Slashdot Mirror
US Set to Use Spy Satellites on US Citizens
duerra writes "A plan to use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law-enforcement missions is moving forward after being delayed for months because of privacy and civil liberties concerns. The plan is in the final stage of completion, according to a department official who requested anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about it. While some internal agencies have had access to spy satellite imagery for purposes such as assisting after a natural disaster, this would be the first time law-enforcement would be able to obtain a warrant and request access to satellite imagery."
Is anyone here surprised...I mean, anybody ???
Ehrm... You missed.
I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
1984? Shit, America is making Orwell look like an optimist.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
And the sheep do nothing about their masters in the government as all their liberties are taken away one by one.
I'd be all for this, if I was allowed to use its search engine and see what I did after I went to the bar last night. ..
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Does this mean they are just now starting to do this or just now admitting to doing this? ;)
Weaksauce as they say...
This is a threat to national security because it would allow a small group to take control of the United States with the ability to silence any opposition. A small group has already taken over the country but we still have just enough capability to take back control and transfer power from the few to the many. Oil dependancy is a threat to global security by the way. Support it when it is time. http://www.oneclickrevolution.com/
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
It's well known that the FBI used satellite imagery to observe Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, before arresting him.
Get it right. The "internal agencies" is FEMA. See:
http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/
The GIS specialists don't have direct access to classified data but instead are given polygons of requested data which is based on those satellite images. Only the military, NSA, Other Security Agency has access to the output of the sats directly.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
So does this redefine the plain view laws?
Iraq billions
Ben Franklin said that those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. The fascists have won. We elected them. It's our own damn fault.
We are all just people.
But seriously, as long as they require a warrant for it, is there a problem with this?
When did we, US citizens, become automatically suspect by our government? :/
The linked article talks about the DHS wanting to spy on US citizens because they think we're terrorists or something. Sure, I want a new government right now, but I want to get it by voting and participating in politics.
With the way things have been going, I'm surprised they're still even pretending to care about due process. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with law enforcement gaining access to spy satellite photography as long as they can only get it after supplying evidence to establish probable cause that a specific person committed a specific crime in a specific time and place. But I'm very concerned that little requirement is going to fall by the wayside and they'll be able to spy on citizens waiting for anybody to slip up.
Slippery slope indeed . . .
I am posting AC for reasons apparent. I'm not giving out classified, or doing any kind of whistle-blowing here, but please understand that there are reasons for things.
You can think I'm a cog somewhere in the machine, or that I'm just buying into the "party line", or even that I've been deceived by my own leaders, but understand this: We know what we're doing and if you think you can glean the reasons for things like spy satellites and other intel collection platforms from press releases, "leaks", "public information", and the other little tidbits that fall through the cracks into the public, you're dead wrong.
Funny line from Showtime's Weeds as law enforcement viewed infrared images of a grow from a drone.
Getting less and less funny.
Over on this side of the pond we don't need no stinkin spy satellites.....
:-)
Every major city & town is already 90% covered by CCTV. You can't walk from one side of the street to the other without appearing on a CCTV system.
We're already covered.. Say cheese
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
The Military and related defense technology needs to be put under collective control. Individuals that can be bribed, corrupted, or work against the interests of the "all" cannot be allowed to control it. A great battle is about to be fought, in each individual mind, between truth and fiction.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
It's of no consequence. Obama's time has come. He will will beat Hillary Clinton in the primary, emerge battle tested and go on to beat John McCain in November as the demoralized conservative base of the Republican party sits this one out. If Obama wins in November he will begin the process of righting the ship.
If your tired of your privacy rights being trampled on by the government and if you're sick of having our laws written by lobbyists, stop bitching and moaning and do something about it.
if they can do it WITH a warrant, they have already shown they will circumvent the warrant process when it's suits them. be it a valid use or not.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Funny how they can afford spy satellites to peep in on the citizenry, but budget cuts are hampering the ISS. Maybe we can build a few more spy satellites to protect America and let those useless weather satellites crash into the ocean next.
Just be thankful you are not in an evil totalitarian regime, like the UK.
That is, if you even care.
Given the level of comments to this article so far, I'm guessing that is not the case.
This is part of the spirit of the mandate of the sweeping Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which prioritizes information sharing, including between federal, state, and local entities, and enabling state/local/tribal governments to leverage federal intelligence resources across the spectrum.
No, that phase was already implemented.
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
Many things have become true, or look like they'll become true after 911.
What is the point where, the actions the Government takes to stop crime, becomes more of an issue than the crimes itself? Which would you rather risk, the malicious intentions of a few extremely aggressive and moderately armed/equipped criminals, or the malicious intentions of many moderately aggressive and lavishly equipped "Public Servants?"
The process is a little different to what you might think. These imagery birds produce a constant stream of pictures every time their solar panels are lit up with sunlight, a few less if in shade. Obviously areas of interest can be pinpointed as the satellite passes overhead, but these things rarely float around idle.
A warrant might give some imagery weenie the legal go ahead to distribute specific files, but that doesn't mean the pictures are only taken when a warrant is present. Over the years 'real time' has expanded to include 'sifting' through huge amounts of data storage to pick out not only a location of interest, but also a time of interest.
If the warrant doesn't include a time frame, then you can bet your backside it will be assumed to mean an unlimited capacity to view any imagery for the location of interest until the warrant expires.
Depending upon the acquisition method and storage, you might only have a few days of historical info, or you might have years.
Ex 3 letter agency drone typing.
...is nothing to get excited about.
Much less get ones panties in a wad over.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I mean, can we pay for this like how GoogleMap does it? Every Pay-Per-Click for `terrrrist` receives 2 cents. I see future in this.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
I think it is time to start having a serious national (and worldwide) discussion about the nature of information and who has the rights to what. I mean, after all, a satellite is in some ways no more than a glorified helicopter when it comes to surveillance. On the other hand, controllers on the ground build a database of what it's seen, so that events can be traced back in time.
These issues are obviously only going to become more common, and it would be nice for once to anticipate moral and ethical issues ahead of time, instead of waiting for someone to abuse it as we usually do.
expandfairuse.org
In related news, sales of Green Laser Pointers have shot up 200%. Favorites now include several models 5 or 10 mW on the side of decidedly unsafe! Gov't looks into sunglasses for spy satalites
I will make it a point to go outside every morning, raise my arm to the sky and extend my middle finger for the satellites. I will cheerfully say "Good Morning, Mr. President."
Ok, I read the article and wow....it says exactly what the summary lays out. Very directly, in fact. It's very clear what the intentions are as they are spelled out in the Associated Press article.
:(
I was expecting some nutjob blogger but this is actually on the AP newswire with attribution (Eileen Sullivan) so it has some credibility.
This is disturbing because....it's...just...so...blatant.
Here it is: In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King's Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, "if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs," seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them. Franklin is slamming those that have given up the "essential liberty" of arming themselves in the face of "insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers".
Franklin is referring to bearing arms as an essential liberty. And he says that those who give up that essential liberty has only himself to blame for getting victimized by raiding parties.
Ok, perhaps not...
But the superdelegates can overrule the majority in the "democratic" primary.If you disapprove, here you go:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
I understand the outrage at having our government use spy satellites to spy on us, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Google virtually doing the same thing. If anything, we think it's cool, and applaud all the numerous 'mashups' that have emerged and whatnot.
For that, we volunteer all kinds of information, because it's not The Man(tm).
At least the government is still trying to convince detractors of this program that they'll ask for warrants and whatnot; Google does it with impunity, daily, and you think it's cool!
Wake up, people. Be consistent in your positions. If you're going to whine about how The Man(tm) is trying to make 1984 look like child's play, then complain about Google basically doing the same exact thing, with *YOUR* help (but in a much cooler way).
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
Congratulations, yanks. After rebelling 500 years ago, you're back under mother-rule with the rest of us. Hope you enjoyed that freedom while it lasted, time to come back in the house for supper!
I think it would be very hard to argue that a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding anything that a spy satellite might pick up. Therefore, I do not see any possible privacy or civil liberties concern.
is at least part of what this is about. Should make it much easier to find hidden fields of cash crops. I don't see needing a warrant to be a real impediment: "Your Honor, we have a confidential informant that tells us that there is a 1/4 acre plot of pot plants somewhere in the Adirondack National Forest. We could just go fly a plane over it for a few days at a cost of $2000, or we sure could use those high-res satellite photos."
From what I've seen, the Google Earth photos are good enough to locate a clearing in the woods, but not good enough to differentiate pot from, well, weeds.
The difference is, we are still clinging to our 2nd amendment - so at least we still have armed revolt as an option. The UK doesn't even have that.
Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.
=Smidge=
Your are all "work units"
Or Canadian.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
"If you're not going anywhere you shouldn't be, then what do you have to worry about?"
I hereby give you permission to stalk anyone who says the above non-sarcastically.
You're nothing; like me.
Does the term "judge shopping" mean anything to you?
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
Now when I put on a tin foil hat, and start making rude signs at the sky and gesticulating angrily at random, I'll be able to point out that it's not paranoia!!! I wonder if I'm committed will I be able to obtain a warrant to get images that will prove I'm not paranoid and dillusional? After all if someone's taking the pics I'm not just imaging things am I!?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
There isn't a satellite made that can see into your mom's basement.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
1. Make the Constitution mean nothing CHECK 2. Make it so big companies can ignore the law CHECK 3. Remove the right to due process CHECK 4. Spend billions on killing muslims with no end game accept losing CHECK 5. Illegally spy on your fellow Americans with phone taps and spy satellites. CHECK 6. Piss off every country on the surface of the planet and make the name USA a joke. CHECK 7. Print so much US currency that its worth next to nothing in reality. CHECK Bin Ladin "George why didn't I hire you sooner"
A successful lawyer finds himself the target of a treacherous NSA official and his goons after receiving evidence to a politically motivated murder, the only man that can help him is a former government operative turned surveillance expert.
I don't think my tinfoil hat can protect me anymore =(
Why get a warrant when congress can give them retro-active immunity?
They already have a better weapon to control our minds. It's called the mass media.
Orwellian dystopia? Not on my day, just buy a really really powerful laser($200 off ebay) and aim it at the spy satellite when it flies over with your telescope. I highly recommend getting an infrared one, cameras can see it, but cops cannot. Other suitable glare producing things should work too, like halogen lights, mirrors, or a well polished tin foil hat.
Yeah, but I'm not a good enough shot to hit one of those spy satellites. I doubt you can either!
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Are you surprised they are using satellites, or surprised they are admitting to it?
Only tangentially related: Watch the move Blue State.
I am wondering who expects to have any privacy when they are outside anyway. A satellite cannot see more than a helicopter or a high powered camera lens.
I see a lot of opinions from non-Americans. Aren't some European cities the most surveyed in world by local government? at least on a IPcam basis?
What really sucks is that if you live in China you could complain to your government that the big old sky eye was watching you and they might decide to shoot it down. In America about all you can do is stay indoors all the time, or maybe erect a big tent over your property,
What can you learn from a 125 miles above that you can't from ground based technology? This is awfully expensive technology and great for watching armies, military bases, etc. I can see using something like a UAV to watch a bad guy's house or car. Using a satelite for this is so much overkill.
500? I thought America's education system was bad.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In reality (that is to those of us who exist on the reality layer), this has been going on ever since they "privatized" COMSAT back in the '90s. If one looks at who purchased those private satnets one will arrive at some very guilty and interesting parties.
Up here in space
Im looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do
You think youve private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
Im watching all the time
Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye
Always in focus
You cant feel my stare
I zoom into you
You dont know Im there
I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove
Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye
Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
Theres nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows
Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Has anyone here ever seen a photo from the spy satellites that was not downsampled? Fuzzed, obscured, obfuscated, if you will? The exact capabilities of those satellites are highly classified, and the way they stay secret is by keeping the photos secret too.
Now what is going to happen if we start handing out eyespies to every deputy with a warrant? Poof, there goes the secret.
never let a man put his dirty how-do-you-do into your bajingo
This is so grossly illegal. Brave Americans must stand up and put up an umbrella to fight the government "oversight".
"I will make it legal!" --Darth Sidious to trade federation commanding viceroy Nute Gunray.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Watch the movie, even.
It's no good. I can add an extra "eh?" or two, but what the hell is "back bacon"? Do I even want to know?
Armed revolution is much less interesting than reality TV or celebrity gossip. Bread and Circuses. Keep the masses fed and entertained and you can get away with anything.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
If you're participating in an armed revolt who cares whether your gun is legal or not ?
Gods I hate to do this. I'm going to be modded offtopic, and it's going to be justified. But it is also very much on-topic, depending on how you look at it. Tradition, however, insists that /. readers mod me down.
Ahh. here goes.
It looks like Obama is gonna win the democratic nomination, unless something very bizarre happens.
in 1998, Obama stated that he would Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. that includes about half the shotguns, more than half of the pistols, and a fairly good chunk of the rifles in the U.S. There are also some quotes about putting in "thousands" of intelligence assets at the state & local level.
I look around at the social networking sites, and see that no one seems to be mentioning this; this freaks me out to the core, and when something like this topic comes along that mentions it, I can't help but take the opportunity to mention it.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
I see this point a lot in discussions of the 2nd amendment and armed rebellion. Being able to legally own and purchase firearms makes it much, much easier to arm a rebel force, because every step of the process is legal right up until the shooting begins. The rebels can just go to their gun store, buy what they need, and be ready for action. It's much more attractive than smuggling guns and ammo hundreds (thousands?) of miles to reach everyone. If guns were illegal, those gun-owners who were caught would be disarmed or jailed, neutering their rebellious efforts.
How about Wrong is Right
or Wag the Dog?
- The sun still shines (unless you live in Seattle, in which case you get "the rain still falls." heh).
- You're still allowed to rant and scream about the government.
- Nobody is beating your door down because you think the government sucks.
What does that mean? It means its NOT too late to DO SOMETHING. And by do something, I don't mean sit in your basement posting long winded diatribes to Slashdot that almost nobody with any power to make policy will ever read. No, posting to Slashdot serves the same purpose as preaching to the choir. Everyone here knows what's going on. You have to tell everyone ELSE about it. Make people aware, vote for people who will protect privacy and freedom. CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES. Letters, phonecalls, and ballot boxes, people. This means getting off of your ass and getting something done.Will one or two of you doing this make a difference? Not a chance in hell. However, if in the process you get one or two others, who also get more people to act, then eventually a big enough noise will be made that those in power will have no choice but to listen. Calling people to action on Slashdot is about as effective as pouring water on a grease fire. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. Get out in the real world and tell people why things like this are bad in words that they will understand. You can't make a difference from your keyboard, so put on some comfortable shoes and get out the door!
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Eh and Hoser! I just spoke Canadian.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The response to increased transparency of citizens to the government is to demand (actually insist and order) increased transparency of the government to the citizens. Whatever data or information the government (or any of its employees) receive, it automatically becomes as easily and accessibly available to the general public as it does to the government.
Why? Because in a democracy, the government are the employees of the general public, to do the public's will. And the public even gives these employees the power to imprison some of the public in certain cases. That is unusual power.
The solution to government corruption and data collection is for everything they do, know and receive to be easily, immediately and publicly available (think internet). Practical implementation - independent people with video cams follow all elected people (including opposition) 24 hours a day and record everything. It all goes on the internet. Same goes for people who draft legislation. Other government departments. All documents that government folks have copy to the internet. All conversations, including phone. Money trails. Everything seen and heard. With the exception of a few items, such as the launch codes for the nuclear missiles.
We don't impinge on the free speech of lobbyists, or tell government officials how to do their jobs. Its just all becomes a matter of easily accessible public record for our perusal, if we wish. If the government officials are doing a good job, they would have nothing to fear.
This would be the real power of the internet showing itself.
Government official complaining about lack of privacy?? Tough, because as our employee with the power to imprison us, you and your successors need watching. Governments do not need privacy.
You say criminals may use the surveillance information to their advantage. Except their actions will also be public record too.
Take off, you hosehead
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I'll bet that the very first use of this will be to spot a field of marijuana. Any takers?
So far I've seen people complain that this is "illegal", "unconstitutional", "evil" Teh 1984 PROLICE STATE OMG!!!" etc, etc. There was even some idiot talking about how all the recent technology has been used to conduct massive "dragnets" of the US population (I'm sure the logic goes something like this: "of course they're sending millions of people to the gulag! we have no records of any sinister arrests, so that PROVES there's something going!! OMG TEH INZIDE JOB!!"). Yet not one person has actually contributed anything in the least bit interesting or insightful.
Give your heads a shake, people. We're talking about having the federal government take pictures. How the hell is that unconstitutional? Care to point out the part of the constitution it violates? Or illegal? C'mon. The US isn't a Muslim nation - there are no laws against photography.
On the other hand, I'd absolutely love to see someone try and show that taking the federal government photographing people is somehow illegal or unconstitutional. I'm sure it would make for a superbly amusing post. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Is anyone here surprised...I mean, anybody ???
I am! I am shocked that our law enfocement needs to get a judge to issue a warrant before they can visit http://maps.google.com/.
I feel that any tool that is available to private citizens should also be available to law enforcement.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Military can NOT be used against the civilian population except under "special" circumstances. And by special, i mean, war on drugs special, like fabricating "evidence" that the branch davidians are using drugs, so now we can roll tanks into their building. Had that not fabricated that evidence, they WERE NOT ALLOWED at all, period, to use military equipment for law enforcement purposes. This is 100% illegal under standing law, using the military to enforce local laws, and I'm sure there are many that know more than I do in this arena...
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.
Yeah! Because the Chinese are such a free people living in a completely open society. America, on the other hand is an evil, oppressive empire with a dictator who shoots people in the face for fun if he can't hit any quail.
Well, at least that's what I gather from reading posts around here.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
anonymity.
At least when they use that overwhelming firepower thay they've had for the last half-century or so they'll have good aimpoints.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You really think these spy satellites aren't equipped with infrared (or something which can see through walls and ceilings)?
Yea there is CCTV, but audio is another issue. Yes you may say "satellites can't hear, they're in the vacuum of space", but there is other technology to get past this. There is a technique to use a laser to measure the oscillations of rigid materials. These oscillations can be converted into something that can be heard, thus compromising privacy even more. I have no doubt that this technology will be incorperated, and even progressed upon. It may get to the point (though I'm no acoustical engineer) where it is possible to even convert these oscillations into a type of sonar where you can "see" past walls. This can be giving the government too much power.
Help fight spam
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
All the more reason to run around buck nekkid in your own backyard... Bend over every once in a while and show big brother what you really think of them.
Let alone lasers which can shoot though walls and ceilings.
Money is the root of all evil?
Spy satellites are, many of them, owned by the military. POSSE COMITATUS!! The use and deployment of US military assets against US citizens is illegal. PERIOD.
WHEN is someone going to get impeached over this crap?!
I thought the United States of America was a *FREE*
(as in FREEDOM) country. It's a bit disconcerting
to see a bunch of weak knee-jerk politicians quickly errode
the very freedoms that made the US a shining light in the
developed world.
The very things that people were attempting to escape
by creating the U.S. as a country, as opposed to a colony,
are now completely backward from the way they were designed.
Religious freedom (freedom of thought and assembly), freedom of
the press and expression, freedom to move around the country
and the world. Now everyone needs to kiss bourgoise/royal/government
ass.
What next, fricken arm bands for the undesirables?!!!
[I]n 1998, Obama stated that he would Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons ... I look around at the social networking sites, and see that no one seems to be mentioning this; this freaks me out to the core
Dude, it freaks me out, too. I already have eleventy million good reasons to vote for him without needing one more reason, however good. Not to worry, though; they won't let Canadians vote.
Thankfully our government isn't organized enough to even enact a ban on guns, but I've heard the argument that suppose we actually elect competent officials who do what they say they will do. Then, suppose they ban guns. If they're organized enough to push such a controversial issue through our convoluted system, who knows, maybe the executive branch could get their act "together" and actually enforce the aforementioned ban somewhat effectively. Granted its an unlikely scenario, I mean our government doing anything effectively. But that's why the 2nd Amendment is so important: Just in Case...
I'll try anything once. Twice if it's DRM free.
Hmmm... Three-hundred million people in the US. Even if only 1% decided that they had enough and were ready to revolt, that would be an army of around three million people. Now, if we decided that only one tenth of that was worth anything, you've still got an army of Three-hundred thousand people. And yes, "they" have tanks, airplanes, bombs, and all that stuff. If you get a band of people to ambush one of those tanks, now "we" have a tank. This wouldn't be a pitched battle with armies in the field, but an insurgency type action. What do you think 300,000 insurgents could do? hmmm?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Yes, that bearing arms thing has really helped the Iraqis and Afghans, both who are heavily armed.
Incidentally the British got the right to bear arms (for self defense if not Catholic) in 1689 after the glorious revolution of 1688 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution . Another example of a right being eroded away along with most of the rights declared in the bill of rights enacted in 1689 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 . (Where do you think America's founding fathers got their ideas?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
See, I'm not worried about that. I don't think the president -any president- has the power to do that. Only Congress could do that, and there's no way they're going to. On the things that the president is in charge of, like general domestic and foreign policy and economic policies, I like Obama's platforms. That's why no one is worrying about his gun platform (until the republicans convince everyone he's gonna personally come and take their guns) - because it doesn't matter.
Yes, if you're talking about thermal infrared, because the cumulative blackbody radiation from the atmosphere would swamp any signal from the ground.
The problem is that this nonsense still gets passed, illegal or not, unconstitutional or not.
That's the whole problem, there are laws and ground rules and although YOU are held to them, Washington appears to consider them no more than minor inconveniences. And as soon as you have *ANYONE* above the law you have by definition a dictatorship..
That is one of the things that surprises me; one of the reasons I was initially in favor of him was I remembered that he voted to ban gun confiscations during national emergency, while Clinton voted against the ban; seeing this, A person would think I should be a Clinton hater, because she actively campaigned for and supported a law that would, in your words, allow them to "personally come and take their guns".
Well, I am a Clinton hater. but she is out in the open; no one, especially not a gun owner, would trust her for a flat second on any 2nd amendment issues. Obama doesn't seem to be popping up in the radar on this issue.
Besides, your argument that the president doesn't have that sort of power is specious; Bush has proven over the last 7 years that the presidency is able to get away with anything without worrying about congress.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Well you just have to look at some of the other well armed demographics like the middle east. Especially Afghanistan.
Well armed population has really helped there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Now imagine if a few of those people revolting have the keys to access the tanks, airplanes, and armor-piercing rounds......
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
I keep seeing this ludicrous "we can take up arms!" justification for having no control of guns in the United States. You do realize that for any practical purposes, unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?
If you don't believe me, ask some of the guys who had a hell of a lot more guns that you probably do and decided to take up arms against the government. Ask David Koresh. Oh, that's right, you can't, because he's dead. Ask Timothy McVeigh. Whoops, he's dead, too. Ask Eric Rudolph. Whoa, you actually can, because he's not dead yet, he's rotting in a jail cell in Colorado!
Anyone who threatens to take up arms against the government is either playing on irrational emotions or an idiot, and they're more dangerous to society than helpful to it. You would have thought that people would have learned more from Dr. Martin Luther King, but I guess he was just some kind of weird ineffectual idealist, right?
When it comes to guns, I'm infinitely more concerned about well-meaning stupid people who think they're responsible gun owners than our government, because in the U.S., the government already own us, lock, stock, and barrel. (Pun slightly intended.) No, it's not a good thing, and I don't particularly like the situation, but it's the way it is, and gun control didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Stupid voters constantly giving the government too much power and taking away our civil liberties is what got us in this situation.
If you really want to make a change for the better, then quitcherbitchin' with all this gun talk, get off your ass, and either run for office or support someone running for office who will do a better job of protecting our privacy and civil liberties. Because when you rationalize wanting to own dangerous weapons with the excuse that you might want or need to take up arms against the government someday, you're not coming off as a patriot, you're coming off as a bloodthirsty idiot.
No wonder this country is screwed. It doesn't matter that your candidate wants to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT? Regardless of whether or not they have the power to carry it out, it should scare the hell out of you that someone wants to do that. It matters very much. But nope, liberals are going to keep voting for these nutjobs...let's take away citizen's rights and turn the United States into a socialist paradise! It wasn't too long ago that you could walk around with a gun and nobody would think twice about it. Now the SWAT team is called if someone so much as thinks you might have a gun. Now people are okay with spy satellites that could be watching them. Next it's cameras. Then everyone's phone is tapped. I will never understand people who think it's okay to give up your rights for -any- reason. (and for the record, I am not a Ron Paul supporter...seems as I may come off as that here)
Hey, that's the vice dictator who shoots people in the face when frustrated by not being able to find any harmless birds to shoot for fun.
But seriously the difference between China and The States is that China is honest about their repressiveness whereas the States are very hypocritical about how free they are. I personally hate hypocrites.
Shit, personally if I was American I couldn't vote or own a firearm because I did something stupid 30 years ago when I was 19.
Here in Canada I can vote and also own a firearm, I just have to show that I know which end the bullet comes out of. (owning a firearm here is about as much as a right as driving. You gotta show capability and responsibility).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Forget armies, civil wars, tanks and bombs. We have government at every level and instantaneous communication now; an overt attack at one point would just cause every other point to prepare for an attack. For the other ~300,000,000 people, you'd just have one large terrorist network that 'seeks to undermine democracy and the very values this country was built around'.
I'm not saying there won't be reasons to consider shaking things up (in a positive direction), but it would take a lot more work to do it through violence. By the point you can organize 300,000 (or even 3,000) people for a few goals, you'd be much better off bruteforcing the election process and changing things that way. No bloodshed, no (overt) conflict, and everything runs much more smoothly.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
It looks like Obama is gonna win the democratic nomination, unless something very bizarre happens.
in 1998, Obama stated that he would Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. that includes about half the shotguns, more than half of the pistols, and a fairly good chunk of the rifles in the U.S. There are also some quotes about putting in "thousands" of intelligence assets at the state & local level.
And if it came to an armed revolt, it would be like the US Army vs Iraq... no not Iraq... Iraq had tanks, rocket launchers, fighter planes, SAM installations, a proper disciplined armed forces each armed and trained with using automatic weapons, etc, etc, etc. And they couldn't hold off the US at all. What do you think some angry rabble with rifles and pistols is going to accomplish in a pitched battle?
Squat. Jack Squat.
If it ever comes to violent revolt, whether or not we're legally allowed to bear arms prior to the revolt is utterly irrelevant. We will immediately be reduced to guerrilla or terrorist tactics. We will be using home made explosives, and importing rockets, pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, grendades and ammo from black market arms dealers. We won't be much different than the Iraqi's current 'insurgents', and fighting for much the same reason... to take our own country back.
The only edge we'll have over the iraqis is that -hopefully- our own army will have a slightly harder time killing fellow americans. But if history has taught us anything that shouldn't be a much a deterrent as one would think it should be.
In that light, quoting Franklin makes even more sense. See above thread about bearing arms.
The UK doesn't even have that.
Why not?
The difference is zilch, because in reality the 2nd amendment is only used as an excuse by men who have to compensate for something, or just have guns as toys. The 2nd amendment allows for shootings in schools, nothing else. No American is ever going to take up arms and remove $government from power. If any gunowner really thought about that 2nd amendment, they'd (or should) have taken up arms against $government al loooong time ago. It's just not going to happen, and it is only used as another way to keep (a part) of the populous satisfied and left with a sense of control (which they'll never wield for what it was intended for). And the shootings and high murderrates keep the rest of the population scared and threatened, for free! $government doesn't even have to do it itself.
So that gets my karma reduced to "terrible" by some microcephalic turd and as a consequence my dangerous thoughts only get to be seen twice a day. FUCK this fucking awful ghastly shithole moderated by CUNTS who make wikipedians look like the smartest most literate people in the world. If I'd written NIGGERS and JEWS need killing, that would be fine and dandy but because some subliterate PRICK reading at a retard level "dunt like it" I get censored.
Fuck Slashdot
Fuck the mods
Fuck the shit software
Those who hate big brother over your shoulder
\
Any takers?
Thanks dude!
*tokes & passes*
I don't really care and here's why: the us government has its spy satellites all over the world. If you think it's your country's right to spy on foreigners, why shouldn't you have to taste your own medicine.
> so at least we still have armed revolt as an option.
To me it seems as if the "at least we still have armed revolt as an option" is the most effective means of keeping people in the US quiet until they find themselves in a facist policestate and it's too late.
Of course, they could then have their armed revolution against a government equipped with all the best technology of oppression but it would be pointless. You will have no means of communication left, the enemy will know all your whereabouts, your thoughts and will be able to proactively put you in jail, torture you, kill you.
Maybe it would make more sense to avoid the fascist policestate in advance.
Firearms are giving you a sense of false security.
The right to own firearms comes from a time when firearms was to most effective means of oppression a government could have. So to have an equilibrium of power this amandmend exists.
However, today you would need the right to have spy satellites, secret surveillance, secret rendition etc. pp.
So your guns give you no safety at all.
Yes, and it would also be explicitly banned from reporting on smells and the contents of dogfood cannisters and another million things BECAUSE IT CAN'T DO IT ANYWAY. Who's he trying to fool - they are formally progressing with throwing away the constitution. Cute..
Insert
I imagine it could be construed as a "Catastrophic Emergency"
Make America grate again!
It's time to polish up that tinfoil hat so all the satellite can see is its shiny metal reflection. Better get your polish while it's still legal....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I have no doubts that in the history of a KH11 that they are just used to watch "the other side"... Then you have to consider "weather sats".. What are the "extra" packages on the GPS sats??? To believe that "EW" packages HAVE NOT been used for domestic surveillance at least 'once' is a bit naive.. Regardless of any 'law' in place to "prevent" it I am sure it has happened.. Was there not an article many many many years back that stated that the government used KHs to track mafia activity in the desert areas?? I am not a 'conspiracy' buff.. But I am not naive either.. Most of us here at slashdot are tech savoy, knowing what is possible with all the tech around us.. So one of the big greyhound bus cameras buzzing around above has surely taken a picture or two of the "girl next door"... Not to mention collected her cell number..
are very much in the Democrat corner. Its the good old boys who would never vote for a black, a jew, a catholic, a republican, etc...
so quit trying to misdirect the real hate in this country... the less than subtle inclusion of neo-con; really - anyone using that term is a moron; is just plain screaming your an idiot
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Dear Mr. Circj,
If this topic is too sensitive for you, wear a hat.
yours sincerely,
The hat coalition.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
"Because when you rationalize wanting to own dangerous weapons with the excuse that you might want or need to take up arms against the government someday, you're not coming off as a patriot, you're coming off as a bloodthirsty idiot."
I'm wondering if most realize that "the government" isn't a seperate, distinct citizentry, right? If the civil war taught us anything. It taught us what it means to take up arms against our brothers. Didn't stop the war, but it did mean reprecutions reverberated generations after the war was over. Something to think about next time we talk about overthrowing "the government".
The so-called right to bear arms is a stub of Jefferson's plan to have a Swiss-style citizen army. That's what that "well regulated militia" bit is all about. It is most assuredly NOT about your right to overthrow the government or to go badger hunting. Not that I'm against overthrowing the government on general principles. You're just not going to do it with a squirrel gun. You'd do better to launch a cyber attack.
Note to self: do not leave diabolical plans facing upward on deck whilst sunning self...
With regard to a search warrant, the only warrant that can really be legally applied, is one for illegal surveillance, rather than a warrant that makes use of the data recovered for other purposes.
Of course all the data is digital and not analogue and can be readily altered to present pretty much anything. The groups who control the satellites as well as the data trail, certainly have the technology and the expertise to turn any lie into a court based reality.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Take a good look at Iraq, and tell me that a well-armed populace couldn't make things very uncomfortable for a tyrannical, out of control US government.
Way to troll, though. You're comparing lone, conspiracy-theory believing nuts and their lack of effect to the idea of a general insurrection among the American public. You're an idiot if you think Timothy McVeigh is comparable to revolution. As for your comments about nukes - frankly, that worries me more than all the rednecks with rifles out there. That someone could even dream of the idea that nukes would be used by Americans, on Americans. Monstrosity doesn't even enter into it.
At any rate, there's a reason many of us defend the second amendment so ardently. If the shit ever hits the fan, firearms will provide the last, final effort to free us from tyranny. Arguing that is pointless; there's a reason every dictator of the last century had designs on gun control. Look at it this way - our military can't handle Iraq. Imagine what they're going to do against even a large minority of the American population. And as for equipment - you dream if you think the entire military would goosestep along to some fascist president-cum-dictator in the event of another civil war.
As it were, you can spout of crap about lone nuts all you want; you can cry and whine and wet yourself over scary guns. The fact of the matter is, we're nowhere near the point of needing to pick up the rifle to throw off the yoke of oppression. Our votes still count. Sure, we have a majority of tools in this country continually voting to re-elect incompetent, greedy bastards into office. The fact of the matter is, they're *voting* these slimeballs in.
The fact that we still have the ability to vote precludes the idea of armed insurrection. Armed insurrection is the last resort; not something to be trotted out because "OMG BUSH IS EVIL LOL GUYZ"
One of the things that spy satellites are legitimately good for is seeing submarines underwater near our shores. If you're concerned about someone using a boat or a one-man submersible to smuggle a suitcase nuke ashore, somewhere along our thousands of miles of coastline, you might want to watch those coastlines from orbit.
I think that would legally require a warrant since the coastlines themselves are usually private property, and you'd probably also want to be watching up to a mile inland.
But I still think that if you were part of a conspiracy you could manage to work around that.
it's not like the Bush administration ever let a thing like civil liberties get in the way of doing anything. this is merely another instance of him ignoring the constitution and walking all over our rights.
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
>Now that's funny. We always have a good laugh at that bullshit. You have a gun so the pigs have
>armor piercing rounds, gas, and tanks. They train for armed resistance and usually shoot to
>kill if there is even the suspicion of a weapon (or a piece of tinfoil). The pigs are a lot
>more polite on this side of the Atlantic.
I am one of those who strongly believes the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was primarily to arm the citizenry so that they could revolt against tyranny if necessary.
I am always amazed by people who say, "The common people could never rise in armed revolt against a modern military force."
There are so many reasons why this is clearly untrue.
First of all, it has been demonstrated historically that it is indeed possible for numerically and technologically inferior forces to force the withdrawal of superior forces. Four relatively modern scenarios that come to mind are Vietnam, Mogadishu, Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, and probably Iraq. Remember, for an insurgency to be effective it does not have to win battles with military victories. It merely has to sap enough resources until the enemy finds it not worth fighting.
Second of all, domestic insurrections have another "positive" in their favor - they are highly disruptive to the local economy. Since it is the tax revenue that feeds the government that will be resisted, any disruption of tax revenue erodes the power of the tyrannical government, and probably gets their attention more readily that the loss of troops and material. I'm sure congress people get upset over troop losses. I bet they get more upset over losses in tax revenue. We saw from the DC sniper case that 2 guys shooting out of the keyhole in the trunk of a car caused a huge financial impact over a wide area because people stopped going outside to go shopping. Imagine the economic disruption caused by 10,000 insurgents.
Third of all, if things deteriorated to the point that it motivated a significant portion of the population to engage in a rebellion, it is likely that not all troops would stay in step with the federal government.
To me, the biggest problem with the safeguard of the 2nd Amendment is not how effective will average citizens be as resistance fighters. To me the biggest problem is will average citizens be too apathetic to ever stand up and rise in rebellion should it be warranted.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Armed revolt against the guys who control the US 'ARMED' forces? good luck with that...
Recon sats have a ground resolution of, at best, 2.5 inches. Due primarily to atmospheric effects. So they can make out car models, but not read the license plate.
Best Slashdot Co
Actually, you are both wrong. You forget that a good percentage of those you include in the "armed rabble" are previous US armed services men and women that are familiar with tactics, training, and the latest (and greatest) in US weaponry and technology. If pushed far enough it could get bad...very bad. All you have to really do is look at the previous conflicts in Afghanistan vs. Soviet Russia. A very poorly armed force (comparitive to Russia) held Russia at bay for quite some time and inflicted terrible losses on them.
/Sarcasm intended
In essence any such victory would be clearly Pyrrhic. However, do not discount the abilities of what a comparitively few angry individuals could do against a numerically and/or technologically superior force - Remember the Revolutionary War of the United States?
I'm sure that I'm not the only one that never hopes to see such a conflict on U.S. soil - I know that Obama agrees - after all he's taking the "preventative measure" (as stated before) of working towards banning firearms.
...its looking more and more like a documentary on US history. Well from a 2050 perspective anyway.
I can't wait till one political party starts using this stuff on the other political party. Think of all the "candid" shots we'll be getting!
There is a war going on for your mind.
Yeah, because the US is Afghanistan. Yep, that's a valid comparison.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
I agree with the last part, but if our founders followed your first sentiment, we'd still be part of the UK.
Just wear a hat. Wide brims are back in fashion.
That is true, assuming there are still elections. If elections are called off and the president becomes president-for-life (unlikely, but not impossible) then all bets are off.
Armed revolt against who? Hypersonic Jets? F22 raptors? Smart bombs? Robotic Drones? automatic rifles? All of which are illegal for you to own. Our politicians are slowly but surely eroding the 2nd amendment and this will continue. They are driving home in the ignorant people's minds that the 2nd amendment was for the purpose or preserving our right to HUNT. Their Idea is that it gives you the right to own a RIFLE for hunting. Not to posses arms that can revolt and arrest/kill politicians when they run the government a muck. In the USA you can even get arrested if you build a potato launcher. I'm afraid armed revolt is no longer an option.
Democracy can fix this at this stage. It would just requiring the majority of the people voting for good candidates.
A question (not rhetorical):
Has a society ever gotten upset with a government overstepping its bounds and turning on its people early enough to vote for a good government? Or do they always get upset too late, and the government collapses by other means?
Another question:
Has anybody ever used a major party to get elected with the subvert goal of turning against the party once elected, or can it be reasonably assumed that nobody running for a major party is going to fix the system.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
There's a bit of a difference between spy satellites and CCTV cameras in highly populated public spaces. CCTV, for instance, won't follow you into your own back yard, or track you along the highway.
Likewise, CCTV footage is quite a bit more useful to a jury than an eyewitness account or satellite surveillance. I'm not a big fan of the "big brother" attitude, but CCTV systems do actually seem to be a legitimately good crime-fighting tool with an admirably low rate of false positives. Eyewitness accounts have been conclusively and scientifically proven to be horrendously bad.
Like I've said.... I'm ambivalent about how this is all panning out. Spy satellites seem to give the government a bit too much power, although CCTV seems a whole lot more innocuous. If you're walking down the streets of New York or London, chances are that somebody's already watching anyway.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Is this the same "justice" department that said torture was OK? Is this the same "justice" department that rushed to the hospital to see if the incapacitated attorney general would overrule the acting head's concerns about warrantless wiretapping?
...and each and everyone of yours too, which includes every one of you /. 'rs
The more we continue to press the government to be more responsible for our own stupidity, the tighter and more controlled we'll be.
We are all sheep running, trying to run from the big bad wolf. LoL, which is actually yourself!
I have a number of pistols and rifles. But I am in no hurry for an armed revolt...I mean come on. what is a rifle going to do against an M-1 or an Apache? Having served in tank I can tell you that we might as well accept our new slave lords in Washington (ALL of them) and get on with the business of being miserable.
"...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
While we may still have the second amendment, they have done their best to restrict it. I assure you that anyone that has anything that can keep the gov at bay for any length of time, has what the gov has made illegal. Second amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not the right to bear gov approved arms.....
I say this while still not owning a single gun.
"Iraq had tanks, rocket launchers, fighter planes, SAM installations, a proper disciplined armed forces each armed and trained with using automatic weapons, etc, etc, etc. And they couldn't hold off the US at all."
Do you actually think the United States has "won" in Iraq? How many U.S. soldiers have been killed and maimed since the Iraqi army was defeated and the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing? How much is the U.S. spending day after day to maintain a troop presence and conduct operations in the country? The thing that history has taught us is that an insurgency will eventually break the will of the invader.
The government and law enforcement have been using publicly purchasable satellite imagery for cases for years. Using it to prove all kinds of things like the location of someone or items on property. What would be interesting and likely what they are after here is to start tasking satellites over the united states for active surveillance. As opposed to what has been occurring NOW, which is the usage of survey satellite data after the fact in cases.
Incidentally a bunch of Muslim students were just released from jail with their convictions squashed after the defence pointed out that reading Jihadist literature is (correctly) not a crime here. When I get my door booted in at 8am (or others' are having that treatment) without recourse to the law for redress, then we have an ETR. Right now, we just have a framework of law under which some ETR activities could be smuggled through.
I'm also highly dubious about the ability of British political establishment to have a successful conspiracy to bring an ETR about. Even if all the MPs were secretly plotting to institute a junta, end proper elections, etc, they'd cock it up.
Just admit that you enjoy shooting targets, and that you feel safer carrying it around (or having it under the bed or whatever.)
-- My Sig is a P228.
The judge in the O J Simpson murder trial suppressed (i.e., did not let the prosecutors use) satellite images of the white Ford Bronco. The reason was they didn't have the license plate numbers, so the fact that a white Ford Bronco was not parked near his house and was parked near Nicole's does not establish it was his Ford Bronco. Therefore, the satellite shots were inadmissable. Most cities now have spy planes with gyro stabilized long lenses today thanks to federal grants (which started a decade ago - everybody has one by now).
On this side of the pond, the government use spy satellites on the farmers, where there is no cctv.
"In January the project team met with Chris Procter and Martyn Silgram of the ADAS Environment Group. They discussed current arrangements for satellite monitoring of cross compliance under the single farm payment scheme in the UK. Chris and Martyn gave comments on a survey of awareness and experiences of farmers towards satellite monitoring, which UCL plans to undertake as part of the AHRC project."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/environment/satellites/index.shtml?events
I'm opting for a boater with "Fuck Off" in bold on the crown.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Really? So you think that our government is in danger of being overthrown by Iraqui insurgents? Funny, I don't see many of them on our soil taking up arms against our government, and we have yet to bring the full might of our military and domestic armed services to bear against them. If there's an armed domestic uprising, it would be quite a different story. Not that there's even a remote chance of an armed domestic uprising, because our government would snuff out anyone and anything that got bigger than a few malcontents here and there.
Very impossible. Who the hell do you think would control the oil and food distribution? The government, you idiot, that's one of the first things they would do is take control of the supply line of crucial resources like that. And who the hell do you think would get the oil and food? I'll give you a hint: NOT you, and NOT the people who are fighting the government.
Maybe you didn't read the grandparent post:
I'm not the one that made this about gun control, he did, and it was done (as it is most of the time) for the purpose of distracting and easily-distractable audience from the real issue at hand: privacy rights.
Your point is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what arms you use against the government, if you use them, they will arrest or kill you. Any argument that is based on the premise that some person or domestic group might take up arms against the U.S. government is simply invalid, because the U.S. government is capable to the point of impossibility of making sure that will never happen. Congratulations, in your quest to make the U.S. government armed services the most powerful in the world, you've also them invincible against its own citizens. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that no one will ever successfully win an armed conflict against the U.S. government. And by "win," I'm referring to the rationale that your idiot argument refers to, overthrowing the U.S. government by force or even successfully defending yourself on domestic soil. When Iraq comes to the shores of the U.S. and starts winning the war, THEN come and tell me how powerful and effective they are. Meanwhile, there won't be any grand insurgency here, no guerrilla warfare, and you'll never get past the possibility of going at it alone (or maybe with a few of your mentally unstable buddies) and getting yourself killed, and probably some innocent civilians and a few cops in the process.
So if you want to be against gun control, be against gun (or whatever your arms of choice are) control, I don't care. But at least be honest about the reason you're against it and stop with this "we need them to defend ourselves against the government!" crap, because like I said, when you say that, you come off sounding like an idiot.
Wow. I'm glad that none of these guys shared your pessimistic "nothing's gonna change" attitude.
Why don't you get some perspective on the situation instead of spouting off about how this is the end of Democracy? Yes, we've had a bad run the last few years. Yes, we have a fight ahead of us. But none of what's going on in the US or UK even comes remotely close to what's going on in Burma right now. Our brave leaders who are fighting for our rights aren't being assassinated by extremists. We aren't in the middle of a ongoing genocide.
None of this is meant to say that we shouldn't continue to be vigilant and oppose stuff like this. But seriously, get some perspective on the rest of the World before you start announcing the end of Democracy. Democracy won't die until people stop fighting for it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The current government has done more to take away citizen's rights in the US than any previous government. In fact, that is what TFA is all about.
And the current government is still Republican. Not socialist.
Get your facts straight.
He may well have said such things. However, as a supporter of all of the Bill of Rights (yes, including the second amendment), I don't think this is even close to the top of my list of concerns. If he wants to tilt at that windmill (neither the Congress nor the current right wing Supreme Court would allow something like this), and will in the process help restore the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth, I'd consider it way more than a fair trade.
BTW: Since you were so worried about moderation, I will point out that I had mod points, disagreed with you heartily, and posted in rather than tried to mod-censor you.
And having your privacy violated and being the most spied upon nation in the world is a bragging point uk guy ?
So, what's the big deal? I can get a subscription to any number of private satellite services that offer the same information on my neighbors, or anyone else I care (or have the time) to surveil. And as for personal information, all I have to do is scan the wireless networks around me to find out anything else I want to know about my neighbors. At least government has to follow rules and get warrants, even for the jihadi freaks living on American soil that want to kill us in the name of the religion of peace.
My sig other and I were outside late one night and we saw this satellite with bright lights moving around up in the big blueish black thing...and then the sentinels came. SMART PEOPLE ARE THE ENEMY ( if you're reading this...that means YOU!)
Not sure what your point is. Sounds like there's a good chance you're going to elect someone with half a brain for once, what's the problem?
I want to moon them.
Then enact the 2nd and hit the reset button
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
The whole 'violent overthrow' scenario MIGHT be a bit overblown. It assumes the willingness of the US armed forces to open fire on its own civilian population. Got to keep in mind, Stalin had the KGB to keep the Red Army in line. Look at the typical US soldier in the sandbox. Most of them are intelligent, ethical and honest folks. Will they obey an order to murder US citizens or will they refuse what could be considered an illegal order? Kind of off topic here. The real issue is civilian access to military hardware. I trust the average serviceman more than I trust agressive prosecutors and police brass.
"We will be using home made explosives, and importing rockets, pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, grendades and ammo from black market arms dealers. We won't be much different than the Iraqi's current 'insurgents', and fighting for much the same reason..."
This presupposes that the military will act as one, with no internal dissension from the soldiers who will be asked t fight against their friends and family.
Frankly, that assumption is ridiculous, and any argument that comes from it isn't worth considering.
If it ever comes to violent revolt, whether or not we're legally allowed to bear arms prior to the revolt is utterly irrelevant. We will immediately be reduced to guerrilla or terrorist tactics. We will be using home made explosives, and importing rockets, pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, grendades and ammo from black market arms dealers. We won't be much different than the Iraqi's current 'insurgents', and fighting for much the same reason... to take our own country back.
Well yes, since revolution is illegal, obviously the legality of owning guns is irrelevant when the revolution is in progress.
However, it being legal now means that when the revolution starts, you'll already own rifles and fertilizer. It'll become illegal quickly, so re-supply will have to come from the black market, but again it being legal now means the domestic black market will begin with a large stock, rather than having to immediately begin to import from other countries.
This will in fact be a huge leg up in a guerrilla war. Just like the Iraqi insurgency had a huge leg up from the fact that pretty much every household had at least one AK-47. I have no idea what we'd use in the place of the amazing RPG-7, but we'd at least have a good stock of firearms to begin with. If they'd had to start importing rifles from Iran and Syria in the beginning, the insurgency wouldn't have gotten started nearly as quickly and effectively.
Ultimately, though, I think the best reason to have the 2nd Amendment is to remind us that our country was itself founded on armed revolt, and the leaders of this revolt knew full well that another such revolt may be necessary in the future. Revolt is an American principle, and the 2nd Amendment enshrines it in our highest law.
The only edge we'll have over the iraqis is that -hopefully- our own army will have a slightly harder time killing fellow americans. But if history has taught us anything that shouldn't be a much a deterrent as one would think it should be.
The parts of the army that stay loyal will probably not have that hard a time shooting "traitors". At the same time, I think our biggest edge will be that sections of the military would defect to the revolutionary side. If even a small portion defects, that could provide enough skills and equipment for a guerrilla army to fight effectively for many years.
On a lighter but related note, I thought it was pretty funny in Jericho where it was mentioned there was a "wild card" that hadn't joined any of the new unions yet. I knew who it was before they even got to the part about them having lots of oil -- it was Texas, of course. Yeah I have a strong feeling that even if they weren't necessarily on the side of the revolution, they also wouldn't exactly cling to the federal government either. They still half think of themselves as an independent nation.
The enemies of Democracy are
It can't see though my tinfoil hat.
Military can NOT be used against the civilian population except under "special" circumstances.
So they need to put up some FBI spysats, then?
Oh, wait:
And by special, i mean, war on drugs special
If you've bought in to the idea that the War On Civil Liberties is a legitimate excuse, then what's stopping you from accepting the War On Civil Liberties II?
We can has warrant.
We are pwn all your base.
Resistance is futile.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
SEIG HEIL !!!! - Were done!
An anti-gun president hasn't managed to push a sweeping gun ban through Congress since... well, since Bill Clinton. And even if you are correct that "there's no way [Congress] are going to" do that again, presidents use executive orders to direct BATF do enforce existing laws in creative new ways, with the end result being the same as new legislation. There's enough ambiguity in laws (what constitutes a "sporting purpose"? How many imported subcomponents can a gun contain before the thing as a whole is considered "imported", etc.) that whether the enforcement of the law is directed by someone sympathetic to or hostile to gun rights has a huge impact on what is legal under it.
Do you actually think the United States has "won" in Iraq?
They won the 'open war' in short order.
They can't win an 'occupancy' against people don't want them there.
The same would be true in a revolution. Any sort of open combat with the military enabled by our 'right to bear arms' leading up to the revolution would be so feeble it wouldn't even get off the ground. But your right the military could never defeat an indigent resistance using makeshift weapons and guerrilla tactics.
Having a large supply of small arms weapons sitting in homes around the country going into the revolution might give us a bit of a leg up in terms of initial effectiveness, but really it doesn't matter in the long run. We aren't going to confront soldiers with pistols and hunting rifles except as a final act of desperation -- so if we don't have them its not going to make much difference.
We'd be focussed on other tactics... car bombs, and the like. And importing/stealing 'real' weapons as fast as possible.
Yeah, but I'm not a good enough shot to hit one of those spy satellites. I doubt you can either!
Buy a Chinese anti-satellite laser weapon?
Armed revolution is much less interesting than reality TV or celebrity gossip. Bread and Circuses. Keep the masses fed and entertained and you can get away with anything.
I'm just waiting for them to open up the RIAA and MPAA libraries. That's the ultimate circus that will appease us while the government can go do whatever else they want. What do I care as long as I have free music, free tv, free internet, and free porn and even free match making options on the internet so I can find willing partners into my fetishes! Who cares about what the government is doing as long it leaves us to our pleasures?
Long live Bread and Circuses! Long live the Emperor!
Obligatory XXX State of the Union quotes: "If it's got wheels, we can jack it." and "Welcome to the first Tank Jacking in history boys." In the event of total societal breakdown due to this, head to Texas. We still have the option in our charter to quit the union and become our own country. Oh...and do a quick survey...how much of our military is from Texas? :) Once the option is exercised, we post an immediate recall...we have working oil and gas, shipping, cheap gas, our own power grid...*grin* Oh...AND we get back everything that we gave to Mexico AND the USA...so we get most of Oklahoma, new mexico, some of arizona...look up maps after the Louisiana Purchase and before the founding of the union. Gives the state slogan "Texas, it's like a whole other country" a new meaning, doesn't it? :) I can see the new maps..Canada, then the east and west US, then in the middle of it all, Texas. That's one awesome thing about living in Texas..we may be thought of as crazy, over the top hicks, but man, we PLAN. :) I don't know the specifics, but I've heard that there's a lot of texans in the military... i'll have to look up the specifics. But in the meantime, if total anarchy reigns, head for Texas. Just let the troops at the border know that you werent born in texas, but you got here as fast as you could. :)
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you...
I guarantee that there is no logic to insurrection when these sorts of weapon can be made quite cheaply: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3vcXp_7O8 - SuperSoaker Flamethrower http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/hsvzclubbie/?action=view¤t=Attack_Chopperwmv.flv - RC Helicopter with Machine Gun Basically we have to watchout for Botnets of RC Helicopters with Guns and Supersoaker Flamethrowers controlled by some wireless ethernet protocol we can affectionately refer to as skynet.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Sats were used in the "war on drugs" 20 years ago. I knew it was a violation at the time but who was I going to tell?
And if it came to an armed revolt, it would be like the US Army vs Iraq... no not Iraq... Iraq had tanks, rocket launchers, fighter planes, SAM installations, a proper disciplined armed forces each armed and trained with using automatic weapons, etc, etc, etc. And they couldn't hold off the US at all. What do you think some angry rabble with rifles and pistols is going to accomplish in a pitched battle?
Squat. Jack Squat.
The same thing that happened the last time we tried it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
I don't understand why this is modded flamebait.
It sounds like a very rational theory.
The 2nd amandment gives you a toy to feel powerful and to frighten you because of the shootings.
Having a real and absolute freedom of information act, now that would be a weapon.
But don't assume that because most of the people vote for Obama means he'll actually get the nomination.
The DNC nomination process could get very ugly before it is decided.
Thanks, your reply made it clear you had no counter.
"Not really."
Yes really.
"Internal dissension within the military is irrelevant to the discussion of whether small arms and rifles would enable an efficient resistance."
Not when the point of bringing up the internal dissension is to make dumbasses like you aware that said dissension will provide weapons that exceed "small arms and rifles" and troops who are trained to use them. You ignore that reality because it moots your point completely.
Pretending that resistance would be limited to "small arms and rifles" while ignoring the members of the military who would side with the citizenry and bring their weapons with them is mendacious.
"Which if anything, would further undermine the real value of a large supply of civilians armed with hunting rifles and pistols."
Yes because better weapons and training would undermine them. That could be the worst attempt at a point ever. Seriously, that's among the dumbest things I've ever seen anyone type. And I've read your posts before.
What's wrong with people like you who have to resort to increasingly ridiculous comments when your points get destroyed? I mean fuck man, you just tried to argue that better training and weapons would be a bad thing. Stop before you say something REALLY stupid.
As to the point I was making, which you were to busy in your rush to find some way to salvage your previously mooted argument, the military INCLUDING IT'S LEADERS are not of one mind and cannot be treated as such. The idea that it can only be grunts with rifles is ignorant and disingenuous. It could just as easily be whole aircraft carriers fighting against each other.
The truth is, you're an anti-gun nut with no coherent argument, who just got his ass kicked. Badly.
http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpt7.htm
The STU [Special Training Unit] had its own single-engine Piper Lance, and had obtained a BigEye surveillance pod for it. The BigEye was a gyro-stabilized combination video camera for daytime use, and infra-red camera for night use. An operator in the plane could put the camera's cursor mark on a stationary or moving ground target and the camera would lock on to it even as the plane circled high above, out of sight and sound of its quarry.
The extensive use of light planes was a tradition in the ATF going back decades; from the time when the "revenue agents" had flown them to spot bootleg liquor stills from the air. These pilot-qualified agents bragged that for them ATF stood for 'agents that fly'. The numerous flying special agents and ATF light planes often permitted them to reach the scenes of federal crimes involving illegal firearms or explosives before any other agencies. Any one-horse Podunk town with a dirt landing strip nearby could usually have ATF agents on the ground in a few hours at most. The ATF was independently air-mobile to a greater degree than most other agencies at the light plane end of the aviation spectrum.
After a brief familiarization period with the BigEye Malvone gave his air team the addresses of a dozen senior government officials who were in a position to help the STU. They hit pay dirt on a Sunday morning in June when the Piper was flying lazy eights over Fairfax County Virginia, and they noticed activity at the estate of Deputy AG Paul Wilson. A Mercedes arrived with a young couple who turned out to be Wilson's daughter and son-in-law. Mrs. Wilson then left with them to attend church services.
Soon after the driveway's automatic gate closed behind the Mercedes, Paul Wilson had appeared in a bathrobe on the back patio of the mansion by the swimming pool, accompanied by someone else. The stabilized zoom lens of the Big Eye then recorded in intimate detail the white-haired senior federal official and a black-haired girl playing in the Jacuzzi, with no detail left to the imagination for the next fifteen minutes. Upon further investigation the girl had turned out to be the 16 year old daughter of the Wilson's Costa Rican housekeeper, who had taken the day off.
Malvone was smiling broadly at the memory. "As soon as I saw that tape I knew we'd own Wilson, we'd have him in our pocket. When the time comes he's going to go to bat for us, big time, and we'll get the Special Projects Division approved."
"The FBI's going to fight it. They'll never let ATF have a new division with that much power."
"That's where you're wrong Joe, the STU or SPD or what ever we end up calling it is going to be seen as a dirty outfit for dirty jobs, and the FBI won't want any part of it. If the SPD falls on its face, the stink won't rub off on them. They'll be glad to let the ATF have it, and let the ATF take the hit if things go wrong. By the time they figure out what's really going on, the Special Projects Division will be too big for them to stop."
Canadian? I'm good then... Like, take off eh. Hoser. Hockey!
Thanks Bob & Doug!
I have seen so many things right now, that are competely unnecessary and would need many new hires to use properly that they will only be "abused" instead of used, that even if you roll some of them back it would still be so many measures, laws and power without checks and balances (which will be abused, because that is how human nature works) that you should get used to it.
People in Soviet Russia also lived "normal" lives. They were used to it:
Don't trust police, watch what you are saying, keep walking when you see police abusing their power etc.
Instead of a stupid "Don't tase me bro." Just keep your mouth shut from the beginning when the apparatschik ist talking and don't forget to clap at the end.
Anyone want to bet that these spy satellites will be used for purposes other than law enforcement?
It seems strange to me that a government can spend billions of dollars spying on other countries citizens but its own citizens kick up a stink when they look their way. Why should other countries' citizens tolerate US espionage but the US can't look in their own backyard? By definition stuff internal to the country are more important and of greater risk than those external (the foreign country still has to either get their troops or bombs into your region for them to effect you). I say the international community should take out the american and other country spy satilletes and sue for "invasion of privacy".
The difference is, we are still clinging to our 2nd amendment - so at least we still have armed revolt as an option. The UK doesn't even have that.
Indeed. Have fun with your Saturday Night Special and posse of similarly armed militia-men against the US military, assuming your guns have not been confiscated shortly after the declaration of martial law. Think New Orleans on a larger scale, with even more at stake (in the eyes of an entrenched government).
Why do you cling to this fantasy that your pistols and rifles amount to anything against an established military that has tanks, planes, ships, MOAB and white phosphorous at its disposal? You would not last the afternoon, and you know it.
I wish you and others would wake up and realize that the "2nd Amendment" argument is just another form of denial. Your gun gives you power over exactly two things: your own ego (temporarily), and someone who doesn't also have one. Lose-lose.
But, I promise to read your story when I spot the headline on Google News about a home-grown terrorist in the mid-West US who flipped out and tried to start his own, personal jihad.
Good luck with that revolution.
Wait, does something have to be surprising to be ironic?
Not organized enough or even remotely competent enough.
With their track record on most other things, a complete government ban on private gun ownership would lead to everyone owning a gun within 6 months.
And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
I really am being watched!
And to think that they laughed at me when I put on my tinfoil hat!
Vindicated at last!
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Just avoid being out in criminal action when the weather is clear - wait for a rainy overcast day and you are clear from most surveillance - even the local cameras can't see much in heavy rain.
While we try to complain about the lack of freedom in many countries like China, Cuba or Myanmar the reality is that we are giving up our freedom bit by bit just because it's motivated by "war against terrorism" or "environmental concerns".
I like the approach of the guy driving a huge V8 pickup just because he likes stormy weather - he is a windsurfer!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
And still police can't find the bastards that robbed my flat.
Security Not Yours
lol verify word - prisons
In the US it's called Canadian Bacon.
They don't call that "back bacon", Canadians call it ham.
The revolution is right now. Maybe the world can wait for you to quit karma whoring.
Seriously. You're sitting on your ass making comments on the internet about those simple-minded folks that would rather watch TV or go to a game? The internet is a fucking circus, and don't pretend it isn't. You are a part of the group you complain about. Those who sit by and do nothing. Internet users would rather get first post on a story about their loss of rights than to actually do anything towards getting them back.
It's a little hard to march on Washington when no one will leave their office chair.
...we still have armed revolt as an option. The UK doesn't even have that.I think that there are people would disagree. Only recently dind the rebellion come to an end, and even so, there are some who are still at war.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Either way, I think it is now time for me to go get my 50 Cal rifle . And maybe stock up on a little ammo.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Wait, are you thinking that people are considering Obama based on his stance on issues?
Even if anyone knew what they were, most of the voters are like, "should I vote for the black guy or the woman? It's a good thing I'm not a black woman or I wouldn't know who to vote for!"
...because the geeks in the NSA's basement haven't EVER used the awesome resolution power of spy satellites to watch people having sex in parks, or to check out that hottie as she sunbathes nude.
Yeah, never.
-Styopa
It does matter. If the Democrats prevail and control everything, then the first thing they will do is try to pass another ban on scary looking assault-style rifles. It doesn't matter that they are essentially no different from a hunting rifle and are used in crimes less than a drunk uses a car, but the important fact is hat they look scary and are a gun.
.50 caliber rifles, and on and on ...
Period.
And once Congress passes the bill, then Obama will sign it.
This is the core of the Democratic hypocrisy. They feel that we are responsible enough to kill babies, but are not responsible enough to defend ourselves with a gun.
Expect attacks on law-abiding gun-owners by eliminating Gun shows, requiring ineffective micro-stamping in handguns, limiting purchases on lead and gunpowder, banning
It is already apparent that Obama will continue the partisanship and not work with the other side. His reaction in the State of the Union Address when health care came up was revealing. He has no interest in a health care program that works with businesses. His reaction clearly showed that he is only interested in a government run program. That also clearly shows that he will continue the ineffective Democratic partisanship that has resulted in accomplishing so little the last two years that has resulted in Congress having an even lower approval rating than Bush!
We don't learn much American history this side of the pond (we have about a thousand years of history of our own to learn about). The part that every British schoolchild learns though is that "in fourteen hundred and ninety two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" so the GP was probably counting from that date.
;p Ours usually start from at least 1066 (the last time we were successfully invaded).
Having just two hundred years of history to learn must make life so much easier for your school kids
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
And you morons STILL don't believe in them, do you? Everything the government does is one.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Those CCTV cameras are all privately owned and not networked. You'd have to get a warrant for every single place the person you're tracking might pass through, pick up the videos from all of them every day and go through them all.
Chicago and New York are renowned for stories of police brutality that you never hear emanating from other communities. Chicago is infamous for taking care of cop-killers.
You're technically right, but my point remains.
Once a disgruntled populace is armed, it is a threat. Until it is armed, it has no ability to combat the gov't by force, and so long as the gov't still have the ability to use the military to bully The People, The People will have to use force to achieve freedom.
If gun ownership is legal, it is possible for a populace to legally become a threat to the gov't. Though the process between acquisition and shooting is illegal, it still relies on an armed populace. Legal acquisition of arms is vastly preferable to illegal acquisition, as it would prevent uncle sam from seizing any shipments, hassling any rebels, etc. for owning a gun.
Yeah, conspiracy is illegal. So what? I'm assuming the rebels in this hypothetical case are jailed for communicating far less inflammatory things than conspiracy; that's what always happens when a state's gov't goes to hell. Any disgruntled people not already in jail would know to communicate rebellious plans face-to-face or in some manner (a code?) that the gov't could not intercept or trace. On the other hand, it's easy for a gov't to conduct random physical searches, see a gun stashed in a corner, and jail the owner / seize the weapon.
I guess the reason I'm responding is to ask: Do you disagree with my point, or are you just nit-picking?
I was just being pedantic, but I would like to point out that we still can't legally get any of the larger, more effective weapons. Eventually, you'll need to take down vehicles with those guns, too, and by the time you have rocket launchers etc., I doubt anyone on the other side would hesitate to get something bigger. (At least assuming it's in one or two areas. I doubt it would look good to start carpet bombing one's own country.)
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
First of all, it has been demonstrated historically that it is indeed possible for numerically and technologically inferior forces to force the withdrawal of superior forces. Four relatively modern scenarios that come to mind are Vietnam, Mogadishu, Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, and probably Iraq. Remember, for an insurgency to be effective it does not have to win battles with military victories. It merely has to sap enough resources until the enemy finds it not worth fighting.
Third of all, if things deteriorated to the point that it motivated a significant portion of the population to engage in a rebellion, it is likely that not all troops would stay in step with the federal government.
Exactly. With the conflicts you mention, the opposing forces weren't even the same people. They were the natives versus foreign military forces of very different ethnicities and nationalities. It's a lot easier to get your nation's soldiers to go to a foreign country and shoot foreign people who look different and speak a different language than it is to have them shoot their own countrymen.
But nope, liberals are going to keep voting for these nutjobs...let's take away citizen's rights and turn the United States into a socialist paradise!
Hey, don't blame the liberals. Registered Republican voters voted overwhelmingly for McCain, who is not very strong on gun rights. Plenty of registered Republicans even voted for Giuliani, who's a complete foe of gun rights.
(and for the record, I am not a Ron Paul supporter...seems as I may come off as that here)
Why not? He's the only candidate who really believes in freedom and liberty, or at least far, far more than any other candidate. Some of his economic ideas may be a little odd, but that doesn't really matter because it's the Congress who passes the budget and new laws, not the President. He can only veto. But at least Paul wouldn't take away any more liberties, and wouldn't abuse his position like BushCo. I can't say that about the other candidates.
It wasn't too long ago that you could walk around with a gun and nobody would think twice about it.
You can still do that here in Arizona, mostly. The huge number of California and Illinois refugees is changing that, however, but it's still perfectly legal to walk around with a visible handgun holstered on your hip, though you might get a few looks for it. My wife and I do it all the time. One dumb teenager asked if she was a bounty hunter (???). 20 years ago, it was perfectly normal here in Phoenix for regular people to walk around in grocery stores with revolvers on their hips, but unfortunately times are changing (and crime rates are WAY up--coincidence? I think not).
Expect attacks on law-abiding gun-owners by eliminating Gun shows, requiring ineffective micro-stamping in handguns, limiting purchases on lead and gunpowder, banning .50 caliber rifles, and on and on ...
Even if lead for bullets were banned outright, wouldn't it be possible to use other materials instead? For instance, regular solder is 60/40 tin/lead, and melts at a low temperature. Of course, with all the RoHS crap going on, tin/lead solder is getting harder to find, but the new lead-free solder is mostly tin I believe, and still melts at a relatively low temperature. So while it may not perform ballistically as well as pure lead, and would be somewhat expensive, it might be usable if things came to that.
As for gunpowder, I wonder how hard it is to make that... I know modern guns don't use the old-style black powder because it leaves too much residue (and isn't powerful enough too), but smokeless powder still shouldn't be that hard to make using some chemicals, right?
They won the 'open war' in short order.
They can't win an 'occupancy' against people don't want them there.
The same would be true in a revolution. Any sort of open combat with the military enabled by our 'right to bear arms' leading up to the revolution would be so feeble it wouldn't even get off the ground. But your right the military could never defeat an indigent resistance using makeshift weapons and guerrilla tactics.
Having a large supply of small arms weapons sitting in homes around the country going into the revolution might give us a bit of a leg up in terms of initial effectiveness, but really it doesn't matter in the long run. We aren't going to confront soldiers with pistols and hunting rifles except as a final act of desperation -- so if we don't have them its not going to make much difference.
We'd be focussed on other tactics... car bombs, and the like. And importing/stealing 'real' weapons as fast as possible.
Exactly. That's why no guerilla force ever confronts an organized military on an open battlefield; it'd be suicide. That's why they're called "guerillas": they fight unconventionally, among civilians, in urban areas, etc., so that they can inflict losses on a far superior military force.
In an armed insurgency, the goal isn't to defeat the opposing military force, it's to wear it down, and make it so expensive, that that force's government eventually gives up. That's exactly what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan (vs. the Soviets), and it was highly successful in each instance. The US and the USSR totally failed in their military actions in those countries. The US isn't all that successful in Iraq now either; we're not going to be able to afford this campaign much longer.
Then, when you're talking about an American civil war in modern times, things are even more tilted in favor of the revolutionaries: the US Military is composed of US citizens, who won't be nearly as interested in shooting at their countrymen as they are at "towelheads" or other foreign people. Many of them may very well defect and join the revolutionaries, making it an all-out civil war. Most likely, if things got that bad, the military would simply stop supporting the Administration.
By bruteforcing I presume you mean massive voter turnout against incumbents. What happens if the vote is rigged? To quote one of the greatest tyrants of history: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything"
I just thought that someone in the UK ought to know that the colonies rebelled a mere 200 years ago, not 500 years ago. Especially since England's first colony was 400 years ago...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well, half of what I meant. I was thinking more along the lines of having a good portion of the 'angry mob' running for various positions. A few are bound to be elected each time. I was also thinking 'near-future' when I wrote that. At the point where untold thousands of votes can be thrown away like that, I'll be all for the torches and pitchforks.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
While, as usual, very few Americans have been paying attention three major processes have occurred, speedily so over the past 7 years - although the process was begun almost 30 years ago. The American election process has been privatized, with four major election systems' companies which will account for at least 100 million votes comes this 2008 presidential election (Premier Election Systems - formerly Diebold, Hart Intercivic, Sequoia Voting Systems and ES&S). Also, the American intelligence community has been privatized. The third key is that these two have now been merged together.
Who counts the votes? Does anyone in this country actually know? Other than less than 5 out of every million Americans?
The answer, in reality, is that some group or other at the Pentagon counts the votes - using their proxy operator, S.A.I.C., along to a minor degree, Accenture, to front for them through those four companies. The primary reason for that Total Information Awareness program - which still exists but under other names and TLAs - is the control of the American election/voting processes. End of story. Lock and load, good buddy......
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Step 1: Reading comprehension. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Step 2: Read some Federalist writings, Jefferson's comments in letters about the 2nd, etc
I agree with the last part, but if our founders followed your first sentiment, we'd still be part of the UK. Not necessarily. After all, what I said is more or less what happened. They tried for many years to work within the system. Only when that utterly failed did they throw off that system. This was the basis of my statement.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
In these elections you have had the opportunity to vote for at least two politicians in the two mainstream parties who aren't working for the devil, and yet most Americans ignored both. Had he had an opportunity to see the modern America, Washington (that's your nation's founder, folks) would cry, or perhaps he would think that the country he founded was taken over by the Soviets or something... Churchill, your WW2 ally, couldn't say it any clearer: in a democracy people get what they deserve. If you masturbate every day with celebrity gossip and soap operas, that's what you get. Real democracy can only be realised when citizens have brains. Get a brain now and make it think, or risk one day having internal passports and imitating all the other totalitarian innovations of your old enemies, the commies. You didn't wait for the Soviets to fall under their own stupidity only to copy them, did you?
Not quite clear enough; I already know what you are talking about, but the grandparent is completely clueless so would not, by definition almost, be able to understand.
Just a couple quick points to clear things up, k?
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
They're in the process of banning stick ownership.
:-).
And walking softly.
Insert
8)Does this mean my kids won't get there ass beat on the way to school, without intervention? Can I deliver a load of prepackaged concrete to a Miami Home Depot, be robbed, and get a result? If I wish to visit my national Class I railroad, and accidentally step on private property(or damn, maybe entirely intentional, though Luke didn't show up that day), and take pictures of the locomotives and crews, will they know me? I am currently unemployed, and have a CDL Class A license, if I ask a trucker in a parking lot of Pilot truck stop, where he goes, what he does, unloads, etc, what he hauls, would you think they'd understand my wish to leave Tennessee State Unemployment Compensation, and go on Further?
Don't you think...? Or don't you?
The only person who should spy on us is God! And not man!.Big brother should bud out!
My point wasn't that they were killed, it was that they succeeded.
To me, the biggest problem with the safeguard of the 2nd Amendment is not how effective will average citizens be as resistance fighters. To me the biggest problem is will average citizens be too apathetic to ever stand up and rise in rebellion should it be warranted.
It's why the Second Amendment is pointless.
If the majority of the citizens were willing to die for their freedom, they'll equally be vigilant enough to protect it from slipping away, by carefully voting honest citizens into power, and ensuring that all legal checks and balances are properly applied to prevent any one person or group from seizing power illegally.
If they've been apathetic enough to allow to corruption and moral decay set in so badly that all those checks and balances become useless, they certainly won't be agitated enough to take up arms.
There's no point for calling for a revolution from people who don't even care enough to vote.
"Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian."
Well then, I guess it would be redundant to call you a moron.
Do you really think I'm going to waste my time refuting the made-up references of a talking points parroting Neocon member of the National Gun-nut Association?
1. Didn't your mommy teach you to tell the truth?
2. Do you even know who Jefferson was?
As for the "moderator" who modded my posting down: You've been had, Sonny. These perverts are making this all up.