Slashdot Mirror
"Terrorist" Lyrics Land High Schooler In Jail
An anonymous reader writes "A Methusen, Mass. high schooler, who goes by the rapper name 'Cammy Dee' has been arrested after posting lyrics that police felt were 'communicating terrorist threats.' This wouldn't be the first time rap lyrics were investigated, but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."
Really, if the police have time enough to deal with this, then clearly all the more important crimes have been resolved.
This had better be News For Nerds, because it sure isn't Stuff That Matters. If you don't have a good technical article to post, then don't post anything at all. These flamebait stories are getting old.
Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."
Please. It's already chillingly low. How many christians have publicly said gays "should burn in hell" ? How many famous celebrities have said they would shoot government officials if they came to take their guns away? I could come up with dozens of examples of more volatile speech by talking heads on television... and god help us if I decide to include examples from that cesspool of humanity called the internet.
Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.
The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
From looking at the story, it seems like some prosecutor here wants to come off as tough on crime and terrorists to further their political career. This is Aaron Schwartz all over again. This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine. No reason for 20 years in prison for doing something stupid that harmed no one.The average sentence for rape is around 20 years.
The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government.
That was actually a multi-billion dollar statement in terms of cost to the US.
Why? because now all those people who hold security positions and had to sign that they had never belonged to an organization that advocated the violent overthorow of the US govt will have to be re-investigated if they continue to belong to the NRA.
It's basically sedition.
where the white house gets attacked. why dont we lock those fillmakers up? or at least those actors spewing those hateful lines.
Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.
Kids who want to be bad listen to rap music and buy into that way of gang life early on. Bill Cosby said it best when he said,"The kids listen to the rap music and get brain damage." Rap music didn't invent crime, but it doesn't discourage it. Between advocating a criminals life, and disrespect for women, much rap music is bad for society in general. Kids get seduced by a life of crime to get their way, and end up trying to live it. They just end up screwing up other people's life and their own. If rap artists were really interested in the well being of their audience, they'd rap about how a kid should take the hard road, study in school, be cool to everyone, respect yourself, and others. There's no street cred when it comes to taking the hard road though. People who buy rap music want to be told they're oppressed, and they should take the easy road out.
“I’m not in reality, So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fucking federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’m a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me"
Compare that against the shit I remember in the 90s (dre, snoop dog, easy z, compton's most wanted, tupac, blah blah blah) and it's kinda poetic. Eg. Above the Law "Another Execution" and it seems like rap lyrics are getting better:
Because I take out my weapon And I quickly start blastin', I go total loco like a crazy assasin, I look at my posse they say nothings confusin', Why? why? why? It's just another execution
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
How many rap lyrics *don't* contain statements that could be construed as a specific threat?
And do the Harlem Shake.
Fool. The American people own their government by right spelled out in the Constitution. They can't "take over" what is theirs. Armed citizens are the ultimate last ditch the protection against the government being taken over by rogue elements. Go crawl back under your rock.
I hate rap as much as the next intelligent guy, but when the US government starts taking away basic freedoms like "freedom of speech" and "freedom of press", that really indicates to me that the US is no longer a free country. It also indicates that the government is scared and disorganized. One more evil empire going under, kicking and screaming. Glad I got out when the getting out was good, because I wouldn't doubt that the US government will start restricting freedom of movement for its own citizens.
Was actually supposed to read, "the right to bare arms".
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Come on now, no need to go into armchair revolutionary panic mode. Terroristic threatening is a common statutory criminal offense. It doesn't imply that the perpetrator is a member of a terrorist cell or that our liberties are being attacked. It's sort of like an assault, just a little more specific and serious.
Generalized definition of a terrorist threat:
1. Willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm.
2. Make threat with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat.
3. The threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution.
4. The threat actually caused fear in the victim.
5. The fear was reasonable.
Generalized definition of an assault:
1. Intent to create the state of fear or danger in the victim.
2. The victim had a reasonable apprehension (belief) that they would be harmed.
3. The victim must experience fear in response to a threat that is imminent, or immediately about to occur.
4. The conduct must present either a threat of physical harm or offensive behavior.
> sat in court with his head hung between his knees
Was this a bit of editorializing?
A couple questions:
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
teenager who looks about one step away from retarded is so fucking stupid to announce to the entire world that "boston bominb wait till u see the shitI do" and people question it, after nearly 3 weeks of "why the fuck wasn't the Boston bombers integrated after flying to Russia OMG!"
kid is a stupid fucking poser with no future, who might actually do something dangerous cause he really has nothing else
can we just kill the cattle already?
Seriously read the article people. This isn't as simple as some guy rapping about violence. This guy made social media postings/videos about bombing and killing people. If they had done nothing and he had gone through with it, people would be complaining about them not acting on the threats. Keep in mind this kid was arrested for threatening to stab and kill his sister. He is clearly unstable, and made threats in a public forum. Thats enough red flags to act on.
The explosions at the Boston Marathon were from Police operated Meth Boilers where fights broke out with rival heroin gangs.
The video showing 'white powder' next to the building was not fertilizer ! It was raw cocaine the Boston Police were 'cooking' to make Crack on the sidewalk.
Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.
The Central problem / issue is that this cracker is white. White people can NOT rap. As matter of fact they are not allowed to rap. Rapping is the music of the oppressed minority. The minority is oppressed by white people. That is why black people have to rap about rapeing, killing and robbin the society that has oppressed them since before they were born. This is perfectly justified. Being a white cracker myself, I realize that I am scuum, and deserved to be raped, killed and robbed to death. However this soft white bitch is rapping about blowing stuff up. He should not be allowed to do this stuff. As a matte of fact he should be arrested because he is a honkey. Only people who have the blood right (black people) are allowed to rap, wear womens underwear on their heads, wear pants that fall off their but (but hey they are still cool because they are black), and use the latin word for black (e.g nigger) (oops I just said the 'N' word. Now I have to kill myself.
1860 in the south, 2009.
No and not yet, respectively.
Although the Whiskey Rebellion was quashed by a show of force, the events it set in motion contributed to Jefferson's election and changing the laws that brought about the rebellion.
Similar comments are applicable to the earlier Shay's Rebellion.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Whilst it is true that "rogue elements" have usurped control of our government, the only last ditch defence possible will be peaceful civil disobedience. Anyone retarded enough to fantasize about armed rebellion has not been paying attention.
Eventually, this Homeland Security horseshit will become so intolerable that even the average citizen will realize that it is un-American. This, OTOH, appears to me to be a bit beyond the pale, and outside of our protected speech. I am all about unpopular opinions, I happen to hold a great many myself, and reckon I'd get arrested or beaten if I shared some of them, but this chump is not Lenny Bruce.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.
And the French Army, which is a small detail overlooked by libertarian revisionists.
Athens TN, August 1946.
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?
1774
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
Yes
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The Armed citizenry was part of it, but you're missing a lot. The Prussian Drill Washington instituted under Baron von Steuben was the antithesis of Armed Citizens, and even with an Armed Citizenry and an actual army Washington couldn't win until after Admiral de Grasse delivered the historic coup de grasse at the battle of Chesepeake. Armed citizens could make it difficult for the British to hold territory, but they simply could not drive the British out.
And that was in the days when 100 guys with hunting rifles were better-armed then 100 combat troops with military-grade weapons. Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
1860?
Are you referring to Lincoln or Jefferson?
All I need to know to not bother reading the rest of this junk. Nothing new there.
Do you mean 1776? Because the change in government in 1774 was the creation of Congress, and if Congress is the "rogue element," that an Armed Citizenry is supposed to fight then the Armed Citizenry lost.
If you're trying to refer to 1776, as I mentioned in another post we couldn't have won that war without a professional army, the French Navy, and French money to pay for it all.
Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?
The Taliban have weapons orders of magnitude better then anything that has even been legal in the US because they have RPGs. Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal). And yet most of their successful attacks are IEDs.
Military technology is changed. As a weapon today the rifle is where the sword was in 1860-65. It's useful militarily in certain tactical situations, but basing your entire tyranny-prevention policy on rifles...
There's an 18 year old kid calling himself 'Cammy' being tried for a 20 year sentence for posting a homemade youtube rap video? Here's hoping nobody named 'Mickey', 'Daffy' or 'Pluto' ever does the same thing or Americans might realize how ridiculous their country has become.
Here's a bit more on the charges
Just another whining rapper, whining about how his life sucks, having to pay for the women he knocked up
Yep, as done by such armed civilians as General Washington.
Sorry, but the pathetic myth of some guys with old muskets freezing in the woods winning a country alone is pissing on the graves of your ancestors who were not as stupid as you'd like to pretend they were.
Not the Feds, but here is an example of a local government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
More recent examples, not in the US, to cite would be Libya, Egypt, Syria (in progress), etc.
We have plenty of fucked up movies that suggest far worse than anything this kid has with his crappy rap lyrics. He did nothing wrong and because of our governments idea to turn us all into a bunch of terrorist fearing pussies we see stories like this. You're far more likely to be murdered by the police than a terrorist and that's a fact.
Also I see a lot of people talking about a case against him that was dismissed which annoys me to why people think it's okay to look at that. He was convicted of nothing and yes it looks bad but still we cannot look at that unless he was actually convicted.
I mean that would be like someone being charged for rape but then it gets dismissed.. Then later another rape happens so they use the the past rape charge against him to help them decide if they're going to charge him for the new rape.
That's not how the law works.
A couple questions: When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
The Battle of Athens (10:01)
Matewan: The Problem (5:40)
Matewan: The Setup (3:40)
Matewan: The Shootout (6:40)
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
Fully how that inconvenient word "militia" tends to get ignored every time the 2nd amendment comes up and people seem to instead see it as a reset button. Look at Syria to get a dose of reality about what a revolution really looks like when it's not just about throwing out a small occupying force from a distant nation.
It's funny how in the USA it's considered to be "conservative" to go around yelling about arming in preparation to smash the state.
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
46 years ago
But the unarmed citizenry was far more effective (MLK & Co.).
NWA sang about actively murdering police, and it's legit. This is NOT new, it's not even newsworthy... until this stupid shit becomes fodder for arrests. It's stupid shit, yes but is it really worth arresting on "communicating terrorist threats"? Hell no - that's one damn slippery slope.
And in this day and age, it takes much less skill to build things that go boom than it does to learn to shoot well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army.
Yeah, cause we haven't lost any troops to guys with rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan.
What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
So explosives should be legal?
we in canada need to build a fracking giant 1000 foot wall 50 feet thick right across our south border with you fucking nutbars.
John Brown
Google says "coup de grasse" means "helping fat."
I assume you meant coup de grâce.
FTFA:
"I’m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive),” read the social media posting that raised alarms with high school assistant Principal James Weymouth when another student called it to his attention.
So the (expletive) (expletive) (expletive) (expletive) with the (expletive) (expletive). (Expletive) (expletive)!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
On the one hand, abuse of state power, freedom of speech violation etc. Society loses
On the other, shuts another idiot fucking rapper up for a while. Society wins.
It's right now. Deal with it.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
From looking at the story, it seems like some prosecutor here wants to come off as tough on crime and terrorists to further their political career.
You really need to try the system most of the rest of the democratic world uses: have your elected officials appoint/hire people for lower public offices like the attorney general. This provides enough insulation from political concerns while still having the electorate ultimately in charge. Politically bad but nevertheless correct decisions (like not prosecuting someone) can then be made without the prosecutor fearing for his/her career.
It's like pointing out that Slashdot has gone downhill drastically in the past year or so...some things are not supposed to be said.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
This guy may call himself a rapper, but his arrest has nothing to do with "lyrics". He posted a (very) threatening rant on Facebook.
2009
Don't you mean 2001, when Bush stole the election? The 2008 election wasn't contested, and in a democracy, even if the winner states he hates the government he serves, he's still a valid winner, not a rogue (as the libertarian running for railroad commissioner for Texas said, the position shouldn't exist, and if elected, he'd abolish his position, if elected he'd still not be "rogue").
Learn to love Alaska
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WioKSZaLd2c 'nuf said
This.
The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace, and the political faction most associated with the NRA is the same faction that is trying to gut education in this country.
They want everyone ignorant and afraid, so they can sell more guns.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army.
vietnam war
black hawk down
afghanistan and iraq (how long did it take to hunt down saddam hussein and osama bin laden?)
"modern" militaries are good at bombing innocent civilians, but atrocious at fighting actual combatants... all it takes is a single RPG to take down a multi-million dollar attack helicopter
What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
so they fear basically every potential enemy combatant? if so it means they really aren't that effective at all
"modern" military forces like to think they are smart, but if they were really smart they wouldn't need big expensive fancy weapons...
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
"Confront them with annihilation, and they will then survive; plunge them into a deadly situation, and they will then live. When people fall into danger, they are then able to strive for victory."
"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." - Sun Tzu
"Meuthuen police say they understand the freedom of speech and they're not trying to shut anybody up, but in this instance they think it went a little too far."
That sounds like a bit of doublespeak to me. We aren't trying to control what you say, just don't say anything that we consider too far.
The whole genre of rap music is infused with the idea of committing crimes. If people assumed every time someone said anything threatening in a rap song, they were actually going to do what they said and arrested them, there wouldn't be a rapper left on the streets.
Actually, I think for the first time ever, I'm going to have to quote eminem:
America, hahaha, we love you, how many people are proud to be citizens of this beautiful Country of ours, the stripes and the stars for the rights that men have died for to protect, The women and men who have broke their neck's for the freedom of speech the United States Government has sworn to uphold, (Yo', I want everybody to listen to the words of this song) or so we're told...
That's why they put my Lyrics up under this microscope, searchin' with a fine tooth comb, its like this rope, waitin' To choke, tightening around my throat, watching me while I write this, like I don't like this, Nope
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Well the way I see it is we don't have to protect our kids from the 2cnd if we just stuff em with criminal charges every time they say shit we don't like and act out.
***Sarcasm
"Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?"
Members of the United States armed forces are also CITIZENS of this land. Each of them has a home, located in some city or town, located in some state or another. Each of them (well, the overwhelming majority, anyway) has loved ones, whom they probably value more than they value the US government.
I'll remind you of General Robert E. Lee, who didn't want to see the states fight each other - but decided that if there were to be a fight, he would fight for his home state of Virginia.
If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States. Nor can you rely on the government's ability to retain control over all the hardware, command infrastructure, or much of anything else.
For this reason, and others, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The government hopes to retain control of DHS if and when the shit hits the fan. Unfortunately for the government - DHS consists of mostly incompetent buffoons, far less capable than agents from any other agency. Further, the loyalty of Napolitano's troops remain untested.
Anyone can sit around and make up scenarios about how a revolution would evolve, and the results of said revolution. History proves one thing: civil wars are fucking MESSY!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace.
This simply can not be stressed enough.
The point of the rifle is not to shoot the soldiers. The point of the rifle is to shoot the politicians who give the soldiers their orders.
A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. .
I agree that 1 guy with a gun isn't going to win a war. Hell, even a hundred. 1 guy can however cause a lot of chaos and confusion, and even shut down entire states for days.
Remember that it was just a few guys with rifles that had law enforcement and the general public shitting their pants every time that a loud noise was heard. Dorner had one of the largest police forces on the planet walking on egg shells. The DC sniper had most of new england scared shitless.
In those situations it was the police who were dealing with the problem. The military wants to kill the individuals (collateral damage is unfortunate) where as the police are supposed to negotiate with, and try to capture, the individuals (collateral damage results in lawsuits with millions in damages and suspensions & dismissals for officers).
An armed response is not always the answer.
Mainstream media failed to properly report the peaceful revolution in Iceland recently where the population completely replaced their government. http://rhuni.com/l/R7XUh8IIGB
Or we can look at the revolution in Egypt where only 2% of the population marched on the capital.
Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
Actually, in French it means - Coup (blow) de (of) grace (mercy).
Life needs more saving throws.
And apologies for being a doofus and not actually reading what you wrote. Doh.
Life needs more saving throws.
Actually, that's "coup de grace".
A couple questions:
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?...
Every couple of years sometime in early November.
Okay, technically the following January.
Although I think it used to be March.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
That comment was made in utter ignorance. It takes a lot of skill and education to fight today's wars. Do you have any idea how much education and training our armed servicemembers have to have? Graduate degrees are required for officers who want to advance, plus constant training in their profession, plus continuous physical training, plus staff college. Most other people I meet are not nearly so well educated. Heck, I have one friend in uniform who has done two masters' and is an ABD in a third discipline.
Wasn't Jefferson dead by then?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
If the US military was ordered to move in an kill large amounts of US citizens, I would hope citizens being ill-equip would be the least of the problems. Before you mention Kenn State, that was an unruly mob that was actually a threat to the local populace.
How can the bar go any lower when it comes to the US judicial system ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!
Assuming I fill in the two blanks with f and s, I way I interpret this statement is an artist saying he's going to be more famous in the news that the recent Boston bombing. Perhaps in poor taste, but am I missing something? How can this be misconstrued as a bomb threat landing up to 20 years in prison?
The best explanation I could find was the following: http://www.infowars.com/high-school-student-faces-20-years-for-obama-facebook-threat/
I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals but he did threaten to kill a bunch of people and specifically mentioned the Boston Marathon and the White House. The threat was disturbing enough for us to act and I think our officers did the right thing
From my interpretation the lyric was intended to refer to killing those who caused harm, i.e. invoking vengeance against terrorists, not becoming a terrorist.
I truly feel sorry for this individual. There will be no mercy by the prosecution or jury. I'm hoping the ACLU jumps on this case for it to have a sliver of a chance.
The A-Team!
A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
If a guy with a rifle is not a threat, then why are soldiers eissued rifles. Further why is/are democrats so worried about "domestic terrorists" (white guys) with military style weapons? You don't have to be able to conquer an army to be a threat (Just ask Lincoln, Kennedy, King, ...)
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The minute men?
Kent state as I remember it was the national guard, not the US military per se. It was also a largely peaceful demonstration until the cops moved in and then things escalated. Even when it came to gun fire form the guard (& no one knows for sure why they fired) only 29 of 77 guardsmen would actually do it.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?
Simple - demoralization and psychological warfare. An army without a cause will find another. Nothing is more damaging to morale than fighting against your own families. A civil war cannot be "won".
You're looking for the Battle of Athens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Choice quotes:
"The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation."
"Polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946. About 200 armed deputies turned out to patrol the precincts—the normal complement of 15 deputies significantly augmented by reinforcements from other counties. A number of conflicts arose before the polls closed, the most serious of which was when a black man, Tom Gillespie, was assaulted by officers after casting his vote. Deputy C.M. Wise shot and wounded him in the back while he was trying escape from the officers. C.M. Wise was later sentenced to 1-3 years in prision, being the only person to face charges from the events of August 1-2, 1946."
"As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and took them to the jail. Opposition veterans responded by arming themselves and marching there. Some of them had raided the National Guard Armory, obtaining arms and ammunition. Estimates of the number of veterans besieging the jail vary from several hundred[9] to as high as 2,000."
"The recovered ballots certified the election of the five GI Non-Partisan League candidates.[10] Among the reforms instituted was a change in the method of payment and a $5,000 salary cap for officials. In the initial momentum of victory, gambling houses in collusion with the Cantrell regime were raided and their operations demolished. Deputies of the prior administration resigned and were replaced."
You may have missed the point of the person you are replying to. I read it as referring to people who would want to attack the army, not those in it.
You may want to point the holey end of the gun away from your face. Soldiers get their orders from their Generals. And the Generals have walls of soldiers to protect them. The Generals take orders from the politicians only so long as the Generals agree with those orders and/or don't believe they have enough troop support to get away with ignoring them.
I'll just leave this here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
The "Revolution" would likely be started because of economics, were it to happen today. The government is spending itself broke. You think the military and police would fight the unarmed citizens? Watch what happens after a single missed paycheck to the armed forces. They would be on our side so fast, it would make your head spin.
Grassy ass, seen yore.
The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace.
This simply can not be stressed enough.
Education only goes so far. To prevent tyranny, one must not only be educated, one must be informed (not the same thing), and most importantly, one must be willing to do something about it.
That something isn't parading around with guns. If you have reached the point where you need guns, you've already let things go too far. We invested a LOT of effort and no small amount of actual blood in constructing a framework where matters could be handled in more civilized ways. If people are simply willing to make the effort.
And underneath that high and mighty education lies an animal spirit that when provoked is capable of unspeakable violence. A gun is just a tool to defend oneself. An assailant's formal education does not enter into the equation.
Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?
If it gets to the point where people are seriously considering armed revolution, I would hope that the armed forces (of which I am a member) would be just as fed up with the gov't and refuse to engage the revolutionaries. Otherwise, it would make the US civil war seem like a bar fight. Yes, american citizens are armed to the teeth, but the american military has insane amounts of traditional weapons and ammo. And today's advanced weapon systems can deliver carnage on a scale the American Public doesn't generally get to see.
The example you're responding to was Michael Dorner, you can't really claim the police were trying to "negotiate with, and try to capture, the individuals". They opened fire on random vehicles (not one, but 2) to try to kill whoever was inside before even checking to see if he happened to be in the vehicle. When they actually did find him, they tried to burn him alive. Not saying he didn't deserve what he got, but they were obviously intent on killing him from the start.
Fool. The American people own their government by right spelled out in the Constitution. They can't "take over" what is theirs. Armed citizens are the ultimate last ditch the protection against the government being taken over by rogue elements. Go crawl back under your rock.
Tell that to the guys with guns.
Note: I am not saying if I am referring to the Government or the NRA.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Hopefully the cops don't wise up to Immortal Technique's "Bin Laden" any time soon;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE5Ufx5GSAg
I have little respect for most rappers, I'm not a rap fan and I'll never be a rap fan. Well some of them are very talented and really do have a great skill with words, a lot of them also just make lyrics that make me wonder how they graduated elementary school, for instance anything by 50 cent. As for this guy ....... I'm lost for words on why he would write something like that this soon after the bombing.
When you outright say you want to surpass a bombing and then you go and say you want to challenge the white house, what did you think was going to happen. This isn't a case of free speech or even the right to be expressive, it's the plain and simple fact that this kid wanted to act like a thug and right a song which any reasonable homo sapien would know would land you in hot water. I would treat this kid like the hardened rapper he wants to be, throw him in jail cell with some real life gangster and he can deal with it. This is a great example of not only bad lyrics but also an untalented rapper not thinking before he speaks.
The second amendment is fine but it does us no good if people are free to write songs about taking our guns away. I, for one, am appalled by of all these flouride-drinking rappers and "songs" such as "Takin' Yo Guns" or "Disarmed for King G" or "Ho's Suckin' the Lead Out" or "We Be Dissin the Second" or "Don't Be Sellin Cop Killas". When is someone going to put these punks in jail?
This is the story of one man and his rifle: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
The point of a rifle is to send metal ellipsoids flying in a predetermined direction at very high velocity, the rest is up to the user.
I believe the national anthem to the USA contains a line about "bombs bursting in air" -- terrorist activity no doubt. Perhaps we need to arrest everyone in the USA...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The Admiral who won the battle of Chesapeake was the Count de Grasse, so it was literally the blow of Grasse that won the Revolutionary War for us.
So "coup de grasse" is a pun.
"My lyrics are terrorism, gave the police a schism, they threw me in jail because my words are like bullets in 'em"
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Bingo.
Actually quite a few actual incidents. And you are also discounting the effects of the threat of revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
I meant Jefferson Davis.
If he's saying Lincoln was a rogue president, that State Right's are so important that it was preferable to have slavery, a right to secede, and a limited national government then arguing with him is a waste of time. He is literally a white supremacist because he thinks that the right of white people to secede and not be taxed is more important then a black woman's right to not have sex with the richest man in the county.
If he's saying Jefferson Davis was rogue that's a completely different argument.
I suspect he's saying the former, because a) Davis was not elected until 1861, and b) he said that the righteous Armed Citizens lost.
Which is why the government is trying so hard to take away our guns and ammunition. Just remember, slaves don't own guns.
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
The battle of Athens, TN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Do you mean 1776?
No, 1774. Much like picking a date when we entered Vietnam, you have to pick a year when the official government of this chunk of the North American contentinent -- now called The United States -- went too far and lost its just sovereignty. 1774 isn't a bad choice (though admittedly some more hotheaded than I would pick an earlier year).
we couldn't have won that war without a professional army, the French Navy, and French money to pay for it all.
They couldn't have won it without the American people.
And yet most of their successful attacks are IEDs.
Military technology is changed. As a weapon today the rifle is where the sword was in 1860-65. It's useful militarily in certain tactical situations, but basing your entire tyranny-prevention policy on rifles...
Let me finish that sentence for you, "...would be stupid." You use a handgun to fight your way back to your long gun. You use a long gun to harrass the enemy while you produce IEDs. As you note, the Taliban has fought us to a standstill with that approach.
The reason we keep the long guns around is so we can -- and this goes without saying, but god forbid it ever actually happens -- hold out long enough to get the rest of the operation live.
Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal).
The arms in the hands of private citizens in the US are extremely effective -- far more so than the typical Russian surplus crap in Afghanistan. Automatic fire is rarely a practical use of ammo, and even three round burst is a minimally helpful luxury. If you wanted to, you could convert an AK-47 with simple hand tools and a few minutes effort. Automatic rifles are legal with an appropriate license, and you can shoot them at my local rifle range.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army.
Yeah, cause we haven't lost any troops to guys with rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Check the casualty figures.
IEDs are responsible for roughly 60% of our casualties. Every non-IED incident where we had multiple casualties is either a) an RPG, or b) a car bomb.
I didn't say rifles were useless. You can kill people with them. But if the people of America start taking potshots at marines with their rifles the people of America will get their asses kicked. Body Armor exists.
What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
So explosives should be legal?
That would be a valid conclusion to draw if one believed an armed citizenry was a good idea.
I don't.
I grew up in a black area. In the black experience Armed Citizens are the ones who decide that a) they have a Constitutional right to oppress their neighbors, and b) the Federal government has no jurisdiction to stop them. About half the time they actually convince said Federal government of this fact. At various times this has led to actual slavery, KKK terrorism reducing the black population of various southern states by 20 points (in other words: genocide), segregation, etc.
As far as I can tell all an Armed Citizenry has ever done is a) get killed by the Army protesting taxes, and b) got rid of one corrupt Southern Sheriff. In modern times there are perfectly effective methods of protest that don't get anyone killed, so really all you've got is b). And trading one Sheriff for Segregation does not seem like a very good trade to me.
The citizenry had to break into the armory to become armed, so it wasn't an armed citizenry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
For Law Enforcement, that pesky First Amendment must be frustrating. Wait, maybe the time and a halfer's telling us they're the ones keeping KAOS at bay should ask themselves, "why did those old middle aged clowns create the First Amendment?" Maybe because it's OK to kill over 50 people, and harm over 400 other citizens?
If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States.
You can't discount a large portion of them either. If played right, they could be used to suppress groups designated as terrorists or whatnot.
The Nazi's were made up of citizens too. It didn't stop them from doing horrific things to certain segments of German society (the Jewish were most visible, but atrocities were committed against many other groups).
Think of the increasing brutality from police in some places, or the attitudes of the TSA etc. A smart yet evil gov't will play elements against each other to accomplish their goals. It seems that right now, all they have to do is label somebody or group a terrorist and suddenly they're not people anymore...
In general I agree with you. I'm accepting the Second Amendment types premise that the Federal Government could actually impose tyranny on it's citizens with the full support of the Armed Forces, to point out how absurd their argument is.
If the Shit hits the fan it won't matter which guns are legal. What'll matter is what people who can make bombs do.
If writing "rap lyrics" isn't terrorism, I don't know what is
So because a guy with a weapon that's highly illegal (an RPG), can challenge the Army, logically guys with legal rifles can challenge the Army?
I am not following the logic here.
Like it or not, a large part of STEM education is education related to the ability to manufacture weapons and explosives. If you keep that kind of knowledge and skill from the populace, it is pretty much by definition not educated. That knowledge and skill is necessary for the population to evaluate political claims and to figure out whether the military is operating reasonably and effectively.
No, not "gutting education" but gutting our current educational system and replacing it with something better because it's not working well. We're spending far more money than other nations on primary and secondary education and getting at best mediocre results. And our public education system and its curriculum has become an ideological battleground over religion, sexuality, history, and race where both the left and the right try to win over the hearts and minds of the next generation of voters. That needs to change.
"When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?"
Did you even take history in High School? Go look up General Smedley Butler.
"In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?"
Military counts as armed citizenry (as they are citizens) so yes, they did.
Too bad the citizens of today seem to be all too ignorant about how the Bush family tried overthrowing our government, and this fucking time around, they let the Bush family win.
Mostly because of ignorant people such as yourself.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Grammer is useful. Indirect objects are actually an important part of a sentence.
In other words proving that you can murder an entire kindergarten class in under 30 seconds is not gonna convince me that you'll protect me from the US Army should the US Army want to oppress me.
Not just educated, but educated in tyrannical regimes and systems from abusive relationships to cults to dictatorships which all share common elements apart from scale. Sociology of coercive persuasion in should be taught. 1984, Farenheit 451, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest and many others should all be required reading in school. It's not enough to teach math, science, and so forth. The Soviet Union and their satellites had fantastic educational systems when it comes to the sciences.
"If the Shit hits the fan it won't matter which guns are legal. What'll matter is what people who can make bombs do."
Nope. All it takes is a few well-placed bullets in the head of the leadership, and the rest of the structure will fall. No bombs necessary.
One good sniper with a small bit of ammunition is all it takes.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Question:
Did the new Sheriff in Athens actually enforce the Constitution, and de-segregate the County? Because if he didn't that's not much an argument for using private guns to protect freedom.
As for Matewan, that's not the government. I'm specifically arguing against the very common idea that a bunch of NRA members are our last defense of freedom against the Feds. I find that argument border-line racist (historically an Armed Citizenry is pretty much the only reason Segregation happened), and incredibly stupid (despite numerous requests no-one has been able to show a case where an Armed Citizenry stopped the US Army). Nothing I have seen from pro-gun folks has convinced to reconsider any of these arguments.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Because soldiers are not just guys with rifles, they are a part of an organisation with methods of transportation, military intelligence, communication and infrastructure.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You do realize that in the long history of insurgencies, nobody has ever had a period where they relied on long guns because their IEDs weren't ready? IEDs are trivial to make. An hour with the Anarchist's cookbook and you'll be fine. You'll probably be better off then the Taliban, who have a lot of illiterate guys in their ranks. You don't need to buy time.
What you need is secrecy. And being the guy who has an official license for a high-powered automatic rifle isn't very secretive.
At my High School conmen who took in distinguished military personages were not included in the history curriculum. So, no, I was never taught about the so-called "Businessman's Plot," which seems to have been entirely the fantasy of MacGuire.
The terrorist won. We are all terrified and gladly surrender our rights to give us a crutch to stand to say we aren't scared.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Education can save the world.
Educated women have fewer babies, which would reduce overpopulation, which would reduce stress on natural resources.
Until they come for your guns... maybe you should go find a rock. The rate at which freedoms are being undermined is astonishing, even more so the amount of blind eyes over looking it.
Funny you should mention slavery first and still not be able to think of an instance: The Civil War. The second amendment doesn't guarantee a rogue citizenry the right to go rogue. It is supposed to guarantee that an opposing militia can be formed, as in the civil war. This also means that it stopped being adhered to when the government could have tanks and ICBMs, but we could not. In other words, the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, including tanks, machine guns, and hand grenades, not to just carry rifles to hunt bambi. I am not saying that it would be a good idea to let people do that. I am merely pointing out that few people have even read the second amendment, and fewer still understand it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So your strategy is to hope the Evil Party President did not manage to get his guy into the Speaker's chair? Given that you can assassinate your way to a Speakership (a majority of the House votes on it, so if Obama arranged 32 deaths Pelosi'd be Speaker), that's not a very effective strategy.
The citizenry had to break into the armory to become armed, so it wasn't an armed citizenry.
Although the comment in the film didn't feel right when I heard it--due to being under the impression that just about every guy in Tennessee during the 1940's owned some type of firearm--I shrugged it off as having something to do with the story pointing out some of the guys in this situation were returning veterans from the second World War and perhaps were connected to the National Guard (which is usually--based on my own experience--a part of the mustering out process [at their time called the "Mustering-out Payment Act"]) .
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see the film from beginning to end and don't know the connection with the armory. For now, I'll have to assume, and shouldn't have any reason to think otherwise, the production company making the film either doesn't have an agenda to alter the story for political reasons or didn't fail somewhere in the back story to accurately elaborate that this was an additional way to back up their own fire power to insure a winning result. If that was the case, then I probably should concede you're correct. However, perhaps fudging on the definition in the original post's question on how the citizenry became armed, they did become armed and succeeded in stopping the rogue elements.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
One Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) Example where citizens had to defend themselves after their neighborhood being abandoned by police?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreatown,_Los_Angeles Koreatown in Los Angles during the Rodney King riots.
A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
Which is why all the places on Earth where people are fighting against the US Military have thrown away all their guns. Oh wait...
Guerrilla warfare using guns is still a viable option, especially when the government you're trying to get rid of happens to be on your own "home turf". I don't personally think things are even remotely close to requiring civilian action against our government, but if I did I'd much rather have the revolutionaries picking off specific political targets with a gun instead of just blowing up mass quantities of people in the streets.
But all this is academic. It doesn't matter WHY I want to have a gun, whether I want it for home defense, personal defense, revolution, or just to look at while it hangs on my wall. The Constitution prohibits interfering with my ability to own a gun, so if you want to restrict ownership then you need to start by passing an Amendment to the US Constitution. Personally I don't own any guns, it's not my thing, but I find it incredibly disgusting to see the politicians and "activist" groups attempting to make an end-run around the Constitution with Gun Control laws. Grow a pair of balls and propose an Amendment, or STFU.
" which seems to have been entirely the fantasy of MacGuire."
Yep, not old enough to know your own educational system is lying to you.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The last time I checked freedom of speech was legal.
The world we live in is fucked, not because our liberties HAVE been stripped but, because people are fat and wilfully ignorant.
Your language skills are sorely lacking. My statement implies assassination of every government entity at a state and higher level.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you pay any attention at all to what these guys say, then you'd understand that THEY believe that they are already living in a tyranny.
I didn't say rifles were useless. You can kill people with them. But if the people of America start taking potshots at marines with their rifles the people of America will get their asses kicked. Body Armor exists.
The rifle I use to hunt deer will go clean through any body armor you're wearing. If I use an armor piercing round it'll take out the guy behind you as well.
If I was shooting at a Marine, which I wouldn't be doing in the first place.
I'm not sure why you insist on thinking that there would be some kind of direct armed showdown between the military forces and the revolutionaries. Most likely there would not be. Most likely those Marines you speak of would be part of the revolutionary groups. Marines swear an Oath to uphold the Constitution, not to obey Politicians, and in the event the government stands in violation of the Constitution most Marines are going to side with the People.
That would be a valid conclusion to draw if one believed an armed citizenry was a good idea.
I don't.
Then amend the Constitution. If you can't get enough people to agree with you, then you can either go with the will of the majority and live in a country where civilians have guns, or feel free to move someplace where that's not allowed.
And trading one Sheriff for Segregation does not seem like a very good trade to me.
Typical Strawman argument.
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?
Its happening right now.
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
tbd.
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
OUR government? Or *any* government?
From Wikipedia: In 1946, several McMinn County World War II veterans ran for local office in hopes of removing a county government deemed corrupt. On August 1, local authorities locked themselves in the county jail along with the ballot boxes. Suspecting foul play, the veterans armed themselves and assembled on a hill across the street from the jail. After an exchange of gunfire, the county authorities surrendered. The ballots were counted, and the veterans' ticket was elected, ending the Battle of Athens.
Most hardcore Muslims are content to "let XXXX type of people burn in hell". They don't do it in real life.
Some of these Christians weirdos very much want to kill, maim or hurt people in this world. If you don't see the difference, I have a dung-ball sandwich with your name written on it.
Did I misspell that? Would someone put a 'high' fence around that state, please and hurry?
Yes, yes, yes!
No, no, no. If you actually take the time to talk to NRA members, you'll find that very few (none I've met) have any such desire to turn everyone into ignorant, fearful people. Rather, they have a world view that is very different from (I'm guessing) your own.
I would suggest that as part of becoming "an educated populace," you should first and foremost stop trying to sum up the opinions and desires of those on the other side of political spectrum with simple minded statements like the above.
Armed citizenry is kind of how we broke free and ultimately formed the nation. Just because it wasn't specifically against the US government, it isn't any less valid.
No, no, and no. Getting France to side with us is how we broke free of Britain. Their Navy directly intervened, and opened up the potential for more wars with Britain. Some militia with their own guns helped, but really it was back door deals with France, with an equivalent military to Britain, that won the war.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Funny, you'd think they'd mention something about "preventing us from maintaining a standing army in peacetime," if that's what they meant.
Or maybe you're just making stuff up. We report, you decide.
Uh... because they did mention that???
The bill of rights was passed after the constitution was passed. If you want to understand the terminology used int he bill of rights you need to read the constitution first (as well as the discussion of intents).
Article 1, clearly designates the power to suppress foreign attacks via a federally managed army, and the need to suppress domestic insurrection via a state-managed militia. Thus the militia was there NOT to defend the states against the fed gov, but to actually suppress insurrections by other states--that's article 1 of the constitution. Maybe the fact that it's #1 should give it some weight in the discussion.
The 2nd amendment uses the word Militia in this specific context and it's spelling out the right of states to have armed citizens without federal consent, combined with the explicit regulation of gun control by states--"well regulated militia".
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Grammar*
I would normally never correct such a small error, but considering the sentence it was in...
The American Revolution?
The point of the rifle is not to shoot the soldiers. The point of the rifle is to shoot the politicians who give the soldiers their orders.
Hitler, not shot.
Stalin, not shot.
Pol Pot, not shot.
Lincoln, shot.
JFK, shot.
Ronald Regan, shot (though not fatally.)
Your methodology seems a bit flawed.
But many theorize this is all that is need to overthrow anything.
That would be wonderful if only we had an educational system that was truly unbiased and focused on education rather than indoctrination.
I heard a song recently that talked about "...the rockets red glare. The bombs bursting in air..."
If those are terrorist lyrics, I don't know what is.
"The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace"
Education & intelligence is definitely and important thing, but it sadly it doesn't mean a whole lot without at least a rudimentary ability to defend oneself with force. If you put a dozen highly intelligent scientists in a room with a similar group of tribal people and only enough resources to sustain one of the groups, the scientists are going to end up dead real quick. In a similar fashion politicians (not the brightest from a science/education standpoint) can in today's society can usually "disrupt" challenges to their authority by directed press conferences, directed law enforcement & media campaigns (commercials, planted stories, etc). We have seen plenty of evidence of these activities in the last few decades, press coverage of demonstrations (OWA, anti-war, etc) never seem to cover the speeches or positions of the groups, but will make front page news of any altercations in the demonstrations, unsanitary conditions, or damage. "Undesirable" politicians are denied air time, discussion of their campaigns are avoided, and in some documented cases their poll numbers are buried/skipped in newscasts.
Maybe he meant "coup deGrasse" which is when Neil deGrasse Tyson overthrows scientific ideas.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Based on this event, most rappers should be jailed immediately, especially Rage Against the Machine...
Before overreacting to this, it may be worth considering that this guy may have been a known nutjob in the school and someone already known to the police.
He meant that a guy with a civilian hunting rifle is not a threat to a modern Army. But apparently he didn't notice that the assault weapons ban failed miserably so those hunting rifles can be pretty much the same thing the average US soldier carries.
Most likely those Marines you speak of would be part of the revolutionary groups
History has shown most revolutionary groups do not represent "the people". Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. started off as revolutionaries. Military revolutionary groups are also known to form coups - while they are certainly successful in ousting the government, the new military-run government is just as likely to be just as bad as the government they overthrew.
Marines swear an Oath to uphold the Constitution
Oaths can be broken (and in a revolution, they often are). The President and many government officials took oaths too you know.
Then amend the Constitution. If you can't get enough people to agree with you, then you can either go with the will of the majority and live in a country where civilians have guns, or feel free to move someplace where that's not allowed.
I think the will of the majority is to just do what they want, ignoring the Constitution. It is actually you who has to decide if you will stay in a society that doesn't respect its Constitution, or you move out ...or you use your guns to take back the country like pro-gun people keep saying they would, but haven't. Like, I believe you guys are sincere when you say that, but the longer you wait and don't actually follow through, the more you look you are making empty threats.
Bombs are more effective because while one may dodge a bullet, no one can dodge a shock wave with shrapnel immediately following. It's the sort of thing that prosecutors say in a criminal proceeding or legislators argue when crafting anti-terrorism bills. Crime with a gun gets state time. Crime with anything more effective will get someone put down in FCI Terre Haute or rotting in ADX Florence for whatever days said person has left.
This boilerplate Rap lyrics sums it up:
We got the RIIIIIIGHT
To commit the CRIIIIIIIIME!
Because we Fo'teenth Amendment Humanoids!
Because we Fo'teenth Amendment Humanoids!
General Houston of the Republic of Texas captured Mexican President Santa Ana in the Battle of San Jacinto. Yes, I understand it was the Meixcan Government, but it's worthy of a mention.
maybe i didn't follow the logic of the post i was replying to, but i was under the impression you think that technology is what gives an army the edge, but from all the evidence i've seen even with a defense budget that exceeds the sum of the spending of the next eight or so highest military spenders, a single combatant with nothing more than an RPG can take out a multi-million dollar attack helicopter... my point is (however poorly made) that the US military with almost unlimited finances, a huge arsenal of advanced weapons (stealth, drones, guided missiles, long range sniper tech, nightvision), satellite technology, espionage networks, international political clout, etc still manages to invade a country and totally fuck everything up from then on... how many american lives have been lost in afghanistan and iraq, not to mention vietnam? and for what gain? when the american military kills one civilian, it probably gains three enemy combatants, and it kills thousands of civilians each year. war isn't rocket science, but it seems like the US military is being managed by rocket scientists... with a fetish for more rockets. the US will NEVER win the "war on terror", and not only because "terror" isn't even defined to a point where you can identify a terrorist (they just lock up whoever they don't like without question), and because anyone that isn't retarded can see the "shock and awe" strategy they use to justify the costs of their huge expensive arsenal is as retarded as trying to hammer a nail with a pile driver.
Yes.
However, it was the Mexican Government and not the U.S. General Sam Houston of the Republic of Texas who captured and defeated President Santa Ana with only 900 men. Santa Ana was then forced to sign the Treaties of Velasco. Afterwards, The Republic of Texas was internationally recognized as a sovereign state until it was to be annexed by the United States of America. The annexation of Texas started the Mexican-American war.
To be honest I didn't watch the videos due to being on dial-up but "The Battle of Athens" comes up every time there is a thread like this so I've researched it in the past. Seems there was a shortage of arms in the county so they broke into the armory using a key which they didn't have a right to have and armed themselves. To quote http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm (there's lots of similar on the net)
Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end.
Besides even in a country like Canada where we have no constitutional right to arms, rural folks would likely have enough arms in the form of long guns to do similar if corruption became so open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal).
Actually, fully automatic weapons are legal to own in most states. All the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 did was impose a $200 tax on the weapons transfer. This was done in order to restrict automatic weapons to the rich and politically connected ($200 was A LOT of money in 1934). Nowadays it's not that much of a deterrent.
I don't think it was *literally* a blow from General de Grasse.
Kent state as I remember it was the national guard, not the US military per se
That is as meaningless a distinction as that between "soldiers" with guns firing on civilians and "cops" with guns firing on civilians..
As a non American, watching the recent Boston coverage, I initially assumed that all the guys in combat gear, body armour and carrying assault rifles were soldiers. The fact that you call them "police" or "FBI" is pretty irrelevant.
I don't know why so many people on slashdot have a romanticised view of a country's military as superior beings above mere politics. There are plenty of examples of the military as explicitly the tools of the government (e.g. Syria, Burma, Argentina and Chile in the 1970s).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Military counts as armed citizenry (as they are citizens) so yes, they did.
That makes absolutely no sense. No one's saying you couldn't have a military coup against the government if the whole army, navy and air force agreed to do so.
The "armed citizenry" would be people fighting against the military in their role as protecters of the country/government (depending on how you like to look at it).
Because so many Americans are anti-government, they seem to forget that "the government" includes the military, police and so on.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States. Nor can you rely on the government's ability to retain control over all the hardware, command infrastructure, or much of anything else.
It was one of the notable features of the Arab Spring, that once the soldiers started refusing to fire on civilians, the dictators were basically fucked.
Quite what this has to do with ordinary citizens being armed is beyond me. While the army is supporting the government, they have the overwhelming balance of power.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"If the Shit hits the fan it won't matter which guns are legal. What'll matter is what people who can make bombs do."
Nope. All it takes is a few well-placed bullets in the head of the leadership, and the rest of the structure will fall. No bombs necessary.
One good sniper with a small bit of ammunition is all it takes.
That theory only works if you are dealing with a genuine dictatorhip. In reality, countries like the US have a whole system of power structures that would not be greatly affected by the deaths of a few individuals.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The reason we keep the long guns around is so we can -- and this goes without saying, but god forbid it ever actually happens -- hold out long enough to get the rest of the operation live.
What "operation"?
If you've got an elaborate revolutionary organisation in place (like the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia) having guns is by far the least important part of what you need. You can always get guns from somewhere later, but you certainly don't want to start off by engaging trained military in large scale battles.
The really important thing is having a sufficient critical mass of people willing to fight and die for your revolution.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Which is why the government is trying so hard to take away our guns and ammunition. Just remember, slaves don't own guns.
Your gun will not help if you are the only slave with one, and the boss sends round twenty guys with guns to take it off you.
Any revolution requires mass support, not cool hardware.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You're pretty close to right. SOME of the military would fight for the government. SOME of the military would desert. SOME of the military would join ranks with their state militias, or irregular militias. And, there would be some who are unpredictable loose cannon. Some few would become opportunists and mercenaries, hell bent on making a dollar, what ever it took.
Long story short - it would be one hell of a mess - just as the (First) Civil War was.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You know what really annoys me about gun rights guys? They claim to be pro-freedom, and the only defense against tyranny, yet the only time in the entire history of the United States, where the state has actually taken rights away from people never appears in any of their literature.
In 1876 blacks were armed. They had rights. They were actually a fairly large majority in several southern states, and a large minority (averaging 40%) in the rest. Then the Federal government pulled out, and it turned out that ex-Confederates were a lot more hardcore then ex-slaves. There were battles. There was an actual coup d'tat in Arkansas. But freedom lost, because freedom only wins when DC backs it up.
And your entire that gun rights protect freedom is basically that a) this one time a bunch of segregationists beat a corrupt segregationist, and b) sometimes white people can;t get in touch with the cops in time.
The Civil War is actually the best counter-example. Before the War most of the military was the militia, each County had it's own regiment, which was armed by the residents of that County. It was a very decentralized system, with some states taking it very seriously and actually enforcing everyone's duty to show up with their guns, and others treating the militia as a fancy dress party.
The states that took it really seriously were mostly Southern. They were quickly forced to standardize their militias (before the war Louisiana and Tennessee actually had black troops in their militia units, but since this was unacceptable to the other states all were thrown out), arm them from Confederate Government armories, etc.
The North managed a lot more central control of it's military, arming almost everyone from Federal stores for the duration of the conflict, and the North won.
Texans are cute. They think Santa Ana was oppressing them because their great-granddaddy;'s said so, but they can;t tell you exactly what was so evil. Here's what was so evil: Mexico abolished slavery. There was also bitching about taxes, but I think any humane person would say a free country can have high taxes, but it cannot have slavery.
Arguments like this are the reason 95% of my black friends do not vote Republican, and the 5% who do justify entirely with jeremiads against abortion.
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?
Its happening right now.
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
tbd.
So because you might get heavily fined for downloading music and/or video you are justified in shooting cops?
I'll agree the RIAA/MPAA/etc. suck, and should be defeated, but in the context of this debate "rogue element" means an element so rogue that there is no option but to take to the hills and start picking off po-pos. That's why you have the gun.
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
OUR government? Or *any* government?
Ours specifically.
The US controls it's entire territory, and mostly follows it's own rules. This means that a) armed rebellions rarely work (if the Army was likely to lose a battle in your County your County would belong to Mexico), and b) actual oppression to the level that would require one to shoot at the Army is rare. This is particularly true of the rural whites who tend to make arguments on the internet about how their hobby is the last defense of freedom, because historically rural American whites are the least oppressed people on the face of the Earth. If they were blacks from the inner-city it would be one thing, but white boys from Texas do not know the meaning of the word tyranny.
OTOH if I let people bring up other countries somebody will point out that Iraq has tried to murder the Kurds, but failed due to the fact that Kurds have guns. The situations are not comparable because Iraq has historically only had a tenuous grip on the Kurds, the Kurds have weapons that would be highly illegal here, etc.
Wow. You couldn't be further from the truth. Texans revolted because Santa Anna enacted Siete Leyes which extended slavery and allowed the federal government to suppress the power of Congress and the Supreme Court, returning Mexico to a dictatorship.
Texas was not alone in their revolt. Almost every Mexican State rebelled. Some of these states formed their own governments: Republic of Texas, was The Republic of the Rio Grande and the The Republic of Yucatan. The Republic of Texas was the only state to succeed.
Slavery in Mexico was not abolished until Benito Juarez and Maximillian were in power.
That's 50 state governors, 50 State Lieutenant Governors, 99 houses of State Legislatures, etc.
That's not a "few" bullets.
"Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?"
Members of the United States armed forces are also CITIZENS of this land. Each of them has a home, located in some city or town, located in some state or another. Each of them (well, the overwhelming majority, anyway) has loved ones, whom they probably value more than they value the US government.
I'll remind you of General Robert E. Lee, who didn't want to see the states fight each other - but decided that if there were to be a fight, he would fight for his home state of Virginia.
If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States. Nor can you rely on the government's ability to retain control over all the hardware, command infrastructure, or much of anything else.
This. This is what I never understand about the conspiracy theorists -- from the "government covered up Roswell types" to the gun toting nut jobs in the NRA -- the part of their advocacy that I find so distasteful is their refusal to recognize that the American government is made up of Citizens. From the federal employees to the military to the police, in America, we are all citizens first. As a formal federal employee, there was never any question that my allegiance was to the people. (Don't get me wrong -- as a paper pusher, this was unlikely to have tangible form, but still....)
Do we really think that our military would do what the Chinese military did in Tienanmen Square? Yes, there have been individual incidents of government-sponsored violence against the people (Kent State, battles against Segregation, etc.) where people in uniform have forgotten that they work for the people --- but those incidents are (a) limited in scope, (b) rare, (c) generally recognized as mistakes after the fact; and (d) largely repudiated by the country as a whole. I'm not trying to whitewash American history -- it's complicated and not always pretty. But I see no evidence that some shadowy element of the federal government is going to swoop down and seize our "liberty." Our volunteer citizen military in particular is about as freedom loving as they come, and I have zero doubt that a coup would fail spectacularly as soldiers recognized what was happening.
And then we have this. *face palm* Really? I think of little of DHS as the next guy, but do we really think they are traitors laying in wait? Good grief. They are just citizen-employees, like every other federal employee.
For this reason, and others, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The government hopes to retain control of DHS if and when the shit hits the fan. Unfortunately for the government - DHS consists of mostly incompetent buffoons, far less capable than agents from any other agency. Further, the loyalty of Napolitano's troops remain untested.
Anyone can sit around and make up scenarios about how a revolution would evolve, and the results of said revolution. History proves one thing: civil wars are fucking MESSY!!
Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you don't know what a counter-example is.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to a theorized citizen insurrection within the US is foolish all around. For starters there are probably more hunters with scoped rifles in the US than there are military members in total. The military does not posses and can not quickly procure enough body armor capable of stopping rifle rounds to protect probably even 10% of it's forces. Military members by and large do not reside on military installations but are instead living among the population, which would be a security nightmare. Military bases are very weakly protected within our borders. Vital equipment for things like base defense are stocked at laughable levels for most installations. Weapons and materials for manufacturing IEDs and more weapons are much more widely available within the US than they were in either of the countries we invaded. Those are all just some of the physical problems with the idea of suppressing a popular rebellion, not to mention that our goverment doesn't have a ready supply of Hussars to use so it doesn't have soldiers with large mental conflicts.
Without guns the KKK would have still pulled the same crap. They acted in gangs and in an environment where they had enough popular support or at least everyone turned a blind eye. Armed slave owners never convinced the Feds to allow slavery, slavery was present in the US nearly from it's inception and was kept after the revolution because enough of our founding fathers were still assholes in that regard. Even when slavery ended with the civil war it continued in spirit because a large enough part of the population continued to be assholes. Over time things have changed and we are a more enlightened society today than we were then, not that we're perfect yet. None of it though had anything to do with evil gun owners. Things have ever only really improved when the population at large decides to change it.
I don't think any credible person would advocate violence as the first, second or even third option in correcting our government. Removing the option as a possibility is foolish and disarming the populace has historically proven to be on the checklists for many a tyrannical government.
You really shouldn't lecture people on issues you're so wrong about.
In 1830 slavery was banned in the last bit of mexico where it remained: Texas. Most Texans got around this by converting their slaves into indentured-servants-for-life. But since an indentured-servants kids aren't indentured the Texans rebelled at the first convenient opportunity.
If the Texans actually supported freedom they would not have re-instituted slavery on their territory when they became independent.
That sounds good, but the Constitution is only what the Supreme Court says it is. Will it always do what it is supposed to do? I don't think so in light of its recent decisions and appointees.
It's amazing how much the pro-gun lobby has managed to suppress the actual history of using guns to fight the government.
The KKK would not have succeeded in the absence of private firearms because the anti-racists of the day controlled the militia. There were actual pitched battles between racist Confederate veterans and the Radical Republican administrations of more then one state, including a private coup d'tat in Arkansas. The KKK plan was simple:
1) Get federal troops withdrawn
2) Use private firearms as good as the state militias, combine them with extreme ruthlessness and combat experience from the Civil War; to crush the existing state government.
3) Win.
After this worked a couple times the black community concluded that it would just have to take it.
I don't care how many times you say some other country banned guns before bad shit happened, in the US this has never happened. In most foreign countries the role of gun-bans in promoting oppression is exaggerated. What has happened is people joining the gun culture, and then using the power their private firearms grant them to oppress their neighbors.
Your reading comprehension skills are somewhat lacking.
I'm arguing that privately armed citizens do not promote freedom. You said they did during the Civil War.
That war is an example of privately-armed citizens defending slavery, while government-armed troops fight them. The South did not have the infrastructure to centrally arm everyone, so for the entire war Southern troops were using their own private weapons. Some units never saw the inside of a depot, much less received arms from the Confederate government. OTOH the North had cities and industries. It had an income tax, which it used to pay, arm, and equip one of the largest military forces of the day.
Just the first few only need be fired. By then, the rest of the fools have either fled, or been killed by angry mobs.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Rifles are dangerous to classrooms of 25 first graders, college students, other unarmed folks. That is why people are afraid of them; the astonishingly low probability that their children will be killed by a madman, and the empathy they feel for victims of said violence.
However, the fact is that the NRA is a terrorist organization, and should be put down. Wayne LaPierre has indirectly killed far more Americans than Bin Laden ever did. Hand guns are the real culprit here, and should be made completely and totally illegal. I don't give a shit if the Mythbusters shoot dummies with rifles, or you go out and kill animals for the fun of killing defenseless creatures, and I'm not really worried about crazies shooting people, because it happens so infrequently. I'm worried about the 13 year old living 15 minutes from my door that carjacked and killed a person because they wanted to drive their car around for a few hours. I'm worried about the hundreds of thousands of handguns in Oakland (15 minutes away from my house) that leak into my quiet suburban neighborhood and kill kids and adults due to acts of unbelievable stupidity. I'm worried about some angry driver I inadvertently cut off on the freeway pulling out a gun and shooting at me because he has a gun under his seat "just in case".
People get angry, and they lash out. If they don't have handguns, they almost never kill other people; it is unbelievably hard to kill somebody with a knife or a club. Not so hard with a gun. Look at the statistics. Murder rates in the US and other places that allow handguns are high; murder rates in places where handguns are illegal are low. (Look at Canada again. Folks can own rifles, but handgun ownership is much more difficult. Almost no one kills others with a rifle.)
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
Sweet! Mismatch of the millennium...disorganized, poorly trained civilians with small arms versus a well trained army with: tanks, bombs, jet fighters, artillery and drones, tactics and strategy. Makes me think of a western where one of the gunfighters walks into street and draws first and we hear a *POP* which is followed by a cork dangling from a string. The military-industrial complex is a self perpetuating machine, it was too late as soon as we decided to keep a standing army. The MIC and doesn't take kindly to challenges.
;
Article I, Section VIII
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Now how long have we been in Afghanistan? In Iraq? How long were we in Vietnam? I kind of think we have been appropriating money for wayyyy longer than 2 years for these monetary quagmires. Also, from the text above, it also appears to me that Congress can suppress insurrections. Wouldn't taking over the government using guns be considered an insurrection? Just sayin...
2.4 Million U.S Soldiers have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As of February 2013, the Washington Post Reports that in regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom:
Service Members Killed in action: 6,648 (0.28%) of all soldiers
Fatalities due to Hostile Action: 2579
Fatalities due to IED: 2499
Fatalities (non-combat): 668
Fatalities due to Helicopter accident: 402
Fatalities due to Vehicle Accident: 361
Unknown: 63
Other-Unknown: 45
Airplane Crash: 31
This doesn't include injuries. It also doesn't include suicides, which I am ashamed to say, are quickly catching up to these totals.
George Washington became a military man some 23 years before the revolutionary war, and was not just some citizen yokel with a gun. This belief that citizens with guns alone, and not paired with and not an organized military effort won us our freedom is an uniformed point of view that does great disservice to the truth of the matter.
And the French Navy. We would have lost our independence without the French victory at Yorktown.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Battle of Athens, TN 1946
The example you're responding to was Michael Dorner, you can't really claim the police were trying to "negotiate with, and try to capture, the individuals". They opened fire on random vehicles (not one, but 2) to try to kill whoever was inside before even checking to see if he happened to be in the vehicle. When they actually did find him, they tried to burn him alive. Not saying he didn't deserve what he got, but they were obviously intent on killing him from the start.
Perhaps Christopher Dorner would work better.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
It's not a question of taking over. It's a question of overthrowing. And, more to the point, violently overthrowing. You're completely entitled to overthrow the government with valid tools that the very constitution, that you mention, has foreseen. I.e. elections.
Needing arms for doing something along similar lines is nothing short of a coup. And while I don't say that a coup is not needed from time to time in one country or another, making public calls to do it is generally considered treason. And I don't see anything wrong with that either, since a coup is generally considered to be an act that is done outside of the law and only becomes "legal" if it actually succeeds.
And to maybe drive the point a bit further: wouldn't advocating a violent overthrow of US government imply threatening violence against the president? As far as I'm aware such threats are generally frowned upon by a certain section of the Department of Treasury...
If you want to make a statement about something, have the balls to do it directly and without apologizing if you KNOW that what you advocate isn't legal. This targets the NRA, by the way.
My reading comprehension skills are excellent. The South used their privately owned weapons to form a militia. It doesn't matter that they didn't win. It is a classic example of the second amendment in action, not a counter-example that shows it could never happen. It is true that they didn't stop them permanently, but .they did stop them. If I put a barricade in your way I successfully stop you. The fact that you subsequently find a way to destroy the barricade and start again doesn't mean I didn't stop you.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Only the government would have both an "Unknown" category and an "Other-Unknown" category....
[Shakes head] I'm almost tempted to learn enough about foreign history (American) to work out what you're talking about. It's a "coup de grace", the "blow of (holy) mercy". In the words of the advertising campaign, "Speak English, Boy!"
Neil de Grasse Tyson would be turning in his grave. If he were dead. And if he gave a shit, which is fairly unlikely.
And box-cutters in the carry-on luggage. Don't forget the box cutters!
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
OIC.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Or, in the words of someone who I've forgotten, "the perversity of the universe tends to a maximum".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Hmmm, around about 10% of the population, last time we had one. Which in modern America would be about 30 million dead. 10,000 times September-11. Most of World War Two, including the famine casualties.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
FTFY
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
*You* shouldn't lecture people on issues *you* know nothing about.
Slavery was banned in 1829 by amending the constitution. In 1835, the constitution was replaced by Santa Ana with, as I had mentioned before, the Siete Leyes. The new constitution sparked the revolutions and further enslaved the indigenous people; striking them of citizenship and property.