, but once he disarmed the German people (thanks to gun registration) there was no way for the German people to un-elect him. For more information, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Apart from the history lesson, can anyone explain to me exactly how gun registration is going to reduce crime? Nobody has managed yet. Seems to me it's just more fuzzy thinking.

It holds up only as long as you have the means to protect your rights. As the origional post on this thread mentioned, this means guns.
Check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control,
and read this interview with a Holocaust survior.

-----------

Here's a story about how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms played a part in protecting the lives of citizens in the face of persecution from mob mentality and a complicit local government. It happened in the city where I go to work every day, and it happened less than forty years ago. It's hard to tell, but this article might have been written by a communist or communist-sympathizer, so it should be read with that bias in mind.

Here's another story about how the Right to Keep and Bear Arms prevented another local government (this time in Tennessee) from rigging elections in 1946.

As for the national government, the greatest effect of the 2nd Amendment is hard to judge, as the would-be tyrants are hardly going to inform us of the occasions when they wanted to destroy civil liberties but were too afraid to do so. Certainly, however, it has had some effects. Apparently in the wake of Oklahoma City, the FBI has been more willing to try to negotiate, and find common ground with, various groups that they had previously labelled extremist -- and were surprised to find that they often shared very similar values.

Although not in the United States, it is probably telling that the Afrikaaners in South Africa treated the Zulus (who were willing and able to fight) much differently than the other tribes (who were generally peaceful), and if you read Dr. Livingstone's "Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa", you will discover that those Tswana who learned to resist the Boers were able to maintain more of their freedom than when they had tried to co-exist peacefully. (Search for this book at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books or http://www.ipl.org.

The Spanish and Portuguese colonists both were happy enough to conduct slave raids on the Guarani Indians, until the Jesuits got permission to arm them -- at which point the slave raids miraculously abated. (Read the famous socialist/communist author Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham's book, "A Vanished Arcadia: The Jesuits in Paraguay", also online at the above addresses, for an account. Cunninghame Graham is a two-part last name, which will help when you try to search for it.)

The lessons of history are plain and clear, and we ignore them at our peril.

As George Washington expressed it, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war." It is as true now as it was then.

Alan Light

Meme-monkeywrenching requires organization and funding like anything else. See Guns Save Lives, Women Against Gun Control and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for some examples of turning the tables, putting the burden of proof back in the other corner. On somewhat controversial topics (at least for Slashdot), there's I recall a few organizations that were formed to attempt to act as a counter to all the D.A.R.E. misinformation polluting the airwaves, but can't find any URL's among my bookmarks. In any case, such efforts face the same burden as trying to educate people about the distinction between hacker and cracker, and are usually about as successful; you may convince a few individuals, but many factors, including economics and the consolidation of media (see Ben Bagdikian), keep such "subversive" messages from getting any air time, except perhaps on a few isolated cable access channels.