Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards
inode_buddha writes "Not long ago we ran a story about how a NY newspaper published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor, amid 'large volumes of negative response.' From the article: 'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said. The guards are protecting the newspaper's staff and Rockland County offices in West Nyack, New York.'"
Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship. India and the Soviet block show another way to overthrow a government.
Besides for America to turn into a dictatorship would take the support of a good chunk of Americans. The dictatorship would probably be right wing religious with the majority of gun owners backing up the dictatorship as it is needed to stop those horrible liberals who only won the election due to immigrants or some such excuse.
Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In enlightenment philosophy, rights were those self-evident truths that all men had the same freedoms to life, to liberty, to self-determination. Governments don't have such "rights". Democratic governments have responsibilities. Other governments have force and caprice.
As to "the right to tax you", If we were to read the original constitution we'd see that congress was delegated the power to tax imports, exports, and the states themselves. It provided a formula for how to share taxes among the states, which was based on the state population, broken down by indians, slaves, and everybody else. But nowhere was Congress delegated authority to tax individuals, until the 19th amendment.
That new power to tax individuals was (and is) considered unconstitutional by many, because they believe the 19th amendment was not properly ratified - snuck through the system with The People largely unaware, with dubious and incomplete records of many of the requisite elections.
Even if we accept the 19th amendment as legitimate, that tax regime is not a self-evident truth, it's a human invention, an arbitrary method of funding the government.
Our government is just a glorified home owners' association that the home owners themselves formed and chartered, and can also revise, re-charter or (with some difficulty) disband.
The federal government has the job of doing exactly what the States (via Senators and Representatives) tell it to do, nothing less, nothing more.
I am pleased to support it when it provides me services, because I feel I share a duty. Not because the US government has a "right" to my labor and property.
Now seems like a good time to inject some uncomfortable facts. According the the latest FBI statistics, law enforcement officers are perpetrators of violent crime at *exactly* the same rate as the general population. This is not counting "police brutality" or any other duty-related charges, real or imagined. CCW holders on the other hand, are perpetrators of violent crime at about 1/20 the rate of the general population, and therefore at 1/20 the rate of law enforcement officers, also.
So, using FBI statistics, the chance of a law enforcement officer using his firearms for nefarious ends are about 20X that of your neighbor with a CCW license doing likewise.
There is a background history to guns that U.S. citizens tend to forget, because they do not seem to understand the middle ages.
The initial development of gunpowder lead to to weapons, specifically for war. The later development of portable guns was always in the function of killing people. It is probably only in the 18th century that guns became easy enough to be used as hunting tools (can't find references about this).
People on the North American frontier needed guns to defend and to feed themselves. This was probably the first and last time in history that guns became a tool for personal support.
I think that is the main difference in culture between the US and Europe. On the European continent, guns have mostly (99.99%) been part of the armies, which were directed by the kings and nobility. I think that there is a deep, unconscious suspicion against gun ownership in Europe. In Europe, guns have never been the tools of liberation, but always of oppression. In the U.S., this became the opposite.
However, I would warn those people who think that their gun ownership make them safe for criminals or can be used against their government.
In the first case, if a criminal wants to get you, he will take more time planning and be prepared to use means that he can get to, but you can't. In the case of petty criminality, citizen gun ownership will probably make a difference, but in the case of heavy criminality, you will almost certainly lose.
In the second case, I suggest that people who think they can use their guns successfully against their government, study the Boer Wars. Yes, it was not easy for the English to succeed, but succeed they finally did. It is just a case of planning, time and means. Then compare the former English army at the end of the 19th century with the current U.S. Army.