Slashdot Mirror


Arrested Chinese Blogger "Confesses" On State TV, Praises Censorship

Koreantoast writes "As part of a broader, chilling Chinese crackdown on Internet dissent, Chinese blogger Charles Xue appeared on Chinese state television in handcuffs on Sunday, denouncing his blog and praising government censorship. He 'confessed' to becoming drunk on the accumulated power of his Weibo blog, which peaked at 12 million followers, and confessed to recklessly spreading unverified rumors and slander, disrupting social harmony and becoming a vent of negative emotion on mainstream society. He also praised new government legislation cracking down on Internet freedom, stating how dangerous the Internet would be if left uncontrolled by the government. Xue was arrested on prostitution solicitation charges though his television confession did not discuss that. His arrest was also suspiciously around the same time as a broader government sweep that picked up other Chinese Internet activists."

349 comments

  1. Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by DNAgent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.

    1. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.

      This is what conservatives actually believe.

    2. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The Republicans would consider them to be acceptable casualties and collateral damage. And then it will be dailykos's turn.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Drudge is a "blogger" now? News to me. Unhinged, shit-flinging monkey perhaps, kind of like you appear to be.

      You just described bloggers. 99.9% of them are worthless drivel.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Nope, Feinstein is trying to salvage the US by trying to curb the senseless deaths. If she had her way, there would be 26 little kids still alive going to Sandy Hook Elementary.

      If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.

    5. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      Thats great. Form a group and lobby for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, your example is meaningless.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by themushroom · · Score: 2

      If she had her way, there would be 26 little kids still alive going to Sandy Hook Elementary.

      If anyone had their way, no one would have died. And unless she personally or some law enforcement she alerted somehow showed up outside the school with a sidearm before the bad guy got to the doors, she could have gotten her way. I don't picture that happening.

    7. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can as many muskets, lead balls, and the black powder you want.

    8. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.

      They removed some small percentage of arms from the hands of citizens, mostly to prevent overthrow of Chavez, and since he is dead, nobody cares any more. Other than that your claim is totally bogus.

      But then, posting as AC, its what we all expect.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you can use parchment, quill, and ink to spread as much news as you want. If we are going to hold one amendment to the time of its passing we should hold them all to the same standard.

    10. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thats WONDERFUL! Say, whats the state of human rights, democracy, etc in Venezuela?

      All of these things are connected, you know; the Bill of Rights wasnt drafted for no reason.

    11. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Drudge is a "blogger" now? News to me. Unhinged, shit-flinging monkey perhaps, kind of like you appear to be.

      You just described bloggers. 99.9% of them are worthless drivel.

      And you just assumed that an elected politician would know the difference between a blog and a "news" website. Rights are Rights. You either have them, or you don't. That is why ours are so black and white, to avoid generalized fucktard opinions like this that can become law.

    12. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The printing press predates the constitution and is exactly what they meant by 'Freedom of the Press'. The irony is that those who call for the 2nd amendment to progress from the intentions of the founders often consider themselves 'strict constitutionalists' in most other matters.

    13. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Venezuela's crime rate is 1/1000 of what it was? Why are articles like this http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20130619-impunity-leads-soaring-venezuela-crime-rate so easily found?

    14. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by KiloByte · · Score: 0

      The country most similar to US would be UK. It has a total gun ban. Let's compare violent crime rates per 100K people: US 466, UK 2034.

      And militia specifically means private citizens rather than the army. The whole point of 2nd amendment is to let citizens be able to defend themselves against crime, including both private criminals and government criminals.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    15. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by PRMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, can the "I always vote Democrat" idiots in California finally vote her out please? I'm sick of being represented by her. But since they elected Jerry Brown to bankrupt California for a third time, probably not.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Impossible? Really?

      Machetes work very well too.

      The second amendment granted the PEOPLE the right to arms, not the government, and it was precisely to control the government that they were given these rights. It was fully expected that the PEOPLE would have the same arms as any soldier, which in this the modern era every citizen should be expected to have a fully automatic military long arm and a side arm.

      See Switzerland. Vastly higher gun possession rate, gun death rate less than half of the US rate.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We have a government that has 'constitution-free zones', 'free-speech areas', and drone strikes the shit out of its own citizens without warrant or trial. And just this summer we found out the government's been spying on all of us. And you still think it's a brilliant idea for Congress to ban all guns.

      I used to think gun control was a good idea. I thought all semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed. I could not see the case where a semi-auto rifle could deliver results that a bolt or lever-action simply couldn't provide. I thought the government could be trusted with taking up peoples' weapons. I was wrong.

      My views changed on this subject last summer, due to articles about the NDAA, willy-nilly drone strikes, the NSA data center in Utah (hey! the conspiracy nuts were right...again), and the whole Julian Assange embassy business. Even if a gun ban worked perfectly, and everybody (including the criminals) turned in their weapons to Uncle Sam...what do you think would happen about government abuses? We're knocking down the four boxes pretty quick. Soap doesn't work. I don't have a multi-million dollar news network to spread my views. Ballot doesn't work. The elections are rigged. Jury doesn't work. Not with secret courts. We're down to the ammo box, friends and neighbors. Giving that ammo box back to the same critters who tyrannize us will do...what, exactly? A few million pissed-off people with hunting rifles can cause a hell of a lot of trouble.

      Hey, I even used to buy into the whole 'mouth-breathing redneck meme', too. And then I started getting to know some. You know, being open-minded and all that crap. Turns out, they're pretty darned cool. Sure, they may not have sheepskins from universities on their walls, but they've got a hell of a lot more practical knowledge than I do. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met are farmers who dropped out of high school. Some of the stupidest, most naive jackasses I've ever encountered have multiple PhDs from Yale and Stanford. Don't generalize before you really hang out with a group. They might surprise you. Ah, and most of the 'mouth-breathing rednecks' I've known have exhibited extreme amounts of caution and safety when operating a weapon. They know how much damage it can do.

      Gun ban legislation will only do one thing: spark civil war. The 'Joe Sixpacks' with their blue tick hounds are plenty pissed about the Patriot Act, NDAA, and all that other crap. Don't let the stupid media stereotypes fool you! They like the first amendment too. A gun ban will push them over the edge (last box). It will not work. Simply because a lot of people will not let it work. Good for them, I say.

      I think you've got a very inaccurate misconception about rural people. Spend some time with 'em. They'll blow your mind. I betcha we're on the same side about all the overreaches of power and whatnot. Let's focus on *that* first. Priorities. Let's reestablish a free country with liberty for all again.

    18. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's not true, but you keep sucking that NRA cock.

      He said nothing about the NRA. The interests of the NRA are not relevant, but you sure seem fanatic to bring them into it.

      > Everyone country that instituted enforced gun control or ban has seen a drop in crime.

      You're implying that this is the most important part of "gun control" laws?
      That's strangely backward and not a solution to crime. I'll take fewer "gun control" laws and live with some crime and fear of death.
      Should help to break up the mega-slums that the US churns out.

    19. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by dk20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      One would think Canada would be most similar to the US except it has a near total gun ban.

      I'm not going to pretend Canada is some sort of crime-free nation but the crime index is interesting:
      US:53.44
      Canada: 34.98

    20. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by interval1066 · · Score: 0

      This is what conservatives actually believe.

      No, by all means, "conservsative expert", tell them what they believe, don't ask them.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    21. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      ...would have made the massacre of children at Sandy Hook impossible.

      No.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    22. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Posting AC because the gun debate gets old after a while, but there is one point missing.

      Guns are a wanted part of US culture, from the Wild West to the rednecks, to the gangbangers, and are part of every strata of US society.

      Guess what will happen with a gun ban? Yep, the exact same thing that is happening because drugs are banned, and how alcohol was banned. Prohibition doesn't work. One has to change attitudes first (like drunk driving), then laws will change and be heeded.

      A gun ban will get guns in more demand. Instead of top quality brands, people will be churning them out in basements. If ammo gets scarce, someone will make it from some chemical, somewhere.

      Of course, with alcohol banned in the past, we got the mob. With drugs, we got the cartels. With guns, we will get gangs... and they will be the armed ones, and likely better armed than most police forces.

      Do we want heavily gangsters be the only source of armaments? The police won't be able to stamp them out, and every disaffected 15 year old kid will find the gangsters cool, spawning a "cowboy" archetype similar to the bootlegger or someone who outfoxes the law? Do we want the ultimate of cool to be killing someone to take their handguns or ammo stash (like is done with drug stashes)?

      I normally don't like stepping into the gun control argument, but lets be real, prohibition will not work. Instead, attitudes must change and make guns either viewed as tools (like the rest of the world), or even unstylish. Then, gun control might work. However, do we want to trade these shootings for constant shootings where gangs out-gun the police at every encounter? The existing drug cartels will be damn happy to start with metal shops and making firearms as well as getting gunpowder for ammo. If they know they are the only armed party in a town, they only gain more power.

    23. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by compucomp2 · · Score: 1

      Notice how Drudge is his example "blogger" and Diane Feinstein is the example "big government" representative. This post is a blatant Republican astroturfing attempt to score a few cheap political points on the sly.

    24. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    25. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He's pointing out what the self-described conservatives have said about themselves. The real problem is all the people who change their definitions. Without semantics, there can be no communication.

    26. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, making them illegal is making them illegal. Having to add a step of passing an Amendment to do so doesn't change the premise or the result, so I'm unclear what your point is. We should pass the Amendment before talking about it?

    27. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      The 2nd Amendment applies to what is now the National Guard. We never updated the Constitution as we adopted a "standing army" policy.

    28. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      . I'll take fewer "gun control" laws and live with some crime and fear of death.

      You'd rather be dead with a gun in your hand, than alive with no guns in your house? That seems silly to me.

    29. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The second amendment granted the PEOPLE the right to arms, not the government

      A well regulated militia blah blah blah.

    30. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 2

      Why do people like you condone atrocities like this?

      Because I believe that freedom is more important than safety. Because I believe that we shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few. Because I have principles; unlike you. And I don't even own a gun.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    31. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If guns are such a part of the culture, I really wish firearms training would be a part what is taught in schools, from pre-K, "leave it be" to primary school, "treat it as if it were loaded", "only put booger-hook on bang switch when ready to fire", etc. Secondary and high school would be about marksmanship and tactical use.

      Along with this is use training, de-escalations, and non-lethal force.

      Make firearms boring. Make them so boring that they are not mystical objects as shown in the gangsta flicks or westerns. Make them something that is known and mundane. Change perceptions, just like with smoking... then change the law.

      Sometimes I wonder if some senators have a vested interest in the private prison companies. A gun ban (and the poor kids caught up trying to imitate what they see all the time on TV and movies) just means more people sent for decades to the big house. The more stuff made illegal, the more people going to prison, the more lobbyists available for the prison lobby, and the cycle starts again.

      Also is amusing how the senators that call loudest for a gun ban also called the loudest for an attack on Syria. But, the makeup industry makes money by having politicians buy stuff for both of their faces.

    32. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fucktard opinions are what passes for law these days. Have you read the laws that are currently on the books in the US? Just a heads up, we are passing them faster than a human being can read them.

    33. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blah blah blah the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Right of the People
      Shall Not Be Infringed.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    34. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by DNAgent · · Score: 2

      I used Drudge as the example because he was the first to publicly cry "foul" at Feinstein. I don't read Drudge and I'm not a member of any political party, Republican or otherwise.

      Obviously you have no argument against what I posted, or else you'd reply with something other than an ad hominem attack.

    35. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Feinstein is trying to salvage the US by trying to curb the senseless deaths. If she had her way, there would be 26 little kids still alive going to Sandy Hook Elementary.

      If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.

      Feinstein doesn't give a shit about saving lives.

      Feinstein knows that once the guns are confiscated the
      population has no other option but to become servile.
      Look at what has happened in the UK and Australia and
      you will understand that this is not just the stuff of rumors.

    36. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people like you condone atrocities like this?

      You are a genuine idiot.

      Being against a gun ban in no way equates to
      condoning murder.

      There will always be lunatics in this world, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to
      make the world safe from lunatics. Remove guns, they will use an
      axe or pipe bombs or or any number of other means of destruction.

      You want easy answers because your tiny little brain cries out for such
      answers, but the truth is that simple answers DO NOT EXIST. The world
      is a violent place and there are crazy people in the world. Really you probably
      need to stay in your basement and let your mommy do the grocery shopping
      so you don't get frightened.

    37. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Let's reestablish a free country with liberty for all again.

      For all? Again? I'm looking for a reference. Tell me, when was the first time?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    38. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for repeating propaganda citizen, you will receive an extra ration if we remember you.

      If you want to know results, look at the UK and Australia where only criminals have guns and violent crimes exceed the US by a great amount. Where citizens that are "legal" are involved, people are beaten or stabbed to death. Compare to Switzerland or Finland with almost no gun restrictions and almost no violent crimes compared to the US.

      Take your propaganda and shove it right on up your asshole, if you can fit it in with Feinsteins' prick!

    39. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's doing pretty good. Their elections had international observers, even from your country, and the observers considered the elections went well.

      Oh, but democracy isn't about listening to the people, is it? No, it's about the right guy being in charge. If the stupid foreigners elect the wrong guy, it's up to the world police to correct their mistake by force. And if they fail (the American coup attempt of a few years ago, remember?) all that's left is denounce them as non-democratic dictators. Until a new opportunity to take them down presents itself, that is. Heil Obama!

    40. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true, but you keep sucking that NRA cock.

      Does the mother of your children know you are insulting people you don't know on the internet ?

      I bet if she did know she'd bitch-slap your pathetic punk wannabe ass into next week.

    41. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Some of us believe fundamental rights and freedoms are more important than a statistically minuscule chance of death. We're not willing to trade what we view as a fundamental human right because people have been hurt. It's like the argument about deaths by car. No one will ban cars because they are fundamental to our society. That's how we view firearms. We view these rights as critical for a society to be free.

      We also don't believe in false dichotomies like that one you rolled out because we're intellectually honest.

    42. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, she sees the first amendment as a special privilege... She is one of the worst of the worst.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    43. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun ban legislation won't cause a civil war any more than passing the Patriot Act caused a civil war. The American people are cowards who are addicted to fear.

    44. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The american bill of rights isn't worth the ink it's written with.

    45. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because taking the guns away does not stop crime or violence, it just changes the tools used to perpetrate both, while simultaneously turning all law-abiding citizens into attractive targets.

    46. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by denmarkw00t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I struggled a lot with whether to mod you up or reply in hopes of my karma boosting your post up some - someone please mod this up! Unfortunately, you can't count on many a /. reader going to your link, and all you did was dump it - but it is of value:

      As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

      While the rate is still higher when comparing similar categories (around ~700 some odd in the UK vs 340-ish in the US), even this comparison is riddled with holes. In summation, getting an "apples to apples" comparison of the crime rates in both countries is damn near impossible, and the idea that the UK's crime rate is orders of magnitude higher is simply wrong.

    47. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      ...if you can fit it in with Feinsteins' prick!

      Are you suggesting that Dianne Feinstein is actually a dick girl? If so, it would explain a lot about her, and why the liberals here in California love her so much.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    48. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Diane Feinstein along with Harry Reid want to define "Journalist" to those that draw a salary from an established institution or corporation. They specifically don't want to offer constitutional protection to Internet bloggers or whistle blowers while simultaneously coercing "Journalists" under the defined thumb of the Federal Government to be the official mouthpiece of the established political class, and not the people.

    49. Re: Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, US "unambiguously" has the highest gun possession rate than any other country in the world.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

    50. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by chihowa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is her ilk "Democrats" or is it "autocratic authoritarians"? There are plenty of the latter in both parties. Blindly bashing the other party, whatever your tribal affiliation, doesn't clean them out of your party.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    51. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Since when does an unsupported ad hominem attack need to be debunked? You're making some very specific claims about what someone thinks, then are crying foul when someone throws it back in your face.

      Say something supported with evidence, or can the party-line rhetoric.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    52. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A gun ban (like every other civilized country) would have made the massacre of children at Sandy Hook impossible.

      Like a drug ban makes consuming drugs impossible and the prohibition caused everyone to stop drinking?

      Here in Brazil we have a near total ban on guns. It's almost impossible to get a license to own a gun, and even more impossible to get the right to carry it around. Miraculously though, almost all criminals have guns, several of which military grade. Guess who are the only people who don't? A hint: starts with "law abiding" and ends with "citizens".

      Here's what would stop any massacre in any school: an unknown number of armed teachers. Child-massacring wannabees chose schools because they know those are not only defenseless, but mandated by law to be defenseless. Break that assumption and the issue solves itself.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    53. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      So your right is more important than your life. And you'll force your "rights" on others, even if they don't want them. You are a violent initiator of force, no wonder you favor guns.

    54. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I believe that freedom is more important than safety. Because I believe that we shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few. Because I have principles; unlike you. And I don't even own a gun.

      yet. But as soon as I'm old enough to buy one I'm going to, because they're really cool and they really help enforce my freedom. Then I can stop spewing pro-gun sound bytes and start shooting those anti-gun bastards. Not to mention those kids who make fun of me in school. And the guy next door. He shouted at me once...

      Sorry... was just finishing your bullshit rant for you, in my head...

    55. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh. You're an anarchist. No one else would use the vapid phrase "violent initiator of force". (Either that or you're using a phrase you don't even know what it means, which is even sadder) When you grow up into a mature, thoughtful and defensible philosophy and out of your naive phase you might be worth talking to. Until then I'll let you go back to jerking off to Stefan Molyneux videos on YouTube.

    56. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gadlaw · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters any longer but the right to bear arms was related to the right of collective defense via the militia. You know, complete sentences and historical fact being what they are. Not that it matters, rational discussion has long since left the building on this and other subjects.

      --
      Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
    57. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by jcr · · Score: 1

      Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.

      Only if you ignore the crimes committed by their government.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    58. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole point of 2nd amendment is to let citizens

      NO.

      The constitution does not create our rights. The second amendment acknowledges the existing right to self-defense, and prohibits the government from infringing it.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    59. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might want to read it closer. Pay attention to where that pesky comma lands. If that comma wasn't there, the right to gun ownership would have gone away decades ago.

    60. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By the way, a government of any kind, let alone one that bans firearms is a "violent initiator of force" so that makes you intellectual lacking or a hypocrite. Ooh but which? Decisions, decisions.

    61. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      complete sentences are what gives us the right. Thanks for pointing it out. That comma shows that people were intended and courts have agreed.

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      That comma is huge and shows two separate ideas. The comma in this use is "and"

    62. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. Look at the places in the US that has done that. I mean look at violent crime in DC and Chicago and... oh wait, never mind.

    63. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      No one else would use the vapid phrase "violent initiator of force".

      Nah, I stole it from the Libertarians, though they are essentially the same as anarchists, so I don't mind you confusing the two.

      Until then I'll let you go back to jerking off to Stefan Molyneux videos on YouTube.

      Never heard of him. Is he a Loonitarian like you?

    64. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 1

      It is not universally agreed that the comma is significant at all. It merely separates a reason for a right from the actual statement of the right. It was never intended to be the only reason.

      Furthermore there was discussion at the time to include several other reasons, self defense, hunting but southern delegates wanted the list to include suppression of slave uprising, snd northern delegates would have no truck with that.

      Self defense was just assumed in those days, no on would question that. Stand your ground was the norm everywhere.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    65. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 0

      Lots of accusations, no citations.

    66. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by compucomp2 · · Score: 1

      What you posted is a (rather effective actually, if left uncountered) example of propaganda. You posted something which is true, but which is skewed very far in one direction by the fact that you only mention the one facet which benefits your side and designed to stir up hate for the Democrats. You neglected to mention that for example, when left wing bloggers criticized the US military for actions during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars various right wing leaders publicly denounced them as traitors, and that the Republican Party pushed the hardest for the USA PATRIOT Act and the accompanying security apparatus.

    67. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Man, if you think Libertarians are the same as anarchists you're even more intellectually lacking than I first thought. Not that I'm either one, I just like to be educated on the topics I speak about. I guess that saves you a lot of time though, not having to "learn" or "think" before you type. You haven't demonstrated how you're not a "violent initiator of force" who forces his beliefs on others though, and since you've claimed that as a bad thing by using it as an accusation the burden is on you to get out from this hypocrite hole you dug for yourself.

    68. Re: Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 2

      Deceptive.

      Enthusiasts have multiple guns. Even though you can only effectively shoot one at a time.
      Yet every swiss male has at least one, and is required to practice with it.

      One in every household is a higher percentage of households than the US.
      Also its a higher rate of availability. Everybody has one spreads guns to a larger percentage of
      the population than a small number of guys having large collections.

      .

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    69. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The second amendment granted the PEOPLE the right

      No it didn't, and the idea that the constitution created our rights is a very dangerous misconception. Our rights are intrinsic to our human nature, and what the constitution does is delegate certain powers to the government.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    70. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AHuxley · · Score: 2
      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    71. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    72. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2

      You're right on target. I hear conservatives howl about "liberals", but I think that when you really get to know people, most of us just want to government to leave us alone. The ruling elites strategy must be "divide and conquer".

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    73. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Loonitarians want "minimal" government. Anarchists want "minimal" government. They may have slight disagreement in the definition of "minimal", but are otherwise in agreement.

    74. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 1

      True. In theory.
      False. In practice.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    75. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by celle · · Score: 2

      "A well regulated militia blah blah blah."

              Context and meaning of the time please. Well regulated meant functional 200 years ago. A functional militia is necessary for free state not a potentially dysfunction but regulated militia.

    76. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BlueBlade · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a ridiculous statement. The concept of human rights are a human creation. The truth is that every "right" you have is currently granted to you at the point of a gun, through social constructs like law and its enforcement. Viewing rights as intrinsic is dangerous, because in the end it's just an ideology. I do agree with the idea of basic human rights granted to everyone, but we should never lose sight that we only have them because we kill and imprison people who disagree.

      Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    77. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by jcr · · Score: 1

      A gun ban (like every other civilized country) would have made the massacre of children at Sandy Hook impossible.

      Bullshit. Even if a gun ban could keep any deranged perp from getting a gun, there are all kinds of ways to cause bloody mayhem without firearms.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    78. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Guppy · · Score: 1

      If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.

      Assuming the official statistics can be trusted, that is. The article I'm quoting is a few years old, but it points out some problems that were already occurring, regarding the country's response to the exploding homicide rate:

      http://www.economist.com/node/21009630

      The government, however, seems less concerned with reducing the crime rate than with preventing press coverage of it. The main detective corps, known as the CICPC, closed its press office years ago, forcing crime reporters to meet under a nearby tree. In response to El Nacional's morgue photo, it announced that it would request that the paper be prosecuted for violating children's right not to be exposed to violent images. Police officers were stationed at the morgue to prevent any repetition.

    79. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your willing ignorance is mind-blowing. Anarchists want zero government. Not minimal. Zero. It' is a huge and fundamental difference between anarchists and everyone else. Literally taking two seconds to type anarchism into google and a few more seconds to skim the results would make this basic fact of the world crystal clear to you. It's like you're actively blocking out anything that might disrupt your worldview in any way.

      Anyway, I'm done here. It's interesting to note that I started off simply by explaining to you that (at least some of) the people you disagree with have a logical, internally consistent belief systems that simply have different priorities than yours. A reasonable discourse. You responded to this with ad hominem attacks based on philosophies you don't understand and accusations that don't even make sense and refused to step back and think because you were too emotionally invested in your own sense of righteousness.

      I can respect people who hold philosophies that differ from mine as long as they are rational, logical and defensible. Some people simply have different priorities than I do. I can disagree with that while still understanding it.

      I cannot respect any belief system you have espoused here simply because it is not internally consistent and I cannot respect you because refuse to acknowledge that in any way. Until you can reconcile your beliefs to be internally consistent with one another I cannot accept you as an equal worthy of debate.

      Feel free to close with all the "no you!" eloquence you have displayed so far, I'm going to bed.

    80. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.

      Excuse me, but what exactly makes you so confident that it isn't already this way? You can't blame "Diane Feinstein" or [insert another name here] for this. The situation would simply breed another person to take their place. Blame Obama! Blame Bush! Blame Canada!

      Please. Every government in the world wants things to be sunshine and kittens. It's the basis for all propaganda. We got revisionist history rewriting our high school text books every year. We got angry white fat dudes in suits on Fox News screaming at us about how avoiding war in Syria is somehow a bad thing... because Russia offered a peaceful solution and Syria took them up on it. I mean, how twisted is it that the party that made it's main agenda "making Obama a one term president" is backing him now because he's all like Let's Bomb ALL TEH THINGZ!

      With media distortion and control like that patently obvious to anyone who puts on their critical thinking cap, why are we thinking that we're somehow different than the Chinese in this regard? They got propaganda. We got propaganda. And?

      Anyone who says they're "pro-" whatever is admitting they've been suckered by pro-paganda. About the only place you don't hear "I'm pro-this-thing" is in science, where people regularly say "Well, the new evidence says I'm wrong. SWEET! To the lab!" ... They don't care for being pro-anything except passion for the work. Learn from them.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    81. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unalienable Rights. It's abstracted one level up from mankind for a reason. So they can't be usurped by mankind. That's the entire point. It's a feature - by design! So while the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it serves as a reminder for what rights we have from the moment we are born. That is of course so long as America hasn't shredded the document in some future revolution. Islamic or otherwise.

    82. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? California is now running a budget surplus:

      http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-14/jerry-brown-stays-stern-on-californias-budget-surplus

      Not sure conservative talkshows are going to report this to you, though. Good luck with thinking on your own. It's hard, I know.

    83. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as everybody is flinging unsubstantiated numbers around, here is one of the most definitive (unsubstantiated) statistics supporting the NRA position:

      90+% of all American shooting sprees occur in locations where conceal carry is prohibited. Another words these gunman almost certainly, with planning, picked their venue with the knowledge that his targets would not be able to shoot back.

      I say license and arm everybody who passes some standard examination, much like a license to drive automobiles (but hopefully more rigorous...god knows half the idiots driving should never be allowed to drive).

    84. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      Damn! You got me. How did you ever figure out my secret plans?

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    85. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by celle · · Score: 1

      " The Second Amendment was meant for an army"

            No it isn't. The army language was already somewhere else in the constitution. The 2nd amendment is a veiled threat against government misbehavior or else it will get replaced, by violent force if necessary by guaranteeing the people have the firepower to force the replacement. The 2nd amendment is a blanket ban on government arms control of any kind. All gun control laws are illegal when contrasted to the supreme law of the land. The current view is the government's opinion and has no more authority than the public's opinion as the second party of the contract. We are born with all the rights we'll ever have. Many of the constitutional amendments are blanket bans on government curtailing or removing those rights. Court precedence has been a dangerous policy and reduced the constitution to little more than a worthless piece of paper by corner casing law and saying the current passed law and legal point of views trumps the constitution, it doesn't, ever! As long as the ideas in the constitution aren't being fully enforced we the people are in extreme danger as evidenced on many occasions in the last century.(Snowden leaks being the latest indicator)

          Want to ban guns, repeal the second amendment. I'm sure the civil war that will follow will be interesting.

            "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      "A 'functional' militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      Makes more sense doesn't it.

      And a militia is a group made up of individual members of the public, you know people.

      Has anyone besides me noticed the fight over gun control seems to be the cities against the country?

    86. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      90+% of all American shooting sprees occur in locations where conceal carry is prohibited. Another words these gunman almost certainly, with planning, picked their venue with the knowledge that his targets would not be able to shoot back.

      Of course it doesn't mean that at all. It means that both society and the shooters recognized those places as being vulnerable - society thought it could protect them by banning guns there, the shooters liked it because the places were vulnerable anyway. It doesn't mean the shooters actually researched whether or not concealed carry was permitted. Since basically all mass shootings are deliberate forms of suicide, the shooters would actually do better to pick locations where concealed carry is explicitly permitted.

      The NRA is their own worst enemy nowadays.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    87. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by celle · · Score: 1

      " that they were given these rights."

      The PEOPLE weren't given these rights. They were born with these rights. The 2nd amendment prevents government from taking these rights away.

    88. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dumbass, rights don't exist, except as legal constructs and folklore.

      In the words of fictional character Jack Sparrow: "All there really is, is what a man can do and what a man can't do"

    89. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 3, Informative

      See Switzerland. Vastly higher gun possession rate, gun death rate less than half of the US rate.

      They have a very different setup from the US.

      First: ALL able-bodied male Swiss citizens are drafted into the military around 20. All.
      (Do you really want to return to a mandatory draft in the US?)
      In the military they get extensive training in weapons safety, weapons handling, following order, etc.
      Those with an exemption from service pay an additional 3% of annual income tax until the age of 30.
      (So draft, or more taxes. No escape.)

      Second: Every male head-of-household (remember, these are now former military) is required to maintain a working firearm. (They have the option of retaining their service weapon, but it is de-milled to remove full-auto operation.) [There is an upper age cutoff for this, I forget what it is.]

      So, yes, there are LOTS of guns in Switzerland. But very, very different rules.

    90. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 1

      So what's your point.
      All you've done is prove that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
      Hardy justification for arms confiscation. Just the opposite.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    91. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you prefer a moral and upright (lawful) society with a piece of paper backing that up? Which is what the gentleman above is attempting to illustrate.

      It is not futile or wrong to reinforce a "right" through a political means. However the issues is the lack of education as to why we do this, and how it works.

    92. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 2

      So what's your point.
      All you've done is prove that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
      Hardy justification for arms confiscation. Just the opposite.

      Hey great! I'm glad we agree.

      Let's go ahead and pass the mandatory military draft law for all males, and proceed with confiscation of all firearms for anyone who has not finished their full military service.

      Just like Switzerland.

      You call NRA and let them know we're improving the system.

    93. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by houghi · · Score: 1

      you know; the Bill of Rights wasnt drafted for no reason.

      Please give it to Venezuela as the USofA does not seem to want it anymore.

      And if you are only looking at the second amendment, there are plenty of countries that do not have that and still allow weapons. From WikipediaThe right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

      If only people were so interested in the other amendments. Unfortunately owning a gun is more important, apparently. then the rest. Owning things is more important then all the rest together. And where is this 'well regulated militia'?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    94. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BlueBlade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that's my very point - they are not unalienable. They are made up. Human rights have no basis in reality, there's no fundamental law of nature that grant humans those rights. They are only an ideology and, as soon as someone with different views gathers the most power, they'll cease to exist. In the future, it's possible that technology will enable someone with a different ideology to seize power, and those "unalienable" rights would go away, perhaps never to return until humanity becomes extinct.

      If rights effectively go away once you don't own the biggest guns anymore, then by definition they aren't unalienable : they are created by mankind. This is why you have to be willing to kill to defend your ideologies, otherwise people can use violence to enforce their way of life over you.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    95. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 1

      " that they were given these rights."

      The PEOPLE weren't given these rights. They were born with these rights. The 2nd amendment prevents government from taking these rights away.

      Not really.

      An amendment is just an addition to the constitution. They are written by people.

      They can be added, and changed, and they can be repealed.

      At any time there can be a change (a "repeal with re-enactment") or repeal the 2nd amendment.

      "A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned."

      It is the constitution itself that provides for changing the amendments:

      "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate."

      It always cracks me up to hear people say, "We can't change it!! It's an amendment!!"
      If they actually read the constitution, they would know that it provides for change.

    96. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The country most similar to US would be UK. It has a total gun ban."

      Wrong, the UK does not have a total gun ban.

      And I can find figures to suit my point of view too.

      Murders with Firearms, UK 14, USA 9369.

    97. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Brazil we have a near total ban on guns.

      Here in Australia, we also have a near-total ban on guns. The difference is, it works: gun crime is extremely rare. The question, then, is "Which is a closer parallel for the US: Brazil or Australia?".

    98. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      "The country most similar to US would be UK. It has a total gun ban."

      Wrong, the UK does not have a total gun ban.

      As total as makes no difference. The only people with guns here are farmers, shooting clubs, and the police/millitary. All other guns in circulation are illegal. That's not to say there aren't cockney 'ardboys with shootas and other criminal types but they are basically banned for pretty much everyone. I think they even changed the law to make realistic looking BB and replica guns illegal, or at least more tightly controlled, but I digress.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    99. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Anarchists want zero government. Not minimal. Zero. It' is a huge and fundamental difference between anarchists and everyone else.

      So zero isn't minimal? How do you get less than zero?

      Anyway, I'm done here. It's interesting to note that I started off simply by explaining to you that (at least some of) the people you disagree with have a logical, internally consistent belief systems that simply have different priorities than yours.

      Ah yes, "I'm done here." That's what losers who can't articulate their thoughts in a logical and rational manner say when they realize they can't say anything that isn't self-contradictory. Stop thinking, and get back to your Fox News. You wouldn't want to have to actually have a discussion.

      You responded to this with ad hominem attacks based on philosophies you don't understand and accusations that don't even make sense and refused to step back and think because you were too emotionally invested in your own sense of righteousness.

      You said stupid things about guns, and I mocked you. I'm not emotionally invested. I couldn't care less whether you own a gun. Gun rights isn't a fundamental right anywhere other than the US, so it stands to reason that it isn't actually a fundamental right. It's the hubris of the US that the US is right and everyone else is wrong. Whenever anyone mentions lower gun crimes elsewhere, it quickly devolves because the gun nuts lash out. So yeah, I may have come on strong. I've had hundreds of discussions on guns on the Internet. There's no real reason they need to be as accessible as they are. Oh, and yes, I can out-shoot you as well. Your choice, pistols or rifles. I've won competitions with both. Though that was a long time ago.

      I cannot respect any belief system you have espoused here simply because it is not internally consistent and I cannot respect you because refuse to acknowledge that in any way.

      I haven't espoused any belief system. I've merely commented on yours. You guess what mine is, and choose to not respect it because that's easier than thinking about your own beliefs. Now, the only question is are you a liar? "Anyway, I'm done here." Can you let it go? Or did you let it go because you didn't read any response to your comment? Easy to keep to your beliefs when you refuse to listen to any other opinions. Even when you don't know what those opinions are.

    100. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what would stop any massacre in any school: an unknown number of armed teachers.

      How many deaths would there be from teachers who momentarily snapped and did something stupid? How many deaths would there be from children getting their hands on the guns and doing something stupid? How many deaths would there be from the cross-fire during a school shooting?

      There are many parts of the world where almost no one has a gun and there has been no school shootings. If you arm everyone, people who use guns inappropriately are going to get shot up faster than otherwise - that's true. There will also be many more people who use guns inappropriately. If all criminals have guns and all the "good people" don't, that just makes it very easy to identify the criminals and put them away - have a gun, go to prison. If that's the way it would be, then every search of a criminal's belongings would lead to a conviction for gun possession. It would be like convincing criminals to put a stamp on their forehead saying "criminal". That's a feature, not a bug.

    101. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And which part of the amendment discusses magazine size or automatic fire?

    102. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I can't really comment on your dissection of the AC above, but I do have an issue with some of your statements. There are other countries in the world without a gun ban, so while the US as a whole may suffer tremendously from hubris (no one could deny that), I believe that's a straw man in the context of this argument.

      I for one believe that guns should only be made available to people who have passed a psych eval (with the requirement that the psychiatrist not know the 'purpose' of the evaluation), and that discounts should be offered for those who go through safety/training courses. Beyond that, the 'gun nuts' (by and large) make valid arguments. An armed public DOES present a problem to a tyrannical government, there is no debunking that. And whether or not you believe our government falls under that description, another irrefutable fact is that they could.

      I'm genuinely curious as to your response to this. Trust me, I'm just as tired of discussing this ad nauseam (though obviously we argue from different sides of the issue), but there is still some spark of hope in me for intelligent discourse. Let's see what happens.

    103. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gnalre · · Score: 1

      You mean places like Fort Hood? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting)

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    104. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There are other countries in the world without a gun ban, so while the US as a whole may suffer tremendously from hubris (no one could deny that), I believe that's a straw man in the context of this argument.

      You can buy and own a gun in Australia, NZ, UK, but none of those three see it as a "right" as far as I can tell. There's a difference between something being "allowed" and it being a "right".

      Do you know of anywhere else in the world where ownership of a firearm is considered a "right"?

      And people assume that I want them banned. Despite the fact I've never said anything of the kind. I've looked at countries where they are tightly regulated, but allowed quite broadly, and it seems to work better that way. Some countries have requirements that you demonstrate a suitable gun safe before being allowed to own them. That would cut down on gun theft greatly. But such regulations would be considered "illegal" in the US, as they are a "right" in the US, and a $5000 safe properly mounted would be a hardship in exercising that "right".

    105. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's dumb; the bill of rights is actually more-or-less redundant considering the fact that anything the constitution doesn't give the government the power to do, the government has no authority to do. The constitution does not give the government the power to steal people's guns or punish them for owning guns.

    106. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by bythescruff · · Score: 2

      "In the military they get extensive training in weapons safety, weapons handling, following order, etc."

      This is a crucial point which is usually overlooked: in order to use a gun safely, you need to learn the rules and practice them. Believe it or not, a car analogy actually works quite well here: no one would suggest that you don't have the right to travel, and therefore it would be wrong to deny you the right to drive a car, correct? But before you're allowed to drive a car, you have to learn the rules so you know how to do it safely, and you have to pass a test in order to prove that you've done so. No one complains about this because it's perfectly reasonable; unless you know how to use a car correctly, you're a danger to others. Guns are the same.

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    107. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by kbg · · Score: 1

      Are you addicted to guns? No it's not the same thing.

      If the criminals in Brazil have guns even though there is a gun ban it must mean that the police and the government are massively corrupt and are aiding the criminals. That is a problem with your country not a gun ban problem.

      In a civilized country having very strict gun laws actually work.

    108. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Soldiers and civillians are generally prohibited from carrying on military bases. It's been that way since Clinton took office.

    109. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course human rights are a human creation: they are the product of our own evolution. What they are not is the product of an elite few who have managed to gain coercive authority over the rest.

      Human rights preceded government, not the other way around. Human rights are always the very first justification for any government. They are a product of human nature (all of us together) not coercive authority (an elite few). If not, then what justification could government possibly have for its own use of coercion besides coercion itself (which is obviously invalid)?

      Let's put this another way. If coercive authority suddenly disappeared, the concept of human rights certainly wouldn't disappear along with it. The Amish are an obvious example. The reason you can't see this is that you know nothing but coercive authority, and can't imagine a world without it.

    110. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Gun ban legislation will only do one thing: spark civil war. The 'Joe Sixpacks' with their blue tick hounds are plenty pissed about the Patriot Act, NDAA, and all that other crap. Don't let the stupid media stereotypes fool you! They like the first amendment too. A gun ban will push them over the edge (last box). It will not work. Simply because a lot of people will not let it work. Good for them, I say.

      All the more reason to introduce gun ban legislation, then. It would mean that people would finally get off their lazy ass and do something instead of complaining.

    111. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Not a gun nut here, but I believe "minimal" means "as little as possible", which could be anywhere from zero to some percentage above it.

    112. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting accusation. got any proof to back it up?

      so you subscribe to the theory that all guns in the hands of criminals were sold by law-abiding people. Never heard of theft? Never heard of importation from out of the Country?

      And i challenge you to show me a single "civilized country" with very strict gun laws that does not suffer from an abundance of violent crime.

    113. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it does get rid of half of them and give you a smug feeling of superiority.
      So I'll stick with what I know - thanks.

    114. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What of my statement about psych evals? And discounts for people who undergo safety training? A gun safe is completely sane, and I would assume that if they were mandatory, the market would increase, as would competition, and thus prices would fall.

      I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your issue with the use of the word "right". Clearly, the historical motivation at the time the provision was based on British conduct before the Revolutionary War. However, in function, how is this different than what you state for Oz and New Zealand? I can't think of any. Culturally, however, there is a major difference. I'm currently living as an American expat in the UK, and the amount of incredulity I face every time I try to explain to someone that I'm both a pacifist and a gun owner is very strange to me. The people here (by and large) have been convinced that guns can do nothing but kill people, that only raging lunatics and criminals own them, and that I must be a bad person for doing so. However, the 'cool factor' of guns (among those willing to admit to it) hasn't dissipated. I have found no larger subset of the population here able to intelligently discuss gun control with me than I did in the US. What's more disturbing to me, however, is their insistence that while the average policeman doesn't carry a firearm, they're completely fine with 'armed response units', and find the idea of corruption within those ranks, or abuse of that power completely ludicrous. That's a naive view fostered by ignorance of history, in my opinion.

      I'm not presuming you want them banned, though it's not such a great logical leap, given the original comment to which I replied. I still don't understand why it has to be all or nothing. Sure, the NRA are a bunch of morons, and they're the loudest of the anti-gun control camp. That does not mean they represent all of 'us' (putting myself in that camp feels cringe-worthy) any more than the loudest of the pro-camp represent all of the other side of the debate. As I stated above, I'm both a pacifist and a gun owner, and I don't think anyone sane is advocating for absolutely no controls on gun purchases. The idea that this is the case is knee-jerk reaction, and below the ideal of intelligent discourse. I'm not accusing you of perpetuating this, simply stating that this debate seems to forever live on a slippery slope.

    115. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      In a civilized country having very strict gun laws actually work.

      In a civilized country civilization works. Having civilization the need to ban guns becomes a moot point given that people are, you know, civilized.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    116. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      How many deaths would there be from teachers who momentarily snapped and did something stupid? How many deaths would there be from children getting their hands on the guns and doing something stupid? How many deaths would there be from the cross-fire during a school shooting?

      a) It depends on whether the school system is built to empower or depower teachers. There were they're made powerless and to submit to the mercy of students they're very likely to snap. There were they have authority and students who disrespect them are properly dealt with by the system it's an almost null possibility.

      b) If the children received proper instruction on weapon security, as is standard practice anywhere where weapons are common, none or almost none. They'd know what to do and, more importantly, what not to do. Only children with no idea of how weapons work do stupid things with them.

      c) Where almost everyone is armed there's almost no shootings. People tend to be very, very educated around each other, for obvious reasons.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    117. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Are you addicted to guns? No it's not the same thing.

      Criminals are.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    118. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food for thought: How many tyrannies have been brought down by an armed populace in the past 200 years?

      Zero.

      That argument is not worth bothering with.

    119. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comma separates a dependent adverbial clause from an independent clause. The comma in no shape or form can mean "and".

      The dependent clause simply gives a reason (not necessarily the only reason) why the right to keep and bear arms won't be infringed.

    120. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your naivety is both cute and disturbing at the same time.

    121. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by WhatHump · · Score: 1

      You are naive. Canada has strong gun laws - which I agree with - but that doesn't stop someone who is determined to commit a horrendous act of violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_lepine. Lepine shot 14 women to death at a Montreal night school class. Gun laws reduce gun deaths, but they can't eliminate them.

      --
      "Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
    122. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Who cares about "murders with firearms"? Dead is dead. Now it's knife crime in the UK.

    123. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views."

      We're already dominated by a group using the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views. It's called government. Nothing more efficient than convincing enough people that it's right for you to rule them.

      As for the Constitution... that's been dead for decades. Most of what the feds do is unconsitutional, including the Federal Reserve (1913). A piece of paper won't protect us. The only protection is to convince people that no man has the right to rule them, and to stop giving their power away.

      Now... perhaps you would like to re-consider the importance of the concept of intrinsic rights, since it's kinda all we have left to argue against the validity of our oppression?

    124. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      (Do you really want to return to a mandatory draft in the US?)

      Yes, actually (as a flaming liberal): perhaps if everyone had to serve in the military then there'd be some resistance to militarism. You notice the Swiss haven't bombed any Middle East sandpits lately?

      So, yes, there are LOTS of guns in Switzerland. But very, very different rules.

      I think the more salient point is the different culture. A disproportionate number of the murders in the US happen among particular subcultures and sub-geographies which aren't present in Switzerland. The murder rate in places as disparate as New Hampshire and Utah are both quite low; the murders happen in places like Baltimore and Chicago.

    125. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by odigity · · Score: 1

      Arg. Just noticed I'm not logged in. Fixed, now.

      The above post is mine.

    126. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by kbg · · Score: 1

      There will always be criminals, sociopaths and crazy people in any society therefore there is a need to restrict gun ownership just like we restrict other items and materials like poison, bombs and nuclear weapons. But if the society isn't working because of corruption and/or prevalent social injustice then having rules which are not enforced do not work.

    127. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I'd turn it around and say: a polite citizenry rarely commits murder.

      There aren't many murders in New Hampshire or Vermont, despite the high gun ownership rate. There are lots of murders in Baltimore and Southeast DC, despite the near-complete gun ban. In the US, there is actually a stronger (positive) correlation between church attendance and murder than firearm ownership and murder, done state-by-state.

    128. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      There was also a mass shooting in Austria very recently.

    129. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Builder · · Score: 1

      A total gun ban? Really ? Shit - I best give up my SGC and FAC and the 3 shotguns and rifles I currently own.

      Oh, wait - we don't have a total gun ban - that's just senseless bullshit that is regularly trotted out despite having no basis in fact.

    130. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      The 2nd Amendment applies to what is now the National Guard. We never updated the Constitution as we adopted a "standing army" policy.

      The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    131. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by swillden · · Score: 1

      Here's what would stop any massacre in any school: an unknown number of armed teachers.

      How many deaths would there be from teachers who momentarily snapped and did something stupid? How many deaths would there be from children getting their hands on the guns and doing something stupid?

      Well, let's see, it has been legal for teachers to carry in schools in Utah for more than 10 years now, and there have been zero incidents of either of the sort you mentioned.

      It's hard to extrapolate from zero, but we can probably use it to set an upper bound. Let's suppose that an incident occurs next year, which will actually be the 12th year since teachers have been able to be armed. There are approximately 3M residents of the state, so that would give a rate of one incident per 36M resident-years, as an upper bound. So that means that we could expect at most 8 such incidents per year nationwide (again, remember this is an upper bound). As compared to observed school shootings, that would be a win, assuming the rate actually was that high, which I strongly doubt.

      I fully expect that Utah will go 20+ years without any incident of either sort. There are other states which are also in the process of allowing teachers to be armed, or have allowed it recently, and some states in which it's up to the school district and some school districts have chosen to allow it, so the reliability of our statistics will be improving over time.

      How many deaths would there be from the cross-fire during a school shooting?

      What a ridiculous argument. Which do you really think will cause more deaths, a stray bullets from armed people shooting at one another, or unopposed, aimed bullets from a rampage shooter methodically picking people off?

      Again, there's no need to guess, though, because it actually does happen that rampage shooters get stopped by other armed people, both police and civilians. On average, when rampage shooters are stopped by civilians, 2.33 people die. When they're stopped by police 14.29 people die. The difference lies in response time. The time it takes for armed people to arrive is the time that a shooter has to go about his bloody business. When an armed person is already present, rampages end quickly and deaths are low.

      And, in fact, I haven't seen a single example of a case where innocents were killed "in the crossfire" between civilian carriers and bad guys.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    132. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I would attribute this to properties not of Australian law but of Australians. If you carved out a few hundred square blocks of inner-city Chicago and dropped them in Adelaide they'd find a way to kill each other. If you took a bunch of Aussies and dropped them in the middle of Arizona (with very permissive gun laws), they'd be just fine (as are, for the most part, the Arizonans). It's not the laws; it's the people.

    133. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is. Everything about American society is based on two opposing extremes. Racial issues, class (painted as middle and lower) issues, political leanings, every hot button political issue that conveniently splits the population 50-50...

      It's a fantastically effective strategy that's been used for a long time. The US even used it officially against the natives of this continent. It's disgusting that we have a government using it against its own citizens, though.

    134. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly didn't stop the shooting at the Navy Yard. Shotguns are legal just about everywhere.

    135. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the largest school massacre in US history and identify the firearm used (hint: there wasn't any)

      A militia by definition is a group of citizens gathered together to form a fighting force and supplying their own equipment, including arms. A militia is NOT a standing force like the National Guard.

    136. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gsslay · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's compare violent crime rates per 100K people: US 466, UK 2034

      A bullshit comparison that has been debunked often before. The definitions used for "violent crime" are totally different in either country, so it is impossible to compare the stats in any sensible way.

    137. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

    138. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      I'd say that really depends on you definition of populace.. because there are more than a few uprisings which could fit that definition, IMHO..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    139. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      The party affiliation 10 years ago is not relevant. The issue is that, whoever is in power, the federal government is abusive of said power.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    140. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      Has Feinstein given up her pistol permit yet?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    141. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      How soon also we forget the twice-failed "Hush Rush" bill, attempting to force radio stations to put on an equal, AKA 3-hour extra program for "equality", knowing full well such programs were ratings disasters, and thus a huge loss leader, and would force radio stations to think twice about conservative programming, which, of course, was the intent all along, even as they feigned Noble and Holy Purpose to get useful idiots on their side.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    142. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      You disagree with the founding fathers then, on philosophical grounds, with respect to inalienable rights. Just because you don't believe that any such thing as an inalienable right can exist does not alter or change the fact that the rights enumerated were *specifically* and *explicitly* considered to be such.

      You are welcome to your differing philosophy, but any interpretation you then make of documents whose writing was *predicated* on the existence and validity of inalienable rights is automatically wrong.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable+right
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

    143. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're making shit up.........anything else?

    144. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 2

      How many rights would you have if you were the only person on earth? Answer: all of them. Only another living person can take your rights away. QED

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    145. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be a marvelous fantasy land you live in. Riding a unicorn to work while eating beefy jerky that grew from trees in my floating yard would be amazing!

    146. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      First you would have to present evidence that the draft is the cause of the low incidence of crime using firearms. I say it is the training.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    147. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do exist as a social convention. That's why the concept of inalienable rights is so important. You start by assuming people have inherent rights, then you construct a government with a constitution that grants the government certain limited, well-defined powers over those rigts, and no other powers .

      The goal is to remove might makes right, and it's unfortunate bastard stepchild, Vox Populi Vox Dei. Transient political winds in many countries too-easily change law.

      Some charismatic demagogue who can rile people up is, like being fat, drunk, and stupid -- no way to go through life, son.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    148. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if she had her way, the shooter would have been able to kill even more, cause not even the cops would have teh guns to stop him

    149. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beating the shit out of your wife is a right in most of the middle east. But it isn't a right elsewhere. See, I can play your dumb fuck baby games too, retard.

      You are an ignorant, naive coward.

    150. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This is what conservatives actually believe.

      The belief that all Americans have in common......the sneaking suspicion that the 'other party' is trying to take away our freedom.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    151. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because you completely misunderstand their purpose. its not just about suicide. these sprees that end in suicide are about more than just suicide-via-outside-agency. if it was jsut about the suicide they would either shoot themselves, or shoot a police station (suicide by cop).

      its about the fame. the rememberence. the impact. the "ill show them" mentality.
      the suicide itself is often really an act of defiance, denying the public its day in court.

    152. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only science were as pure as you suggest I'd have no problem it. However, in the real world governments, foundations, corporations, grants, ego, preconception, status quo, etc all pollute the scientific process. The other thing that I'd like to point out is that being anti-everything is just as unhelpful. Sure, not going to war in Syria looks like a win. We don't get mired in yet another foreign policy nightmare that drags on for years, costs a bunch of money, kills a bunch of people, and generates more anti US sentiment around the world. If (and this is a big if) Syria in fact turns over their chemical weapons, they are destroyed, and they don't make anymore then yes it is in fact a win. Brought to you by Putin no less (I think I just threw up a little). Being that they already agreed not to make them in the first place in exchange for aid from the UN raise your hand if you believe this is a viable long term solution. Holding to tradition this particular foreign policy decision will kick the can down the road until Obama is no longer in office, and then we'll still have to deal with a much larger problem later on.

      Speaking of revisionist history who is it that's been rewriting history since the 1920s to paint white Americans as evil people who should be ashamed of themselves? We love to point out all of the bad stuff we did to the Native Americans (and we did do some terrible stuff that I'm ashamed of), but they leave out all of the treachery that went in the other direction. Scalping, poisoning food supplies, renegging on their agreements, killing people after calling a truce, etc. There's plenty of shame to go around on both sides, but to read modern history it sounds more like we just punked them and took their land while they were completely innocently just here minding their own business. That's not how it really went down.

      Similar things have been done with slavery as well. They leave out the fact that some of those people sold themselves into slavery. Some of those slave owners took care of their slaves as though they were part of their own family. But you don't hear those stories. You only hear about the mean sonsofbitches that beat, and raped their way to prosperity on the backs of the poor indentured servants. Not discounting that that happened, nor that it was shameful, just that it wasn't all like that. They don't tell both sides of the story.

      Progessives have a propensity for their own propaganda, and they're hardly the minority in the back of the bus. They've been driving the bus for quite some time, and they tend to scream much louder than conservatives.

      Coming back to the original point of the article we all have freedom of speech, but even here in America you have to watch what you say and how you say it. Maybe you don't get put in prison and tortured, but you could easily find yourself out of a job, blackballed by a community, ostricised, socially cast out, etc for speaking your mind, and often times for just telling the truth about the world as you see it.

    153. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relevent:

      “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

      REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

      "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

      YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

      "So we can believe the big ones?"

      YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

      "They're not the same at all!"

      YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

      "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

      MY POINT EXACTLY.”

      Inalienable rights are one of the big lies, and one of the most important ones. dont be so quick to dismiss them. inalienable rights exist because we say they exist, because without them and the other big lies we are reduced to might makes right, society doesnt exist, and we're nothing but savages in caves.

    154. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      actually, this is terrorism and unless you understand it you make foolish arguments. And I mean real terrorism, not what a talking head is spouting.

      Some terrorists choose schools because it upsets people more to have a dozen children executed than a dozen geriatrics or even a dozen adults.

      Or, with the religious right terrorists, putting in secondary bombs timed to kill emergency responders (the goal is to terrorize emergency responders into not responding if the emergency involves an "abortion clinic" so that people running or visiting such places will feel more isolated and fearful.

      The truth is, you *can't* stop "any massacre in any school". There is no absolute safety or security. Once you get the mindset it is easy to devise terrorist strategies, and painfully obvious how hard it is to stop anyone who is determined to hurt others.

      Call in a bomb threat at target, observe where people go. Wait. Plant a bomb where people went, call in a bomb threat. The structure isn't the terrorist target, its the people.

      Bomb goes off outside a building. Security responds by establishing a perimeter. Use a really big bomb sufficient to make the perimeter insignificant. Security responds by relocation and a *really* big perimeter. Switch from bombs to agile vehicles carrying armed lunatics.

      Bomb or crash an airline. Security responds by tightening up passenger screening, which results in long queues and masses of unscreened people. Walk a bomb into the crowd and get more people than you could from bombing a single plane. Security pushes perimeter outward -- but as long as there are a significant number of flights at some point there is going to be screening and thus choke points. For the terrorist it really doesn't matter where the choke point is, what matters is that it exists.

      Shoot children in a school. Someone arms the teachers without bothering to look at facts, such as accuracy in a fire fight. There are some interesting FBI statistics on this, though I can't find a citation for the one I saw back in the 80s. But a more recent report suggests a hit rate of 15% [http://www.handgunsmag.com/2013/06/20/new-fbi-handgun-training/]. Even if the teachers are balls-to-the-wall gung-ho types who have no issue shooting under pressure and don't mind killing another human being... the simple truth is that it is easier to fire into a crowd of people and hit *someone* than it is to lethally hit a *specific* target. But lets pretend for a moment that all of the teachers are seasoned veterans who have lost respect for human life. A grenade through a window, a planted claymore, a called in bomb threat and observe response (almost certainly an attempt to evacuate so a sniper or claymores planted around exterior doors -- or wherever the exit choke points are will do just fine.

      The goal of a terrorist is to strike with fear. To let you know that you are not safe. That your government cannot protect you.

      The truth is, they never could and never can. Not completely.

      Some say that terrorism is the price of living in a free society, but that isn't true. The threat of terrorism is the price of being alive. The bar can be raised (it would be easier to assassinate a random citizen than a protected person with personal security), but it cannot be prevented.

    155. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      What is the "crime index"? Only crimes involving firearms?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    156. Re: Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I apologize in advanced for sounding condescending: perhaps if the US media (music, movies, tv shows) didn't bathe the population in depictions and glorification of violence and sex, you wouldn't be having the problems you do. Your culture is corrupt. Fix it!

      This took several generation to dig in. It will take several more to dig yourself out.

    157. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's still very relevant. I think if we got back to a more pure militia defending this country rather than punting all of our responsibilities off to politicians that don't have our best interests at heart we'd be better off all the way around.

    158. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      Any of those semiautomatic arms suitable for military use? Didn't think so.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    159. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      You need to actually study philosophy a little before arguing again that the right to arms is only a right in the US. It's a right of everyone; it's just the US that protects it the best. Try Kant, Hume, Hobbes, and Locke. Arguing that it isn't a right because people abuse it is like arguing I don't have a right to a penis because some men commit rape.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    160. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by operagost · · Score: 1

      Do you know of anywhere else in the world where ownership of a firearm is considered a "right"?

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    161. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      There will always be criminals, sociopaths and crazy people in any society therefore there is a need to NOT restrict gun ownership

      FTFY.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    162. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by TCQuad · · Score: 1

      Machetes work very well too.

      That comparison's more than a bit disingenuous. From the link:

      Chuwanga Gyang said he heard a gunshot early Sunday. He said he left his house through the back door but stopped when he realized that the attackers were shooting to herd fleeing villagers toward another group of attackers carrying machetes.

      You're comparing Sandy Hook (one individual, primarily one weapon) to Dogo Nahawa (a group using machetes for killing, but wielding both guns and machetes).

    163. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      lets just go for broke and state that a properly trained (and ARMED) team would have either

      1 plunked the Whack-A-Doodle down on a couch and gotten his head screwed on straight

      or

      2 caught him AT THE DOOR and plunked him down (on a Sick Bed or otherwise)

      What we need is teams of folks in charge of giving a [redacted] about The Future Of Our Country posted in schools

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    164. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that the USA has 96 guns per 100 people (highest in the world) while Switzerland is a lowly 54 guns per 100 people? Or that Australia with its ban on guns and a rate of 24 per 100 people (if I remember right) has a even lower rate of gun deaths then Switzerland?

      Gun ownership doesn't appear to actually affect the murder using a gun rates at all (according to the statistics anyhow). Banning guns doesn't affect it either, although in theory, banning guns should reduce the murder rate by guns a bit due to the lack of ease of getting a weapon (how many of those school shootings would have been prevented if the kids had no easy access to weaponry?).

      Murders using guns seem to be affected more by economic and social factors rather then the rate of gun ownership (heck, if the statistics read right, the murder rate in general is affected by this).

      Gun ownership per capita
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

      List of countries sorted by murder with gun rate
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    165. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've noticed this too. In spite of being born and raised in California I never bought into the liberal ideaology that is so prevalent there. I grew up in a relatively poor socioeconomic area. Because of this much of my exposure to guns was due to having to duck and cover when some gang banger got pissed off. This shaped my initial viewpoint of guns as being unnecessary and only used by thugs who are irrational and unreasonable. In 2001, September 11th happened, and Michael Moore made an extremely inflamatory movie filled with lies and propaganda masquerading as a documentary. I started following a web site called moorewatch, and over there found out about another stupid movie that attacked gun rights. It was there that I started to interact with gun owners who were rational. I started to see the necessity of the 2nd ammendment and how relevant it still is today. I started to see that while yes, morons with guns = bad, more laws aren't going to fix that. It's already against the law to kill people, and if they're going to ignore that law they're going to ignore any others laws as well.

      I moved to Idaho in 2006, and yes it's true some of the most down to earth people are the most intelligent. And I think you pose an excellent idea in working together to take our country back.

    166. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by swillden · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed]

      Citation for what?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    167. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that analogy is this:

      You DON'T need to pass a test in order to drive a car. You need to pass a test in order to drive a car on public roads. On private property, you don't need a license at all.

      The difference is subtle, but very important.

      Re-mapping the analogy back to guns, this would suggest that there can be no restrictions the ownership of weapons, or their use on private property, but the bearing of one on public property can be subject to licensing.

    168. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where actual carry of guns is banned, you know. Hassan was eventually shot by a civilian police officer.

    169. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 1

      And which part of the amendment discusses magazine size or automatic fire?

      You are not paying attention.

      t was fully expected that the PEOPLE would have the same arms as any soldier, which in this the modern era every citizen should be expected to have a fully automatic military long arm and a side arm.

      One of the key reasons for the right to keep arms was to control a tyrannical government. It was fully expected that the average citizen would have parity with the the average soldier's arms.

      Hamilton wrote:

      If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

      There is a huge discussion about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
      and it makes clear that the intent was as much to control government as it was for self defense or harvesting game or being in the Militia. Note: The Militia was never intended as a Federal Force, (those are provided elsewhere in the constitution).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    170. Re: Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 1

      We believe in education. People can distinguish between movies and real life.

      Besides, US movies are seen around the world. Yet you seem to suggest they only affect the US. How is that?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    171. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      The whole point of 2nd amendment is to let citizens be able to defend themselves against crime...

      No. Crime, at least of the type we're talking about here, didn't exist in 18th century America. Also, the latest development in gun technology then was the Kentucky rifle, after the German Jäger, a necessary development for American settlers who relied on guns to put food on the table. But the flintlock musket was the standard tool of warfare, it took upwards of at least a minute to reload. So even the rifle was seen as more of a hunting weapon, war at that time was like a stupid chess game between stupid gentlemen. The founders could not have seen the advancement of arms as it has progressed to this day. This is precisely why Thomas Jefferson firmly believed that the constitution should be torn up and a new one created every generation; this VERY reason.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    172. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think Dianne Feinstein fits in with the status quo power and money serving polititian. She wants money to be the lever of control over reporters. People who can do the reporter job without being under the sway of advertisers and the like are a threat to the type of corporate controlled government that she stands for. It makes no difference team red or blue because the sponsors are the same. This recent shield law for reporters leaves out the type of reporter that she doesnt want to hear from.

    173. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by flabordec · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Sandy Hook shooting was one lone shooter, while the killings in Nigeria were hundreds of rioters with machetes. It is a lot harder for a single person to kill 28 people with a machete than it is with a gun.

      --
      "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
    174. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by vilanye · · Score: 1

      It's been that way for much longer.

      I was in the Army in the 80's and with the exception of MP's nobody was allowed to carry a loaded weapon on base. Loaded weapons were restricted to the shooting ranges and a few other places in the field. Furthermore, the company armories never stored ammunition.

      But don't let facts get in the way of a rant.

    175. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually support freedom of speech, but DailyKos is the exception. Can't we send one of those drones after Moulitsas?

    176. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a 9mm semiautomatic handgun and I could easily kill 8 people before anyone could react.

      Give me a knife and that number drops to 1.

      Yeah, dead is dead and the person murdered couldn't care less, but 8 > 1.

    177. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by icebike · · Score: 1

      Really? A room full of grade school kids in a locked room aren't likely to put up much of a fight once the whacko dispatched the teacher.

      Would you then lobby for registering all big knives?
      You haven't thought this out very well, have you.

      The problem is not the evaluation of weapons, it's the over supply of whackos.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    178. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course human rights are a human creation: they are the product of our own evolution. What they are not is the product of an elite few who have managed to gain coercive authority over the rest.

      The founding fathers were an elite few who managed to gain coercive authority over the rest. And King George before them, and ...

    179. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by vilanye · · Score: 1

      (Do you really want to return to a mandatory draft in the US?)

      Yes, then maybe we won't start up wars over senseless reasons.

      Most of the warmongers in the US Government have been chickenhawks.

    180. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Then it's person vs. people, which will show up in the statistics. 8 people killed by a guy with a pistol = 8 people killed by knives.

    181. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Feinstein is trying to salvage the US by trying to curb the senseless deaths. If she had her way, there would be 26 little kids still alive going to Sandy Hook Elementary.

      Actually, I'm pretty sure that Feinstein did have her way. Both Sandy Hook and the recent naval shooting show clear evidence of being government propaganda operations. Initial reports mentioned multiple shooters in both cases and then it was quickly blamed on a lone nut. More like, special forces did the actual shooting and then some lunatic's body was left at the scene for the local police to find.

    182. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Builder · · Score: 1

      I was replying to
      > The country most similar to US would be UK. It has a total gun ban.

      That statement is a complete lie. We have many guns legally available here. I have a semi-automatic shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle. My semi-auto shotgun is a cheap Turkish make, so I wouldn't trust it in a combat situation, but it does fine for wildfowling and clay shooting.

      With rifles, we actually have _fewer_ restrictions on things like magazine capacity than many places in the USA. It's harder to get a rifle, but once you are licenced, accessories and magazines are fairly easy to come by.

    183. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hence why it isn't considered a right, it's only practiced locally. You are agreeing with me, in a very disagreeable manner.

    184. Re: Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Entropius · · Score: 1

      How does the glorification of sex lead to violence?

      There seems to be a real anticorrelation between sex-positivity and violence in the world. What bit of the world seems to be always at each other's throats? The same bit that makes their women wear rugs with (sometimes) eyeholes. Where are some of the most peaceful bits of the world? Western Europe...

    185. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So democracy is wrong, because it's about what's popular or agreed by the most people?

      Now that you've proven you hate democracy, we can assume you are a Libertarian, the anti-democracy party.

      Vote for us, we'll do what's best for you, even if (or especially if) nobody likes it. And they wonder why they don't win.

    186. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are right. I should have stated "was intended to apply" or "initially applied", as evidenced by the surpurflous first clause. If it carries no meaning at all (as asserted by the "no restrictions"camp) why is it there?

      My "fix" for this is to abolish the standing army. Problem fixed. Then everyone should have military grade munitions to prevent invasion.

    187. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      This x10000000000000000000

    188. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BlueBlade · · Score: 1

      I understand well the intent behind the "unalienable rights" statement. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the physical reality and as such, it is untrue. I can make a document declaring that humans have the innate power of flight, but when I decide to jump off a cliff to act upon my belief, flapping my arms is not going to help me.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    189. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BlueBlade · · Score: 1

      The Amish are only able to hold together without the threat of violence because they dump the responsibility on others. Small, tightly-knit group of people always have an ultimate solution to cases they can't handle : expulsion. These groups will typically use several methods to enforce their rules. Usually it starts with reason (convince people through logic), then shaming (for your Amish example above, that would be the forced beard-cutting and such) and finally when those fail, they expel the offending member from the community. To keep with your Amish example, when a violent offender becomes too much to handle for them, say a serial rapist or murderer, they call outside authorities to deal with them.

      Let's pretend that this option wasn't available because the whole world is Amish. What happens when a few pariahs get together and go down the path of banditry? They'll steal and rape and pillage their ways until someone uses violence to stop them. So you start needing people to deal with those cases. So now you need a police force, etc...

      To come back to your original statement, you're right that evolution applies to societies in general. The societies with the best set or rules (laws & ideology) will tend to prosper and others will fail. However, the willingness to use violence is the most basic component of every society. If tomorrow, somebody convinces half the people of a country that murder is right, the only option for the other half is to defend themselves. Sure, you can try to convince people through reason, but if that fails, violence is the only last resort that works. If you forgo violence and someone is willing to use it against you, you'll die, and all your nice ideologies about rights and peace and whatnot will go with you.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    190. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 1

      (Do you really want to return to a mandatory draft in the US?)

      Yes, actually (as a flaming liberal): perhaps if everyone had to serve in the military then there'd be some resistance to militarism. You notice the Swiss haven't bombed any Middle East sandpits lately?

      So, yes, there are LOTS of guns in Switzerland. But very, very different rules.

      I think the more salient point is the different culture...

      Agree! Having spent a little time in Switzerland I came to appreciate their very different cultural attitude of "alles in ordnung" (which is Hochdeutsch, not Schwyzerdütsch) which means, sort of; "Everything in order." Hard to describe, but just picture the way they run things at Disneyland to get an idea.

      I agree that a mandatory draft might be a good thing, but it might have a negative effect on the economy with so many able-bodied young men out of the workforce. It might have a positive long-term effect however - once all those young men come back with training in following instructions, leadership skills, a good work ethic, etc.

    191. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 1

      First you would have to present evidence that the draft is the cause of the low incidence of crime using firearms. I say it is the training.

      Well, the draft leads to training, so we agree...

    192. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 1

      The problem with that analogy is this:

      You DON'T need to pass a test in order to drive a car. You need to pass a test in order to drive a car on public roads. On private property, you don't need a license at all.

      The difference is subtle, but very important.

      Re-mapping the analogy back to guns, this would suggest that there can be no restrictions the ownership of weapons, or their use on private property, but the bearing of one on public property can be subject to licensing.

      Just to flog an already tenuous analogy completely to death...

      You can't drive on a public street without a license because at that point you become a hazard to the public, not just the people on your property.

      A .22LR 40 gr will travel 1.14 miles.
      A ..223 55 gr will travel 2.2 miles.
      A 9mm 124 gr will travel 1.36 miles.
      A .45 ACP 230 gr will travel 1.02 miles.
      A 7.62 (NATO ball - typical) will travel 2.31 miles.
      A .50 BMG will travel 4.35 miles.

      So you become a hazard to the public pretty much the moment you pull the trigger.

    193. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 1

      The "unalienable rights" verbiage doesn't really figure into a 2nd amendment discussion.

      The phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't even occur in the Constitution (the document our legislators and president are sworn to uphold.)

      "Unalienable rights" appears in the Declaration of Independence; which is more of a "rah, rah, freedom!" document.

      In context: "...all men are created *equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      So, no mention of guns as an "unalienable right!"

      * This being written by slave owners.

    194. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there are other ways to receive training than being drafted, and the existence of a draft doesn't necessarily mean that adequate training will be provided.

    195. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      UK law (which commonwealth countries derive their legal systems from) has the right of self defense (even for Catholics when they where heavily discriminated against) and before the 20's had quite permissive gun laws - post ww1 there was a panic about red revolution and the laws where tightened up.

    196. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Right to self defense, but not the right to guns. Those are the areas where I see the right balance struck. It's not "hard" to get a gun in Australia or NZ, but not a right. It's much harder to get a gun in the UK. Police don't have guns in NZ, and the people do. But gun violence is still low.

    197. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Well, and better health care, better mental health care especially, orders of magnitude less income inequality, social mobility, etc...

    198. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by drkim · · Score: 1

      Well, and better health care, better mental health care especially, orders of magnitude less income inequality, social mobility, etc...

      ...better chocolates, weirder artists, better skiing, more secure banks...

    199. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by BlueBlade · · Score: 1

      We were discussing human rights in general here, not just your 2nd amendment. I was responding to this idiotic statement by jcr :

      No it didn't, and the idea that the constitution created our rights is a very dangerous misconception. Our rights are intrinsic to our human nature, and what the constitution does is delegate certain powers to the government.

      The whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident" concept creeps me out so much, especially if people are buying into it without thinking about it. Whenever people are talking about "self-evident truths", you should be extremely wary, especially when they have guns to back their statements up. I happen to agree with the ideals in this case, but I'm under no illusion that these "rights" would exist without the threat of violence to back them up.

      I'm not American and I think your 2nd amendment was very poorly worded, especially the part about "bearing" arms. If the aim is to allow the general population to resist a potentially oppressive government, then guaranteeing the right to own weapons is enough. The right to take them with you everywhere is a completely different issue. Personally, I think walking around with a loaded weapon should be extremely illegal. In fact, wielding a loaded weapon should always be treated as if you were intending to use it right then and there. This would allow guns to be allowed for hunting, as well as in all actual self-defense situations, and insure their availability should civil war be necessary. Basically, carrying a loaded weapon with you in all other situations should be treated as criminal intent.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    200. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Nope. Shooters don't need to research whether concealed carry is permitted when they a) choose an obvious place like a school, or b) go to see a movie and see a "NO CONCEALED CARRY" sign on the door.

      And no, the best place for these suicidal maniacs to accomplish their goals is to go to a place where people are defenseless so they can wreak havoc until the SWAT teams and news trucks arrive. If they only wanted to die, they could do that any number of different ways. They want to make a loud statement that will be plastered all over national media.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    201. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Why is that? I just don't understand the reasoning. Who is more qualified and trained to handle firearms than soldiers? Yet they are forbidden to do so while on their own base, a place from which to defend against enemies (internal or external)?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    202. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      They want to make a loud statement that will be plastered all over national media.

      If that's the case, why don't they ever have some sort of suicide note? I'm sure you've got a pop-psy explanation for that one too, so lets hear it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    203. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      No prior to the 1920 act you could prity much own what you liked "The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, according to the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law".

      There was a moral panic just post ww1 that led to the clamp down - the new BBC's series "peaky blinders" has a major plot arc about guns immediately post ww1.

      Even post 1920 if you where in with the local bobby's you could own a Tommy gun for example as those who play call of Cthulhu will know.

    204. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by flabordec · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that you qualified your statement with a "once the whacko dispatched the teacher" which supports my argument that killing 28 people with a machete is harder than it is with a gun but you still decided to start name calling.

      Even though I'm sure you have given this some thought, I am afraid that you still have not grasped the full extent of the problem, violence is not a simple issue that you can just attribute to one cause (over abundance of whackos), and having easy access to guns and very little deterrent to using them most definitely increases violence.

      Yes, better gun regulation will not stop massacres everywhere instantly (nothing will), but it will help reduce the problem. And yes, knife registration would further reduce the problem, as would putting everybody in protective spheres and banning all human contact, but those solutions are not practical, which is why you won't see a lot of people lobbying for those.

      --
      "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
    205. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by vilanye · · Score: 1

      That is what the MP's are for.

      Military bases are like a city, their are many civilians that work and live on base. Carrying loaded weapons around unless your job specifically requires it is a monumentally stupid idea.

      The idea that people would be safer from random shootings if more people carried is an incredibly stupid idea wrought from the incredible stupid far right.

      If everyone was carrying in Ft. Hood, the death toll would have been 10 times higher. If teachers at Sandy Hook were carrying there would have been lots more dead kids.

      The idea that your average soldier is highly trained and qualified is laughable. Many(most?) soldiers don't handle weapons very often, many don't except for the annual re-qualification. On any large base a large number of soldiers are pushing paper, managing warehouses, working in clinics and the base hospital. Even those of us in a combat arms MOS(which is the minority of the MOS groupings IIRC) didn't handle loaded weapons, or even carry them all that often in peacetime.

    206. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Who said that they never have some sort of suicide note? You?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    207. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      You toss around the word "stupid" an awful lot, usually attached to strong intensifiers--but that doesn't make you right about any of your assertions.

      You're merely speculating that more people would have died--it's 100% pure speculation. And I don't think it's even logical speculation.

      Compared to an average civilian, an average soldier is highly trained and qualified in firearms safety and use, even those soldiers in non-combat MOSes.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    208. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Who said that they never have some sort of suicide note? You?

      Nope, you did. By not linking to a new article that mentions a suicide note you've just confirmed that there aren't any.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    209. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      No, the only thing that may be confirmed by my comment is that I didn't post a link to an article. A few seconds of googling "mass shooting suicide note" confirms that they do exist.

      You, however, have confirmed that you are either a liar or irrational--and perhaps lazy.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    210. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No, the only thing that may be confirmed by my comment is that I didn't post a link to an article. A few seconds of googling "mass shooting suicide note" confirms that they do exist.

      None of the recent ones have had a suicide note. Sure, out of the hundreds of "mass shootings" (any shooting of more than 2 people qualifies for that label) there have been a few suicide notes.

      But none of what the public typically considers a mass-shooting - killing many people that the shooter has little to no relationship with and which ends in the shooter being killed - columbine, aurora, newtown, etc have had suicide notes. As always you are welcome to prove me wrong, bald assertions of lying, irrationality and laziness don't prove anything.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    211. Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Compared to an average civilian, an average soldier is highly trained and qualified in firearms safety and use, even those soldiers in non-combat MOSes.

      That says nothing about the actual training and qualification of the average soldier. In the army, do you know how much time is spent in basic training on weapons and safety? 1 week on the M16. A few days combining grenades, LAW rocket, claymore, M-60 & 50 cal. That is it. For many soldiers that is the extent of their weapons training.

      More people would have died in both cases because more shot would have been fired.

      Soldiers don't carry loaded weapons on base because doing so is stupid and dangerous, period. You have a romanticized idea of soldiers that has no basis in fact.

      How about you enlist and get some first hand experience?

  2. Tent camp! by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The leaders of the so called free world promptly laid their coats over their laps after reading that little tidbit. I'm sure they were also wondering "How long till we can do that here?"

    Just to be fair, I'm sure Merkel and Hillary had to cover their laps as well for similar "problems".

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Tent camp! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Like you, I imagine representatives of the lawmaking class viewing freedom for the masses as a dark thorn in the side of their mission to protect us. Still, I hold out hope proponents of a great and free society have infiltrated the ranks of the rule makers to work clandestinely on the other side.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Tent camp! by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      I was reminded of the book, "1984." It's suppose to be fiction, right?

    3. Re:Tent camp! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      That is where the Library files it. I suppose it also posits as both potential prophecy and how-to manual.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re: Tent camp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was supposed to be a warning about a future that is surprisingly tangible right now (although the context is a little different).

    5. Re:Tent camp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was reminded of the book, "1984." It's suppose to be fiction, right?

      In principle, yes. The ideas, however, were drawn upon personal observations and experiences of a former member of the Imperial Police in East Asia. His name was Eric Blair.

    6. Re:Tent camp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long will it be before dissidents in the West are publicly discredited and systematically broken down by detention and interrogation techniques, until they tearfully beg forgiveness from Big Brother?

      Gee, I don't know, why don't we ask Bradley/Chelsea Manning?

    7. Re:Tent camp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice: If you post anonymously do not expect a reply.

      Pseudonymous or anonymous what's the deal ?

  3. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wanna see the video! Come on guys, include the link. We want to know where we are going...

  4. Five fingers by pluther · · Score: 1
    He also said that the prompter was holding up five fingers.

    I will never understand why they coerce these false confessions. There can't be more than a handful of people, especially in China where trust in their government is even lower than over here, who believes he changed his mind on his own.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    1. Re:Five fingers by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing happens when everyone is dependant on their government for every facet of thier lives.

      Never need your government more than your government needs you.

    2. Re:Five fingers by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The population of the US actually pretty broadly trusts their government.

      Here is a box of tissues.

    3. Re:Five fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point of the coercion. The unspoken horror of what happened in the interim. They "got to him" -- and you don't even know how.

    4. Re:Five fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, pretty obvious...but never under estimate the power of ignorance.

    5. Re:Five fingers by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      China had huge issues in the 1940-70's massive starvation, huge political death toll, production issues and internal political issues with trying to get Communism to work just right.
      The people that are left recall what happened to millions and millions and passed on that fear to their child.
      The 1950~60's is not a distant memory for China.
      A confession makes the system work and the person might just save their extended family from the same fate.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. Prositutiion? In China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been written that in a commie society everything is free. How can this be then? Is China pulling a fast one? I recommend waterboarding, which is known to be both safe and effective, for all involved so that we, the peoples of these greats worlds, may come to meet the truth.

    1. Re: Prositutiion? In China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China are State Capitalists, not "commies." You should try to receive an education before posting such mind-numbing comments.

  6. Bradley Manning by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet when Bradley Manning makes an eerily similar statement plenty of people are willing to take it as proof positive that he was a bad guy.

    1. Re:Bradley Manning by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And yet when Bradley Manning makes an eerily similar statement plenty of people are willing to take it as proof positive that he was a bad guy.

      The definition of patriotism is believing your country is the best country on Earth simply because you were born in it. Nobody's national anthem starts with "We're Number Two!" So when America says someone's bad, americans believe it, but nobody else does. When the Chinese say someone's bad, the chinese people believe it, but nobody else. And so on, and so on.

      Nationalism is hardly a problem confined to America; It blinds people equally the world over. Here's some Russian propaganda about American, and here's some American propaganda about Russians. It's all the same.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except Manning gave away every secret he could get his hands on, regardless of the consequences to anybody else.

    3. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Chinese citizen in the US and hoping to go back, I am truly depressed today. I RTFA. I used to defend my country on slashdot, but I will not bother from now on.

    4. Re:Bradley Manning by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Patriotism is rooted in tribalism, and at various and sundry periods in time it was a survival mechanism for a random selection of genetic information. Whether or not this feature is presently vestigial, it remains religion-like as a proven tool to govern and/or control populations.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Bradley Manning by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Some men just want to watch the World burn.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the proof is right there in his confession!

    7. Re:Bradley Manning by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      Charles Xue did not steal, Bradley Manning did. Would anybody have cared if Bradley Manning had blogged what he felt instead of what he discovered? As for China, "human rights" are just 2 words in an engrish test.

    8. Re:Bradley Manning by poity · · Score: 1

      Average Twitter celebrity = Charles Xue
      Bradley/Chelsea Manning = ???Chinese military whistle blower???

      Average Twitter celebrity: still tweeting; Charles Xue: arrested, made to confess on TV
      Bradley/Chelsea Manning: 35 years in jail; ???Chinese military whistle blower???: the world will never know this man or his fate

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    9. Re:Bradley Manning by dk20 · · Score: 2

      If i could mod you up i would... I've always thought this way, but its funny when you talk to some people. They are fast to tell you something like "that's just propaganda from ..." but they seem to feel their own country doesn't have an active propaganda program.

    10. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like Bradley Manning made an oath to protect the secrets of the United States no matter how dumb they are. You sign away some rights when you JOIN THE MILITARY. As far as I know, not all Chinese citizens are required to make such an oath.

    11. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ^^^ When the Chinese say someone's bad, the chinese people believe it, ...^^^

      You are very very very wrong. People in other countries do have patriotism etc but not the "My country, right or wrong" poison running through their blood. I have some unscientific explanation for their humbleness: They have been around longer than 200 years so it doesn't require them to deal with "has no culture, no history" which leads to inferiority leads which leads to "I am the best" complex.

    12. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some of us take the part of the oath to support and defend the constitution seriously enough to not plug our ears and sing "la la la" whenever terrible leadership is blatantly violating it?

    13. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong! The first rule you learn in the US Army is that you are to uphold the Constitution and defend the citizens. You also learn that you are not to obey orders that are unlawful and therefor illegal.

      Wear the Uniform and learn the job before you spout off bullshit propaganda. I proudly served my country defending it's citizens, consider myself to be pro-USA, and would have done exactly the same thing as Manning under the same circumstances.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re: Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if you came accross something as blatantly illegal as what the NSA was doing a la Snowden, then I would EXPECT you to stand up and say something. But if you just have a personal vendetta against the US and the military, it is inexcusable to just grab as much "classified" stuff as you can and publish it, not caring about the contents. Sure a lot of it shouldn't have been classified in the first place, but it seemed all he really wanted to do was cause some damage to get attention.

    15. Re:Bradley Manning by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You can never sign your rights away. You told to protect them.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    16. Re:Bradley Manning by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wrong! The first rule you learn in the US Army is that you are to uphold the Constitution and defend the citizens. You also learn that you are not to obey orders that are unlawful and therefor illegal.

      Uphold the Constitution, Defend the citizens, and lawful orders. That would be the Abu Ghraib iraq prison scandal, the US government putting prisoners in a room with mustard gas to test its effects, and shooting unarmed bystanders trying to help the injured after a botched air strike, respectively.

      Wear the Uniform and learn the job before you spout off bullshit propaganda.

      I think the work speaks for itself. I don't think I need to participate in the torture and murder of people, or use chemical weapons on them, to arrive at the conclusion that some of the things our military has done has been very shameful. That all said, our military is better than most, but waving the flag and saying we can do no wrong is propaganda, man. We need to move past being "pro-USA" or "pro-Russian" or "pro-chinese" and start being "pro-human", because patriotism is built on the same principles as racism, sexism, fascism, communism, and all the other isms: It is dogma. It is a refusal to admit to mistakes, a belief in your own moral superiority, and those two things combined have written some of the darkest chapters in human history.

      As Einstein wrote, and I paraphrase: The pioneers of world peace will be the youth who refuse military service. Yeah, putting on the uniform can be an honorable and necessary thing. You won't hear very many people dissing WWII veterans. But as long as people like you are eager to sign up to go kill foreigners, our leaders have little incentive to find peaceful solutions.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    17. Re:Bradley Manning by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Don't worry though, the rest of the world is watching.

    18. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said: "would have done exactly the same thing as Manning under the same circumstances"
      Probably referring to exposing war crimes by the US troops in Iraq.
      Military people, they start their career with great ideals and values and patriotism. But then they get put into action, and shit happens. Innocent people get hurt or die, human rights get trampled.
      Given the realities of command hierarchy, intense peer pressure, unseen enemies trying to kill you, colleagues hurt or dead.

      How will they react?

    19. Re:Bradley Manning by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Wrong! The first rule you learn in the US Army is that you are to uphold the Constitution and defend the citizens. You also learn that you are not to obey orders that are unlawful and therefor illegal.

      Wear the Uniform and learn the job before you spout off bullshit propaganda. .

      So then you must also know that there are proper channels to file complaints when there is classified information involved. Did Manning use those channels then after getting no where decided to expose wrong doing by releasing classified information to the public. Absolutely not he gathered up all the classified information he could get and published it weather or not it had to do with wrong doing. Further the information he published showed very little wrong doing, the supposed video of US troops attaching unarmed civilians was simply doctored, Assange even admitted that they doctored the video to produce outrage when there should have been none.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    20. Re:Bradley Manning by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      yeah, in basic training there's a brief mention of the constitution. The resisting unlawful orders is hit pretty well, too. But then, when you leave basic training, it gets a bit different. How do you know that an order is unlawful? Can you properly interpret the constitution? Do you have *time* to work through the issues -- particularly when they aren't evident at the outset and build up over time so you are complicit in the results? Having access to JAG is great, and I really mean that. But being stateside is one thing, deployed in country is another altogether.

      Look, I'm not trying to disagree with your basic statement, but do you honestly think that there were many others in any unit you were in who would do what Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden did? Such people are rare. The military, all branches (but especially the marines) teaches subservience. This is a basic military necessity: taking a particular hill might be critical for the battle, or even a strategic victory, but you might expect to lose a company doing so. The officers and the soldiers have to be willing to do their part, which sometimes includes dying for their country. People don't like to die, so there are various tactics for that, but the most basic is incomplete, misleading, or wrong information combined with an insistence that orders be obeyed. And disobeying an order gets seriously bad fast. Just being late for formation is a charge under the UCMJ!

      So there is every attempt to condition soldiers to not think about things too much and not to question orders. If you do, you can end up with some unwanted scrutiny (and be *very* glad that JAG exists and -- stateside at least -- you have unrestricted, unmonitored access to legal counsel).

      Put another way, I would not look to soldiers to expose the wrong doings of the military. If it happens, you got lucky. But that is why oversight is necessary. For the military, for the NSA, for whatever branch. And because of the "who watches the watchers" issue our government was setup with the intent of a balance of power, a tension between three branches so that one could not overpower both of the others.

    21. Re: Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      But if you just have a personal vendetta against the US and the military, it is inexcusable to just grab as much "classified" stuff as you can and publish it, not caring about the contents.

      This statement is wrong in just about every way possible.

      1. Bradley Manning did not publish a damn thing. He did what he believed was correct and gave information to journalists. The same can be said of Snowden. Now if you wish to argue that "he gave it to the wrong journalists" then you have no grasp of how deeply corrupt both the Government and US media has become. Even if you made such an argument, your statement about him publishing information is an absolute fabrication.

      2. Claiming that he grabbed excess data because of a vendetta is idiocy. What you are supposing is that if a cop gets a warrant for drugs, he can search your house for drugs and anything else he finds he is supposed to leave where it is. Such as child pornography, illegal weapons, a kidnapped person chained in the closet. Don't bother spewing more nonsense about him not being a cop. He is a soldier defending his country.

      Sure a lot of it shouldn't have been classified in the first place, but it seemed all he really wanted to do was cause some damage to get attention.

      More fabrication based on your assumptions which, as I point out above, is worthless speculation at best.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      hink the work speaks for itself. I don't think I need to participate in the torture and murder of people, or use chemical weapons on them, to arrive at the conclusion that some of the things our military has done has been very shameful.

      Strawman argument diverting from the statements that you quoted. Your implication that every member of the US Armed forces participated in those acts of torture is disgusting and disturbing. The strawman does not imply that you understand what a soldier learns, or what their job is.

      Unfortunately you continue that strawman in your next paragraph. Your delusion that all soldiers sign up to kill people is pure idiocy. Talk to veterans and find out why they served and you will find almost none signed up to "kill and torture", but rather they signed up and served in order to protect and defend the USA.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    23. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      So then you must also know that there are proper channels to file complaints when there is classified information involved. Did Manning use those channels then after getting no where decided to expose wrong doing by releasing classified information to the public.

      If the chain of command is implicated in the evidence, and it is, why would he trust the chain of command to "fix" something or take appropriate action? That logic is not complex, and is exactly why whistle blowers have been protected until very recent times.

      Also stop with the lies! Manning did not release anything to the public! Manning and Snowden released to Journalists. This is why journalists were also protected until very recent times.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    24. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I can tell you that from my company, almost everyone would have done the same. It's not overly complex to know that things like Abu Grab were illegal. It's not hard to realize that media and officers covering up friendly fire incidents are also illegal. It's not hard to realize that units giving bricks of US cash to Afghanistan Poppy farmers is illegal. These are basic right and wrong considerations and take no extensive knowledge of the Constitution of the United States, let alone interpretation.

      What was published by both Manning and Snowden was not a soldiers reacting in a fire fights. Those are hairy moments where soldiers don't have time to consider things like "is shooting that person with a gun shooting at me a violation of the US Constitution?" Manning and Snowden were not on the fire lines. They were intelligence people looking at intelligence data, and both of them knew what they were looking at was absolutely wrong. They probably did not know much about the Constitution or Constitutional law, and didn't have to have said knowledge.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:Bradley Manning by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      Strawman argument diverting from the statements that you quoted. Your implication that every member of the US Armed forces participated in those acts of torture is disgusting and disturbing.

      His implication that the mere act of putting on a uniform is a bar against any member of the armed forces participating in those acts is what is disgusting and disturbing. That is what I was saying. I didn't imply anything. You made a strawman to claim a strawman argument -- by twisting my words. I said some members of the armed forces have done those things, and that's a fact. An undeniable, absolute, resolute fact. You are the one diverting here.

      Your delusion that all soldiers sign up to kill people is pure idiocy.

      You can call it a delusion, but I don't think those guns, missiles, tanks, bullets, planes, aircraft carriers, etc., are just for show. They are most definately signing up to kill people -- it just happens to be that it may not be "Plan A".

      Talk to veterans and find out why they served and you will find almost none signed up to "kill and torture", but rather they signed up and served in order to protect and defend the USA.

      That might be what they were told. That isn't what they wound up doing. They didn't get PTSD and wake up screaming because they feel bad about "protect and defend"... they get it because that is not what they were doing. And an awful lot of soldiers are coming home broken... which tells me a lot of what they are doing isn't "protect and defend".

      You're like the guy who farts in a room and then says "Who farted?" You think if you pre-emptively blame the other people, nobody will suspect you. Unfortunately, that tactic doesn't work after the age of 5.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    26. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She.

    27. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Your straw man was the statement that every soldier is killing and torturing people. Try again.

      That might be what they were told. That isn't what they wound up doing. They didn't get PTSD and wake up screaming because they feel bad about "protect and defend"... they get it because that is not what they were doing. And an awful lot of soldiers are coming home broken... which tells me a lot of what they are doing isn't "protect and defend".

      I am a veteran, and like every other veteran I know I did not sign up to "kill" or "torture". Having PTSD is not a result of "joining up to kill and torture" as you falsely claim! Good grief go read a fucking book on PTSD and ask people why they signed the papers before insisting that you have goddamn ESP and magically know why people joined up or have illness from serving in combat duty.

      As a FYI, 90% of the people join the Military because there are few civilian options. They have no money for college, no job prospects in their community, etc.. Of the remaining 10%, most of those join because their Father, Grandfather, and Great-Grandfather all served and they maintain the "family" business. About .001% of the people join to "kill people if it's that high.

      I normally respect your opinions, but on this one you are absolutely wrong. The lack of thought and disrespect you are showing due to what ever bigotry you have is wrong on every level.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    28. Re:Bradley Manning by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      I would not say the same for the soldiers I knew. It isn't that they were bad (far from it), but it depends on what you are talking about.

      Abu Ghraib is something I do not have enough specific details on so there is some speculation going on, but with humans you don't typically immediately jump into the abuse. It tends to be gradual. Maybe a small number of people are initially rough with detainees. Few, if any, common soldiers would likely be privy to the fact that some were detained with no substantive reason. They would "know" they were being brought "bad guys".

      Maybe I'm wrong and it was evil from get go, but I strongly suspect that it was one of gradual escalation. And, in such a case, even if a given soldier didn't directly commit an abuse they were complicit by not saying anything initially. And it can be hard to know when to draw the line. Maybe easier for some than others. It sounds like you would. I certainly had my issues with command and took advantage of JAG.

      With respect to "further from the action" -- it is less distant and less real to read something in a report. Snowden dug to get the data he released: it isn't like it jumped into his inbox and demanded attention. From the various releases and interviews it sounds like he realized how loose and lax the "controls" really were and he started pushing the envelope and digging for details. Contractors (or soldiers involved) aren't being ordered into directly and obviously illegal conduct -- a lot of it is issues with aggregation, scope, lack of controls and lack of oversight.

      Although the data collection and correlation is the fundamental enabler in that case a lot of it probably doesn't seem that bad when you are just showing up to your job and doing searches for bad guys. Having dealt with law enforcement at various times I'm quite familiar with the frustrations they can feel when hampered by legal requirements. When your gut tells you that something is wrong it can be hard to ignore it -- and this can lead to an illegal search because there just isn't enough evidence to get a search warrant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is two fold:

      1) the military is not effective at policing itself. You can't rely on insiders outing incorrect behavior.

      2) don't be too hard on soldiers who don't raise flags. Everyone is susceptible to some degree to "going along" with events. Should people raise flags and blow whistles? If there is wrong doing, absolutely! It needs to be encouraged. But I would avoid black-and-white views where someone is either guilty or whistle blower.

    29. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Abu Ghraib is something I do not have enough specific details on so there is some speculation going on, but with humans you don't typically immediately jump into the abuse. It tends to be gradual. Maybe a small number of people are initially rough with detainees. Few, if any, common soldiers would likely be privy to the fact that some were detained with no substantive reason. They would "know" they were being brought "bad guys".

      So you are telling me, that if you were an officer and suddenly were assigned to Abu Ghraib you would walk in the door and think "Hmm, it'll grow on me?" I think the more likely answer is, that you would hit the roof and start prosecuting people as soon as you walked in and found out what was happening.

      Now consider an intelligence person that receives this same imagery. You see that the brass is mailing it around in "ha-ha" fashion. You would still not know it's wrong? You would still believe that you can trust the brass?

      The Military should be policing itself, but we understand that corruption can happen high up. We used to have Q&A all the time (can't say that is currently done) where we gave hypothetical scenarios and asked people what their reaction should be. If Brass was corrupt, they tended to promote other similar people below them. This is where JAG may be of help, but when JAG fails you have no choice but to move to journalists and politicians.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    30. Re:Bradley Manning by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      So then you must also know that there are proper channels to file complaints when there is classified information involved. Did Manning use those channels then after getting no where decided to expose wrong doing by releasing classified information to the public.

      If the chain of command is implicated in the evidence, and it is, why would he trust the chain of command to "fix" something or take appropriate action? That logic is not complex, and is exactly why whistle blowers have been protected until very recent times.

      You don't file those complaints up the chain of command there are different channels that are used, DOD Defense Hotline I could see how you might not know about it, it's only discussed at all security training and semi-annual training on it is required on for a NIPER-net account which manning had. I'm guessing you never worn the uniform or know the job.

      Also stop with the lies! Manning did not release anything to the public! Manning and Snowden released to Journalists. This is why journalists were also protected until very recent times.

      The journalists are the public quit trying to play semantics, he gave classified information to people who were not briefed to that information.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    31. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The same problems exist with the Defense Hotline as they would with chain of command or JAG. Corruption currently is extremely deep, and it does not take a scientist to figure that out.

      The DOD hotline would be fine if you saw someone like your boss copying classified data and handing off thumb drives after work. When it comes to internal corruption in numerous offices, you have to go completely outside of that environment.

      The DOD hotline is only for DOD contractors so Manning could not have used it, and yes I'm aware of it. In fact I built the first classified networks on DOD sites off of Military installations for a DOD contractor. I know the NISPOM and J/FAN guides better than most DSS agents.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    32. Re:Bradley Manning by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      well, as I said, I'm not familiar with the details of Abu Ghraib. Doing a quick check I see wikipedia claims "When the U.S. military first reported abuse in early 2004, much of the U.S. media again showed little initial interest" so it would appear that people in service *did* take exception.

      Yes, it was apparently first outed by ex-detainees, but despite being reported by the AP, "The article gained little notice."

      Just because you don't hear of "Bradley Manning" doesn't mean people weren't reporting. And, with military experience, you should know that it often isn't so easy to walk into a situation and do things. Especially if you are not ranking. Especially if the problem goes to the top.

      The problem at Abu Ghraib does not appear to be that internal military was all happy about it, but rather that they were ignored. And, yes, I firmly believe that the military should police itself. But it is a mistake to *rely* on that, just like it is a mistake to rely on the NSA to oversee itself. It makes a mockery of oversight.

      It is easy to get angry about things. I hope that people don't generalize too much when there are plenty of good soldiers.

      And, yes, when JAG doesn't (or can't) help then moving outside is certainly necessary. Whistleblowing is a much needed outlet to account for systemic abuses.

      (Interestingly, even though technically all soldiers are instructed about JAG, the culture is such that few make use of it -- at least that was my experience. Kind of like the culture discourages treating illness in favor of staying on the books as active and ready. I saw abuse by those in power much more often than I could actually do anything about it -- never underestimate the good ole boy network amoung NCOs... JAG wants to take on cases, but can't when soldiers refuse to testify.)

    33. Re:Bradley Manning by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't hear of "Bradley Manning" doesn't mean people weren't reporting. And, with military experience, you should know that it often isn't so easy to walk into a situation and do things. Especially if you are not ranking. Especially if the problem goes to the top.

      That statement is exactly why you should understand and back what Manning did!

      (Interestingly, even though technically all soldiers are instructed about JAG, the culture is such that few make use of it -- at least that was my experience. Kind of like the culture discourages treating illness in favor of staying on the books as active and ready. I saw abuse by those in power much more often than I could actually do anything about it -- never underestimate the good ole boy network amoung NCOs... JAG wants to take on cases, but can't when soldiers refuse to testify.)

      Staying on the books for duty is not the same thing as ignoring illegal activities. I'm not sure how you confuse the two. When I was in, we often sat and chatted about the law when it came to combat and rules of engagement. My unit knew why we did not operate within US Borders (posse comitatus), as well as how to handle POWs we captured. It was not uncommon for our commanding officer to grill us on right vs. wrong, or our top NCOs to do the same. If you have a suggestion box, and the Army no longer does this with any regularity put in a note.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    34. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truer words were never spoken

  7. obama and the nsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd love to do it here, but for our exceptional Constitution, weakened as it has become.

    1. Re:obama and the nsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they already are doing it there. only its much much worse at least in china they dont hide it.

  8. NSA Wet Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This image is a wet dream of the NSA, CIA, and rest of the US government.

  9. Oblig Orwell by Bookworm09 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He loved Big Brother.

    1. Re:Oblig Orwell by dmt0 · · Score: 2

      He also admitted that entering the new phase in his life he wants to be a woman and receive hormonal treatment.

    2. Re:Oblig Orwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He loved Big Brother.

      He also admitted that entering the new phase in his life he wants to be a woman and receive hormonal treatment.

      Sounds like he loved Big Sister too.

  10. Where have I read this before...? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    "...I wrote and diseminated subversive literature, I lay with prostitutes in order to spread disease, I blew up bridges and commited anarchistic acts, spread terror upon innocents, I now only ask that you accept my love of Big Brother."

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  11. The video by larry+bagina · · Score: 2
    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  12. i wonder what they threatened him with by ClassicASP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i gotta think people in china are intelligent enough to know this is a forced confession. and china's govt has to know their population is intelligent enough to know this. they're just basically making example of this guy as a message to its population to say "we can make you do whatever we want". i bet they threated to lobotomize the guy or something like that.

    1. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they're just basically making example of this guy as a message to its population to say "we can make you do whatever we want".

      As they say in China: Kill the chicken to scare the monkey.

    2. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a venture capitalist and billionaire. He's got plenty to lose that has nothing to do with physical threats.

    3. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. Here in Alabama it's chokin' the chicken to spank the monkey.

    4. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - kill one to warn a hundred
      http://www.chine-informations.com/chinois/outils/chengyu/index.php?chengyu=%E6%9D%80%E4%B8%80%E5%84%86%E7%99%BE

    5. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

      Actually no. You are looking at a society with a massively different attitude to these things. Yes some will know it's not a real confession, but many many more will think, "where there's smoke there's fire". Such people will think that a person with "face" (ie a real Chinese person) would never say stuff like this unless they meant it. The confession also gels with the massive amount of propaganda that the Chinese society now lives within. I guess you've read Orwell's 1984, well, Chinese society is like that. The weird mixture of fear/love, the emotions, the belief that the government is right and loves me and is doing the best for China is a powerful amalgam of religious dimension. I've been going back and forth to China for 30 years. I have close friends there that beg me never ever to discuss this stuff with them in writing. They are the ones that know. But the great unwashed masses and the urban middle class don't want to know. Like in the west, it's easier to consume, do nothing and live in the dominant paradigm without questioning. They are getting richer at the expense of the rural areas. Rural people are locked up in black jails if they get caught in the cities without permission. I could go on and on, but believe me - this public humiliation will have some traction, perhaps akin to what the climate change deniers get in the west.

      --
      work in progress
    6. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The bradley manning confession, do you think american people were smart enough to believe it was forced?

    7. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by Flipstylee · · Score: 1

      The bradley manning confession, do you think american people were smart enough to believe it was forced?

      It's funny you should ask that because i am american, and the first thought i had was "Bullshit. Lock a man naked in a room for weeks on end, only to be tortured
      the few times he sees the light of day, and he'd say just about anything. I know i would."

    8. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're incapable of fully understanding how stupid chinese people are. That's why you'll never understand their culture.

    9. Re:i wonder what they threatened him with by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

      Are you a work-from-home developer of some sort?

  13. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is so totally different than Bradley Manning's statement of regret at harming his country at his sentencing.

    I mean, one was a statement from an obviously-tortured prisoner of conscience, having their life ruined by a violently repressive totalitarian regime seeking to send a message to its citizens to shut up and get in line, who is now willing to say or do anything the regime wants so he can try to salvage some pathetic remnant of his life. While the other was... uh, wait a minute.

    1. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you aware your complaint format has been iterated by every nerd since the usenet and bbs days? do you realize how impotent and ineffectual you sound? you sound like an impotent nerd and are making zero difference by making your comment. you dont actually care about censorship or bradely manning or other people really. if you did you would stop making impotent comments and actually take action.

      you are a coward. everyone can see it, and no, yelling at me wont change that.

    2. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware your complaint has also been iterated by every nerd since the usenet and bbs days? Do you realize how impotent and ineffectual you sound? You sound like an impotent nerd and are making zero difference by making your comment. You don't actually care about censorship or Chelsea Manning or other people, really. If you did, you would stop making impotent comments and actually take action.

      You are a coward. Everyone can see it.

    3. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're both cowards, it says it right in you're posting name. Oh, wait...

    4. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Anonymous Cowherd now?

  14. Good news comrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

  15. Translation ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They threatened me and my family, and the only way I can escape prison or a firing squad is to publicly denounce this.

    I do not believe this is anything other than agreeing to repeat the party line under duress.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  16. its not about trust by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its affirmation that if you *will* conform, or else.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  17. That's Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you tune in to MSNBC, there's a whole newsroom full of people praising the government's spying and censorship. And we didn't even have to arrest them first!

  18. SOP: leave the body as a warning to the others by themushroom · · Score: 1

    Or since this is China, he'll be the most famous member of the "Bodies" exhibit in a year.

    That's the only reason why he'd be pushed to renounce his beliefs and practices, because the guvmint wanted others like him to curl up and give up so they're making an example of him. And for the record, the Internet that he says is best controlled by the government is controlled by the government, it's behind the Great Firewall and required him to find a way around it to be heard.

    1. Re:SOP: leave the body as a warning to the others by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Crafty. Just saw the "Bodies" in Vegas. Well done.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  19. Open your eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nota bene, Sinophiles.

    1. Re:Open your eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sinophile -n- a person who hates his or her body's ability to metabolize ethanol properly. Proper ethanol metabolism makes it possible to understand individualism and personal liberty.

  20. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! by jcwuffah · · Score: 3, Informative

    O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”

  21. China not afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On the one hand, the suppression of free speech by the Chinese government is, of course, completely deplorable. On the other, the Chinese government is apparently not afraid of the one percenters living in China. Xue, who is a naturalized US citizen and venture capitalist, is also a billionaire.

  22. Confessed on TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has he been seen drinking at the Chestnut Tree Cafe?

  23. Censorship by ZipXap · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile people in the US seem to be getting dumber and more misinformed by the second. Maybe censorship is the way to go...

  24. This man was tortured by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 2

    No one seems to care

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:This man was tortured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are a people that would see a girl get run over and do nothing about it. Apathy towards their fellows is a part of their culture, as deeply ingrained as their writing system or their desire to escape the view that the country is a dirty has-been.

  25. So, in other words: by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..he was black-bag arrested, subjected to torture, beaten, starved, thrown in an oubliette for a time, threatened with death, had his friends and family threatened with all the above, and likely drugged, until he finally broke and was willing to say anything they wanted him to say, no matter the cost to him or his reputation, and no matter how humiliating. Next he'll probably "commit suicide", leaving behind a note explaining how he couldn't live with the guilt and shame for having spoken such lies about the glorious and just Communist government of China.

    Yeah, sure. Sounds like just another normal day in mainland China.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:So, in other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, you can tell how tortured, beaten, starved, and drugged he was during his broadcasted confession in this video:
      http://v.163.com/zixun/V8GAM7JAP/V97SHLBI4.html

    2. Re:So, in other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why Big Government is bad! Communism, Fascism; doesn't make a fucking difference to me, I just want to be free!

    3. Re:So, in other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in the Capitalist US of A;

      He was arrested at gunpoint with force, threatened with 'terrorism charges' then put back out on the street so he can do the bad stuff again and again and again.

      in fact, the Capitalist US of A should clean up the crazies by copying 'Communist China'

      if you incite others to do bad shit, you gotta pay the price. China simply does this in its own way.

      anon from china but not chinese

    4. Re:So, in other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or tomorrow in America

    5. Re:So, in other words: by m00sh · · Score: 1

      LOL. Didn't they make people who were caught file-sharing write similar "anti-piracy" confessions for reduced charges?

      Anyways, we criticize countries for not having freedom of press. But, on the other hand, when countries do have freedom of press, we exploit that by planing stories to produce a favorable climate (e.g. the Iran CIA coup started with planted stories in the press).

      We have the largest prison population in the world and we have made incarceration and jails into a intricate behemoth of a system to deal out punishment to torture on any level we like. Yet, we criticize the laws of other countries which incarcerates a smaller portion of their population.

      As many have pointed out, wasn't Manning subjected to the same treatment that you describe what might happened? Didn't the kidnapper Castro "commit suicide"?

    6. Re:So, in other words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy, "famous blogger", just happened to own hundreds of houses in NJ, and many of them in the ultra rich town Rumson and Bon Jovi as his neighbor ... go figure.

    7. Re:So, in other words: by kheldan · · Score: 1

      If you're so enamored of China and live there, non-Chinese-dude, then why are you posting as Anonymous Coward here?

      Yeah sure thing, pal. Totalitarianism is just so much better than what we have here in the U.S.. I accept that there is a potential for abuse of our system of government because the alternative is to have too few people having way too much power in their hands, with little to no chance of the rank-and-file citizen being able to do anything about it. Yes, yes, I know, the pendulum has swung way over to the wrong side lately, but I hold out hope that it isn't too late for us to swing it back the other way. I'd rather push the Big Red Button myself and blow it all to oblivion than allow it all to become like in China, where the lives of citizens comes cheap.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    8. Re:So, in other words: by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      well, odds are they didn't have to do have of the extreme measures you suggest. Maybe this guy was exceptional, but all it usually takes is a good dose of cold water. A normal arrest and careful explanation of the consequences will get most people with family to fold. Of course, in the event they get a true idealist, then, yes, some or all of those measures will get the desired result.

      Torture may not be that great for getting truthful information, but it works wonders to get someone to say something, anything, to make the pain stop.

    9. Re:So, in other words: by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Read Robert J Lifton if you want to understand how the methods of coercion work in environments such as China. Generally, torture is not required and is often even counter productive. A controlled environment, obsessive demands for confession, encounter groups, and an alternating system of punishments *and rewards* are much more likely to be used. With these methods you can have a very high success rate in not just getting people to say what you want, but to believe it as well.

  26. Can we make 4chan trolls do this please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please please can we make Trolls have to make public apologies any time they spread untruths

  27. Still think Assange "rape" charge has any merit? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    This is what fascist governments (and their lapdogs) do, be they Chinese, American or Swedish. They doctor up charges of a very stigmatized crime when you publish information that you don't like, turning the public against them because, "ew, he's a perv, who cares what he thinks?"

  28. Re: Prositutiion? In China? by dk20 · · Score: 1

    When it comes to posts about China, most of the comments are utter nonsense/untrue.

    Propaganda at its finest written by people who most likely dont even own a passport, never mind have any first hand experience to back what they say.

  29. America is better at gag orders than China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it just recently Google, Yahoo et all were told to shut the fuck up by your black budget NSA?
    How do Americans have such unruly debt and black budgets anyway?

  30. FOX news will make that list by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    FOX news will make that list unless the GOP get's in power and then the other news channels may go down.

  31. Depends by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just because nobody will go an record saying mass shootings are a good thing doesn't mean they're not thinking it. The mass shootings are death to the Democrats. Gun control is a losing issue because, as Clinton pointed out, gun owners entire identity is tied up in their guns. They're not fighting for their rights so much as their basic self image (or 'Way of Life' if you want to be charitable). They instantly become single issue voters that show up at the polls in droves.

    Contrast that with a pro-gun control person. With the exception of a few people that know someone personally (and well) that was gunned down, it's not a very emotional issue. You might get some people to say, 'yeah, we shouldn't have guns' but you'll never get the kind of base, emotional driving force that gets people to the polls and gets them to ignore any other possible issue. The nearest equivalent would be old people and their Medicare/SS, where their literally voting for their lives.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Depends by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Contrast that with a pro-gun control person. With the exception of a few people that know someone personally (and well) that was gunned down, it's not a very emotional issue.

      As evidence counter to your assertion, I cite:

      - the GP post
      - every Representative who has pushed for gun control
      - every group that lobbies for gun control

      Nice try at making the gun-rights advocates sound like irrational, emotional wrecks and the gun-control advocates sound like rational, thinking people.

      Never mind that gun-control advocates act out of fear that someone, somewhere might do something bad again, someday, and so we must disarm everyone...except the evil people who don't care about laws.

      Let's take all the guns away from all the good citizens, the average, everyday people who wouldn't hurt anyone, so that only the bad guys can get guns. Let's leave all the good people defenseless. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, wait, no, it doesn't, so...oh I know, hey, all those average people are incompetent, bumbling idiots who shoot themselves by accident all the time, so they can't be trusted with guns. Yeah, that justifies it.

      Oh, and if you disagree with me and exercise your Constitutional right to assemble and speak and vote, you are "single issue voters" who "show up at the polls in droves" and your "entire identity is tied up in your guns."

      Pathetic.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  32. The UK government does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a young anti-war protester burnt a poppy and placed the video online, the British government ordered him arrested, threatened him with a long prison sentence, and made him tour the country appearing at pro-war events, praising the British army and the atrocities they have been responsible for in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In one of Britain's major cities, children in a predominantly Muslim primary school were forced to 'adopt' serving members of the British army on active service in Muslim nations they had invaded. The same city engaged in placing a massive program of secret surveillance cameras in the streets where their parents lived, claiming the system was for traffic control. When the truth came out, it was one of the vanishing few scandals that actually rolled back Tony Blair's police state a tiny bit (the cameras were actually deactivated, then removed- a first for the UK).

    The owners of Slashdot LOVE to point to the splinters in the eyes of others, while ignoring the whole tree trunks found in the eyes of the UK and USA.

    1. Re: The UK government does the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a lot of us want to fix it too, but until the majority of the population actually cares, we are up a river

  33. Let's check on that real quick by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    The crime rate is 0.001% of what it was pre-ban? So if their crime rate was, say 10 in 100,000 citizens it would now be 1 in 10,000,000 citizens.

    Ok well in the first two months of 2013 2500 people were killed. This is just murder here, we aren't looking at lesser crimes right now (http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/venezuelan-government-recognizes-record-murder-rate). That means we can expect around 15,000 murders this year. By your logic, that means there was 15,000,000 murders last year, or over half their population.

    However if we do a little more looking, in the same article, we discover that no, there was about 16,000 murders last year, meaning this one looks about the same as the last.

    In other words, you are just completely making shit up. If you have to resort to logic that faulty, that far out, that totally made up to support your position, it leads one to ask how valid your position is.

    1. Re:Let's check on that real quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what he was trying to say is their *gun* crime rate is now 1/1000. With the guns taken away people just found other object to murder each other with.

      All this time the wackos were saying "guns don't kill people..." and they were right!

  34. Broken By Waterboarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The man is not telling the truth. He was broken by torturers.

  35. Chinese-American blogger? by kLimePie · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia has an article about one Charles Xue, described as a Chinese-born American entrepreneur and Angel investor, better known by his screen name Xue Manzi. Is this the same guy? If he is, why hasn't the US filed a protest even as an empty gesture of concern? The info box is a bit confusing. His nationality is Chinese, while his citizenship is United States. Another interesting fact: he's 60 years old. So he doesn't belong to the Arab Spring and Occupy Wallstreet generation, and there might be other reasons he was arrested.

  36. Re: Prositutiion? In China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    66 Propaganda at its finest written by people who most likely dont even own a passport, never mind have any first hand experience to back what they say. 99

    Typical hyperskeptical empiricist. He who lacks rat bites to show has absolutely no right to talk about sewers, right? Once human nature is understood, man becomes deterministically predictable.

  37. Take note America (and the world) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really think that your freedoms were taken away? Wait until you see the damage 10-20 years from now. China is a fine example on what the rest of the world may become if citizens let their government bodies do whatever the hell they want. I'm not saying to do something because that could get me arrested or killed, but what I am saying is that by not acting on preserving what's left of freedom and liberty for all will be the end of it entirely. But if you like living as sheep, then I guess it's no problem to you but I'm pretty sure that most people don't like to live like that so think about them before yourself you selfish one-topic voters.

  38. Stupid Government Tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy has American citizenship. Besides, his offense is just prostitution solicitation, so the government cannot detain him forever.
    I imagine that once this guy gets out and leaves Chinese soils, he will immediately recant all his confession and condemn the government's abusive practices.

  39. Well that is what we have coming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple Walmart and every company and its subsidiary is in support of communism so I will vote for communist like they want so I can have a job to.
    It cant be any worse than trickle down politics.

  40. Deja vu by ZeRu · · Score: 1
    --
    If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
  41. Sounds familiar by Celarnor · · Score: 1

    In 1984, Winston talks about public confessions exactly like this one...

    1. Re:Sounds familiar by dejanc · · Score: 0

      To be fair, every government in the world can be identified by 1984 in one way or another...

  42. How 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all the pages in his site respond 404, meaning the he was sent 4 times to room 101.

  43. How many fingernails does he have left? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know?

  44. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS

  45. Manning actually helped with war crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manning wasn't busted for whistle blowing.

    Manning was busted for giving away every secret document he could get his hands on; consequences to others be damned.

    If Manning had only given away documents indicating a government cover up, he might have gotten away with it. Someone might have even taken notice and taken action on the incident. But no, Manning's dump of hundreds of thousands of documents undermined his everything he tried to expose and lost support from both the media and made military or political support impossible.

    So Manning actually helped people get away with war crimes.

  46. No they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a civilized country having very strict gun laws actually work.

    It works for some because guns become a rarity and therefore very expensive and very difficult to acquire even if you have money or connections.

    In a truly civilized country, everyone has a gun and nothing happens - like switzerland.

  47. Obligatory Orwell by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    "But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

  48. Good to see that Capitalism is loosening China by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    According to our lap dog media, Capitalism would mean greater freedom for China, not the bad old Stalinism....oh but wait...

  49. I accuse myself of the following crimes: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    * I have seduced party members of both sexes
    * I have been to the proletariat areas
    * I deliberately contracted syphilis in order to spread the disease to my wife and other party members

    Together with other agents I have:

    * Counterfieted bank notes
    * Wrecked industrial machinery
    * Polluted the water supply
    * Guided Eurasian rocket bombs to targets on Airstrip One by means of coded radio signals

    I stand here a victim of Emmanuel Goldstein, guilty on all counts.

    I'm glad I was caught. I was mentally deranged, now I am cured.

    I ask only for you to accept my love of our leader.

    I ask only to be shot while my mind is still clean.