Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Creates Map of US "Constitution-Free Zone"
trackpick points out a recent ACLU initiative to publicize a recent expansion of authority claimed by the Border Patrol to stop and search individuals up to 100 miles from any US border. They have created a map of what they call the US Constitution-Free Zone. "Using data provided by the US Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders. The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This 'Constitution-Free Zone' includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.'"
Airports?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Nah, the Supreme Court finally told the D.C. government that at least part of the Constitution actually does apply there.
The message is simple, "You have no rights."
Seriously, does anyone think that this really has anything to do with illegal immigration? There are plenty of laws on the books to stop them from coming in and to deport them, however there is a severe lack of Federal authorities using those laws. This has everything to do with getting people used to being searched illegally.
Many times local police will pick up an illegal immigrant for drunk driving or another offense, they'll call the feds, and the feds will do nothing.
A year ago in MN a woman ran into a school bus, killing 3. It turned out she was here illegally and had been arrested before. The local police called INS (during the first arrest) and they wouldn't do anything about it.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I wouldn't tell them to get stuffed. However, you could try what this guy does...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv8hoQYeVl0
One of his last ones he was stopped there for like 7 minutes until they let him go.
The first one is good too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw&feature=related
"Especially absurd is the recurring theory that private guns prevent the national government from becoming dictatorship."
I love how people tend to forget we're a nation born of revolt and war, tempered in the fires of combat, using pretty much PRIVATE WEAPONS against a MUCH LARGER ARMY.
Pay closer attention to history. If it can happen ONCE and create a new country, it can happen again.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I love how people tend to forget we're a nation born of revolt and war, tempered in the fires of combat, using pretty much PRIVATE WEAPONS against a MUCH LARGER ARMY.
I love how people tend to forget that the Colonial militias were getting their asses kicked by the redcoats until a bunch of Germans and -- yes -- Frenchmen came over and taught us how to fight as an actual army.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
More Polish than German, but then again the borders back then weren't the same, Germany and Italy being comprised on many little pieces. But a more important complaint: we were still losing once they taught us to fight like an Army (after all, there were ex-soldiers leading the milita). The 10,000 soldiers the French sent, the Navy, the guns and ammunition, probably all helped more than the expertse.
And you left out that the "private weapons" he mentioned included cannons (the most sophisticated weapons of the time), and other British Army weapons.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
DISCLAIMER: I am posting from Kandahar City, Afghanistan, where I am stationed for the next little while.
The example you cite - the American Revolution - hasn't been applicable to the real world since the last years of the American Civil War.
The time period from the early 1700s to the late 1800s was dominated by the smoothbore, muzzle-loading musket, and its big brother, the smoothbore, muzzle-loading, solid-shot cannon (of which there were few in the Colonies)
An American Rebel, armed with a flintlock Kentucky Rifle, carried a weapon that was the technological equal of his British Regular Army counterpart. In some ways (range and accuracy) it was superior; in others (rate of fire) inferior. Employed properly, entirely comparable.
The success of armies in this era was largely a function of discipline, leadership, and logistics. If you had a cause sufficient to unite men in common purpose, leaders with enough tactical acumen to employ them, and paid attention to the problems of supply, it was entirely possible to go head to head with a national, professional, regular army and win outright on the battlefield - especially if your "professional" opponent was lacking in one of these vital areas.
That is no longer the case. No militia is capable of withstanding the kind of destructive force a modern combat team (a company of mechanized infantry, a troop of tanks, and two artillery pieces) is capable of putting out.
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan die - in large numbers - any time they try to go toe-to-toe with modern combat forces. It's no contest; so hopelessly lopsided that it's almost pathetic.
The only weapon that is at all effective is the Improvised Explosive Device (basically a really big land mine) but the IED is not a decisive weapon; it is a harassment tactic, not a war-winner.
The insurgent plays off our unwillingness to inflict civillian casulties. If we take fire from a village, it is entirely within our combat power to stop the entire village flat (in seconds!) to get him. We choose not to for very good reasons.
But if a government WERE willing to inflict those kinds of casulties (and please note that I am NOT advocating such a course of action) any would-be rebels would find themselves in a world of hurt very quickly. The idea that a self-organized citizen militia could take on and defeat the US Army, Navy, and Air Force is simply laughable.
Yes, the North Vietnamese pulled it off, but that was because the will to do what was necessary to win wasn't there. Within the boundaries of the United States proper, however, it is safe to say that will exists, given that the army that has killed more Americans than all other armies in all other American wars *combined* is the US Army. Ask Lincoln and Grant if they had the will to do what was necessary to win. or better yet, ask Lee.
Your Second Amendment is nice in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
There are a couple of weaknesses in that argument:
"look and speak like" clearly doesn't apply to the gangsters' "soldiers" in urban areas where black-on-black and brown-on-brown violence (and white-on-white in less-urban) is prevalent. Neither does it apply to an army trained in "civilian pacification" (slaughter) where the admission standards have been lowered to allow criminals to join, as in the United States Army.
History has show that US Army soldiers are quite willing to kill anyone, as ordered, in the US. From the Whiskey Rebellion, through the Draft Riots (when Lincoln first enslaved free men to fight his war), through Kent State, with a detour through the forced labor enforced by the US Army on workers at a aircraft plant BEFORE we entered WWII, there is no time when the US Army has refused to employ deadly force on US civilians.
That's not the America I grew up in
Sadly, it looks like the America you're probably going to die in though.
I'm glad I don't have kids. Yes, I know, people said the same thing in the fifties and sixties, with the threat of atomic war with Russia hanging over their heads and we survived the Cold War. Not that we're exactly out of the woods, but we haven't died in a nuclear holocaust. Those times were pretty damned scary, but I have to admit: if my parents had succumbed to those fears I wouldn't be here. They took the chance that life would go on, that the final conflict would never come. And it hasn't, yet.
Nevertheless, we have bigger fish to fry nowadays. We are not dealing now with an externality, such as fear of encroaching Communism that motivated our behavior during the Cold War. Yet, the problem is no less ideological in nature, and what makes it worse is that the ideologues in question happen to be running our government. Actually, "ideologue" is perhaps too mild a term. "Sociopath" comes closer to the mark, I think.
I'm not certain this trend can be reversed either, because far too many of us are in support of it. Many of us are afraid of illegal immigration (with good reason, it's true) and look upon these security "enhancements" with an uncritical eye. Others are swayed by the usual "think of the children" arguments, and again give the Government a free pass. In any case, throwing away whatever remains of our vaunted Constitution, whatever is left of our humanity, is not a viable solution. Long term, allowing our fears to be played upon by an ever-more-powerful State is going to cost us. Bigtime.
By the time the full effects are felt by most of us, well, I don't know. We may be in too deep by then. "Constitution Free Zones" show how far we've fallen in a few short years.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.