Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patriot Act Author Warns EU Against Dragnet Response To Terror (politico.eu)

Posted by Soulskill on from the those-who-cannot-remember-the-past-are-condemned-to-repeat-it dept.

schwit1 writes: Jim Sensenbrenner, former chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, was one of the driving forces behind the Patriot Act. He introduced the legislation a month and a half after the Sept. 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, and in 2013 he led the charge to scale back its powers, after Edward Snowden's revelations. Now, in the wake of the tragedy in Paris, Sensenbrenner is warning the EU that sweeping surveillance measures are not a proper response. Sensenbrenner said, "The cautionary tale is that democracy depends upon a respect for civil liberties. ... Talking about it in practical terms, the answer is to target the people which you know are up to bad stuff rather than bringing in the 99.8 percent of the inhabitants there, including the vast majority of followers of Islam, who have no intention whatsoever of conducting a terrorist attack."

138 comments

  1. Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

    1. Re:Exactly Right by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

      We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

    2. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

      Good point. Any sane reading of the Second Amendment should make it obvious that citizen gun purchases should be financed by government, as part of the militia. Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

    3. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you don't understand - if EVERYONE was armed then you'd only have a few people getting shot every day until the suicidal killer is killed, rather than in countries where guns are harder to access in which you have a few people shot every few months until the suicidal killer is killed.

    4. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

      Glocks? Keep that unAmerican Eurotrash out of here. Give everyone Colt 1911s!

    5. Re:Exactly Right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting, while accurate, way to read the Second Amendment.

      Lets pass a law funding it!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Exactly Right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I prefer the dual Beretta from CS.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:Exactly Right by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So instead of having the government bully innocent Muslims, you'd have the government bully innocent gun owners?

    8. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This assumes that everyone also has gun training, keeps up with their training, and can hit something smaller than a broad side of a barn while under fire. And most importantly is willing to go all in and kill.

      There are a lot of people that don't have the time, the money, or the mental fortitude to do so.

    9. Re:Exactly Right by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is an interesting, while accurate, way to read the Second Amendment.

      Technically no, as a militia at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment was comprised of citizens who brought their own weapons. So a more accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment would be that the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:Exactly Right by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      This assumes that everyone also has gun training, keeps up with their training, and can hit something smaller than a broad side of a barn while under fire.

      Anything more than a cursory look at officer-involved shootings shows that even people trained on firearms can often not hit the broad side of a bar when under fire. Even in the military they are firing not so much to hit anything as to fire more than the people shooting at them to keep them pinned down so you can move.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re:Exactly Right by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I prefer the dual Beretta from CS.

      Heckler and Koch MP7A1 . . . then I feel safe.

      Although, a Beretta CX4 is also something you might want to have around the house, for personal protection.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    12. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Heckler and Koch MP7A1 . . . then I feel safe.

      How could anybody even consider going to pick the kids up at school without one of these babies ready to hand? You can never be too vigilant.

    13. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the Remington Model 1859 http://cdn.acidcow.com/pics/20...

    14. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wimp. You shouldn't need guns to pick the kids up, because the kids ought to be armed themselves.

    15. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      You wimp. You shouldn't need guns to pick the kids up, because the kids ought to be armed themselves.

      Only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun.

    16. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      It says a lot about America that some moron modded this "Interesting"....

    17. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they did that, I'd actually feel considerably more comfortable with the level of gun ownership in the United States. As it is now, anyone can buy and operate a firearm without any training whatsoever, completely ignoring the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd amendment.

    18. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Innocent Muslims" is not politically correct. The correct term is "Fun filled lollipop triple dipped in psycho".

    19. Re:Exactly Right by jcr · · Score: 1

      part of the militia.

      Not that stupid canard again.

      The militia, as referred to in the second amendment, is every man capable of bearing arms. The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing, and forbids the government from infringing it.

      The constitution is not the source of our rights. It is the legal document through which we the people delegated certain of our sovereign powers to the government.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    20. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's overlook the fact that criminals are much more likely to carry through with their plans if they know that their victims are likely (or better yet, definitely) unarmed. While we're at it, let's scoff at the fact that merely brandishing a gun is usually enough to prevent a violent crime (rape for example). Last but not least, let's ignore the fact that criminals will find a way to obtain guns no matter what the law says that law-abiding citizens may do.

    21. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

    22. Re:Exactly Right by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Although, a Beretta CX4 is also something you might want to have around the house, for personal protection.

      My home defense is (going to be, my grandfather currently still owns it, but he is going to give it to me) my family's heirloom Winchester 1897 12-gauge pump. It had to be cut down when my grandfather was young because he was out hunting with it, dropped it in snow, then warped the barrel when he fired it, so it is just about the length of the old military issue trench guns. There's just something comforting about feeling that racking mechanism when you pump it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    23. Re:Exactly Right by suutar · · Score: 1

      I like that idea. They say you don't really understand something until you can teach it, so this will also help the military unit ensure good proficiency. Win-win!

    24. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      The second amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes it as pre-existing

      Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones, or do you mean they were granted by Jesus or something?

    25. Re:Exactly Right by DoctorBonzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm perfectly OK with a complete ban on guns as long as we start with the military and police...

    26. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Militia Acts of 1792 (six months after the 2nd Amendment) *should* help define intent of the Second Amendment.
      If we're going by the exact language rather than the intent, then the 2nd amendment only mentions the right to bear arms, not to own them.

    27. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's scoff at the fact that merely brandishing a gun is usually enough to prevent a violent crime

      Careful, Tex. We've come back around to the training argument. There's a significant risk, especially if assaulted at awareness level white, which most people will be in who merely have a gun for "self defense" or "home defense," that the attacker will obtain the firearm and use it against the victim.

    28. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Let's overlook the fact that criminals are much more likely to carry through with their plans if they know that their victims are likely (or better yet, definitely) unarmed. While we're at it, let's scoff at the fact that merely brandishing a gun is usually enough to prevent a violent crime (rape for example). Last but not least, let's ignore the fact that criminals will find a way to obtain guns no matter what the law says that law-abiding citizens may do.

      Like Parisians in November, San Bernardinians victimized by this latest attack had no choice but to cower in the hard news accounts. We ve done the vulnerability thing time and time and had asked her pastor if she could carry her permitted concealed handguns on university property, but if an attack occurs, it is getting hard to think of any obligation to allow those they rule the same right. But to appreciate the impact of the worst offenders, featuring strict gun control advocates resort to desperate tactics. “ I believe that if Mr. And stupidity.

    29. Re:Exactly Right by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      That would make us look like the damned dirty socialists in Switzerland. If you can't earn enough to pay for your own gun you clearly don't deserve liberty.

      (The Swiss do make you pay for the howitzers.)

    30. Re:Exactly Right by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.

    31. Re:Exactly Right by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The US constitution was written to head up a common law system, inherited from the British. Under common law, there are customary rights, responsibilities and laws that are traditionally assumed, but are not necessarily written down somewhere. To confuse things, philosophers at the time were debating "natural" rights which were somehow inherent in all humans. Well, except the black ones, brown ones, female ones, disabled ones, and maybe anybody who didn't own land.

    32. Re:Exactly Right by GlennC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

      To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

      Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    33. Re:Exactly Right by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    34. Re:Exactly Right by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      If we're going by the exact language rather than the intent, then the 2nd amendment only mentions the right to bear arms, not to own them.

      Except in 1792 the government did not provide weapons to the militia, they used their own personal weapons. Because, you know, the whole point of a militia is to supplement an already existing standing army. A militia without weapons is pretty useless.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    35. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Not that this article has anything to do with guns, but American gun owners would be fine with background checks and registration if we had assurances that registration would not lead to confiscation. As it stands we have no reason to trust the gun-phobic liberals not to take it too far, because it's clear they don't respect our rights.

      After all, it apparently took Braun smart liberal that he is all of two and a ruling class that is at once protected by men and women with guns but disavowed of any obligation to allow those they rule the same to your own lawn. Except that it really isn’ being gun free zone is a bad idea. And his solution: tighter background checks would be illegal without proper Constitutional authority, never entered the president’ t get into right now. This is absurd. Really.

    36. Re:Exactly Right by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Ironically, one of the laws from the early congresses was about requiring every military aged male to purchase and maintain a rifle, for the purpose of national defense. Can you imagine how many heads would explode on both sides of the political aisle if something like that were put forward now?

    37. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the Second Amendment said that then it would mean that. But it doesn't, soooo....

      I guess what I'm saying is: read the Amendment, it's in plain English and your sarcasm reeks of ignorance and spite.

    38. Re:Exactly Right by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      ...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

      To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

      Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

      Fine with me, as long as the training focuses on firearm safety/proficiency and medical training, because the bulging disk in my back kind of limits my physical agility. I'd be perfectly capable and qualified to drive an intel desk though.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    39. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      (The Swiss do make you pay for the howitzers.)

      The fucking Swiss. Always pinching pennies.

    40. Re:Exactly Right by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

      So, thanks to local politicians, innocents who otherwise might have been able to pass background checks when purchasing their weapons, so those checks were worthless. He never struck me as a health technician responsible for Wednesday’ s the reality. Yet he presumably supports them in front of his home. Because a Gun Free Zone zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Gun free zones, places such as schools, where law abiding people won’ t carry guns. The good people in their echo chamber of effeteness.

    41. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, by your logic, you better attend life coatching and brainwashing seminars, if you aren't bothered, why should you be trusted with life?

    42. Re:Exactly Right by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      So a more accurate reading of the 2nd Amendment . . .

      Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

      The catch was, and the NRA will deny this with its last breath, the citizens who owned firearms had to be registered with their local government entity. That's how it was known who to call up in times of war or insurrection (the two main reasons for the militia).

      Obviously this will never fly today because, you know, big government, but every time people bring up the 2nd Amendment and their Constitutional right to own a firearm, it's always nice to remind them of everything that was originally involved. Then suddenly their argument changes because we can't do what the Founding Fathers did.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    43. Re:Exactly Right by Yokaze · · Score: 2

      If the Paris attacks happened every month in France, then the rate of homocides through guns would still be lower than the one in the US.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    44. Re:Exactly Right by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

      Have you ever read the Militia Act? Everyone, not just gun owners, are automatically members of the Militia, unless they're enlisted in the Military (which would include the National Guard).

      So your suggestion is superfluous, really. It's been that way since the country was founded....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    45. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ". . .the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms. . ."

    46. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Not allowing AR-15's and Glocks is why Paris didn't have mass shootings at Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan. Mass shootings only happen in 'Merica like Obama told us.

      Yes, because in France you are destined to die at the rate of 0.22 people per 100,000 each year due to gun homicides.

      In the USA it's only 3.55 per 100,000 per year, because so many people have AR-15's and Glocks to protect themselves.

    47. Re: Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the 1800s western expansion of the U.S. where people did carry (a lot that needed guns just to eat) and crimes were rampant. Oh wait. History shot your example in the foot.

    48. Re:Exactly Right by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I've been quite happy with my Mossberg 590A1. 18.5" barrel, 9-round magazine, and a Knoxx Spec-Ops stock. The Knoxx stock is amazing - I did a full 8-hour self-defense course with it and after about 600 rounds including 3" magnum slugs, my shoulder wasn't the least bit sore.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    49. Re: Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gonna eject the shells like in movies to scare perps leaving you with basically a club?

    50. Re:Exactly Right by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Other people's civil rights don't primarily exist for you to feel comfortable.

    51. Re:Exactly Right by hirschma · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see this reasonable, succinct take on the 2nd Amendment enacted. Continued participation required to maintain gun ownership; instructors able to weed out bad actors, too. Solves many problems.

    52. Re:Exactly Right by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      The reason for the 2nd amendment and indeed much of the constitutional convention was Shay's Rebellion. Shay's rebellion really freaked out the powers that be in the early US. Shay's rebellion was precipitated by many rural farmers were getting foreclosed on by banks so some folks rebelled and took-up arms. When the Governors called out the militia to put down the rebellion they found that the arms leftover from the revolution were in federal armories. The feds refused to open the armories to the states, even at gunpoint! The state's found this particularly galling as they claimed that they paid for these arms (historically wrong, but a good propaganda point at the time). That is why you see such an odd prefatory statement for the second amendment that you see nowhere else in the constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...."
      Washington responded to a similar insurrection, The Whisky Rebellion, with force using the second amendment as grounds to press the militia into service to put it down. Interestingly, Washington led the force and was the only US president to go into battle while in office. Harrison Ford, exempted.

    53. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the military or local National Guard unit would provide instructors to lead regular drill sessions that are open to local citizens training with their own weapons.

      To expand on that idea, how about we automatically enlist all gun owners in the National Guard, with all attendant requirements?

      Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

      Better yet - we enlist EVERYONE in the National Guard - with all attendant requirements.

      Unless you want to give up your right to vote.

      If you can't be bothered to learns that guns aren't "SKEEERY!!!", you need to STFU.

    54. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

      Good point. Any sane reading of the Second Amendment should make it obvious that citizen gun purchases should be financed by government, as part of the militia. Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

      Parse the 2nd Amendment such that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," places LIMITS on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Because all "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" does is provide ONE reason why the right "shall not be infringed".

      Please. Parse the 2nd Amendment in a way that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" places a LIMIT on the right to keep and bear arms. And please don't forget that the "Militia" is that time was defined as the entire adult (male) populace, and "well regulated" in the late 1700s meant "well equipped" (hence the term "regular" to refer to well-equipped soldiers.)

      And do it in a way that doesn't infringe on THIS amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      Fact is, you CAN'T.

    55. Re:Exactly Right by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see this reasonable, succinct take on the 2nd Amendment enacted. Continued participation required to maintain gun ownership; instructors able to weed out bad actors, too.

      You made that part up yourself. The proposal was only to offer free/subsidized training. While the 2nd Amendment does state that a militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on membership or participation in a militia. It is a right "of the people". Denying gun ownership to people who do not qualify for the militia, or who choose not to participate, or who are classified as "bad actors" absent a conviction for any actual crime, would be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    56. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, the Euros should do like we do here in the U.S. and hand out AR-15's and Glocks to anybody who wants one. That'll keep them safe.

      We don't do that. That is part of the problem from the viewpoint of the gun rights supporters.

      "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

      Noah Webster

      Kinda explains why "progressives"/statists want to confiscate guns.

      They want to RULE.

      No surprise, given how they're so won't to tell you what they "know" is good for you. How often have your read "progressives" who can't understand why "people vote against their own interests"? It's obvious that "progressives" fell like they know better and are entitled to rule.

      Because "progressives" feel like they're better than everyone else because "they care".

    57. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US constitution was written to head up a common law system, inherited from the British. Under common law, there are customary rights, responsibilities and laws that are traditionally assumed, but are not necessarily written down somewhere. To confuse things, philosophers at the time were debating "natural" rights which were somehow inherent in all humans. Well, except the black ones, brown ones, female ones, disabled ones, and maybe anybody who didn't own land.

      Funny you mention those philosophers and those natural rights and the rights of "the black ones, brown ones, female ones, disabled ones, and maybe anybody who didn't own land".

      Because without those philosopher and those natural rights, "the black ones, brown ones, female ones, disabled ones, and maybe anybody who didn't own land" would STILL be without rights.

      Like they are in every part of the world that hasn't had those Western European/Christian mores IMPOSED upon them - by Western European Christian society.

      Or do you think Islam would have freed its slaves? Or Africans would have stopped enslaving each other? Or Japanese would have stopped forbidding any foreigners from entering their land?

      Because only one culture in the history of mankind has willingly freed its slaves - Christian/Western European.

    58. Re:Exactly Right by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Any citizen should be able to pop up to their local National Guard armory and pick up an AR-15 and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo, no questions asked. It's the only way to keep a free society.

      Personally I prefer the Swiss system. All citizens are required to be members of the militia, members keep all personal equipment, including their rifle, at home. An armed populace is a free one and yes I choose freedom over safety.

    59. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns aren't scary, people are scary. So your rhetoric is true but not necessarily fitting in this context. If any Joe Blow can easily stock up on guns and ammo to wield, then I find the idea of guns to be a little bit scary. If I know there is a simple path for responsible people to acquire them and be trusted with them, I will not worry at all. As it is right now, the number of military veterans who come back and do distasteful things, and cling to firearms like their only link to life itself, does not reassure me the least bit.

    60. Re:Exactly Right by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Folks..it has been settled by the Supreme Court:

      In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.

      It applies to individual rights to bear arms.

      Remember, the Constitution isn't there to GRANT you rights, you are born with them. The Constitution is there mainly to enumerate the LIMITED powers the Federal govt is supposed to have.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    61. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem is your not a citizen your just a need to be confirmed terrorist , As a potential terrorist you have no second amendment rights because you gave that power to your government.

    62. Re:Exactly Right by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Or, even more importantly, all those dogs that shoot humans like trigger did recently. Only by arming all dogs can we prevent these tragedies.

    63. Re: Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. My gun rights were violated and destroyed because the ex accused me of domestic violence. The charges were dropped. But I still cant legally do my favorite hobby, shooting trap.

    64. Re:Exactly Right by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      From the Second Militia Act of 1792 until the National Defense Act of 1916 all able-bodied men (white men only until 1862) were at least part of the militia if they were not part of some other military organization.

      The Second Militia Act of 1792 required all able-bodied men to have a gun. I'm not sure when that requirement was dropped.

    65. Re:Exactly Right by KGIII · · Score: 1

      And bears, but we can't really stop them as they've got a right to it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    66. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many victims in these so-called "mass shootings" had a weapon to protect themselves with?

      Answer: None. Because they were law-abiding and foolishly obeyed the law that told them they couldn't carry a weapon in the area they were in. The shooters simply ignored that law.

    67. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad we don't do that in Europe.
      And the overwhelming majority of the population wants to keep it that way.
      Maybe hard to understand, but we are no gun nuts...

    68. Re:Exactly Right by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

      That's not quite right. Often, guns and powder would be provided by someone wealthy, who would raise a militia as a show of civic responsibility. They'd fund the training and buy most of the equipment.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    69. Re:Exactly Right by jcr · · Score: 1

      Is this sort of like a pre-existing condition, like kidney stones,

      Wow, that's incredibly fucking clever of you. I'll just comply with your wishes that I abandon my right to self defense now, and get killed by a criminal or the government like a good little sheep.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    70. Re:Exactly Right by jcr · · Score: 1

      , the whole point of a militia is to supplement an already existing standing army.

      Nope. The point of a militia is to defend the public from danger. The existence of a standing army is irrelevant.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    71. Re: Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The overwhelming majority in Europe (EU) does not have *any* say in *any* argument. The only country to vote on gun laws has been Switzerland (non-EU) and they voted *against* restrictions.

    72. Re: Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure because no one abolished slavery without Christian influence. Oh wait maybe you don't know what you're talking about and you're just spouting off based on your own biases.
      Actually, the Qin and Xin dynasties in China abolished slavery before Christianity even existed. Pagan Ireland abolished slavery (it came back under christianity). Japan and the kingdom of Hawaii abolished slavery well before the US (almost) abolished slavery with the 13th amendment. There are lots of others, but it's harder to disentangle them from "western" (meaning british, french, etc but not American since the us jealously held on to slavery much longer than most "western" powers) influence.
      For that matter, the US still hasn't actually abolished slavery since it reserved the right to enslave anyone convicted of a crime or those captured in war (when treaties don't exist with the other side). In case you haven't noticed, the us actually uses a lot of slave labor.

    73. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      You can't even write correct English.

      I mean it, SHUT THE FUCK UP, NOW.

    74. Re:Exactly Right by Invalidator · · Score: 1

      The National Guard is not a militia, it is a military reserve unit. The second amendment says: "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." Clearly, the connection (and there certainly is one) between militia and arms is clear. However, the US is in the "Emperor's Clothes" mode and chooses to ignore the connection and insist that anyone can have arms whenever they want. The consequences of this will-full blindness have been clear for years.

      --

      ~_~ Not tonight, dear, I have a modem.

    75. Re:Exactly Right by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, is exactly what was done. You, the citizen, had to bring your own weapon, your own powder, and on a specific date, perform drills.

      And when they do this despite Congress' deliberate inaction to provide training for the unorganized militia, they get demonized as an evil militia. And oddly enough, one of the justifications for the 2nd amendment being a right of the *people* when it was drafted is that Congress could do that very thing which of course they did.

    76. Re:Exactly Right by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I'm perfectly OK with a complete ban on guns in civilian hands. Damn the torpedoes and let's do it and get it out of the way. We can call it the Second Civil War.

    77. Re:Exactly Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to keep your gun? Attend the monthly training and annual 2-week deployments. If you can't be bothered to be part of a "well-regulated militia," why should you be trusted with a gun?

      You know, as long as I got paid, and my employer couldn't use this as an excuse to fire me, I'd actually be game.

    78. Re: Exactly Right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you absolutely can. You may or may not be able to buy a gun, but just shooting a gun at a range is not restricted in any way.

      You just have to rent a gun instead of buy, and boom, you are able to shoot trap. You could also talk to a lawyer to get the record expunged if it is really preventing you from buying a gun, as accusations are not convictions though, I cannot see how an accusation of something would prevent you from owning a gun. You are innocent until proven guilty, as you haven't actually been convicted of anything.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    79. Re: Exactly Right by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Guns should not be stored with a round chambered. The reason they rack it is to ready the first round, not to eject an unused round.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    80. Re:Exactly Right by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with this.
      As a primary benefit, the world would tremble at the thought of invading us then, which is one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment, right behind keeping the government fearful of the citizens. The government should always fear the citizens.

    81. Re:Exactly Right by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Lets expand on this idea further. We take those who are too afraid of guns to use one and press them into mandatory service as well. They can be required to do all the setup and cleanup at all the sessions.
      Or you can just admit that you have an irrational hatred for guns and do not care about your own freedoms which are protected from the government by those guns.

    82. Re:Exactly Right by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Has it ever occurred to you that the large amount of people who do not know how to handle a gun has a lot to do with the anti-gun movement?

  2. Re:It's time... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Gaah. The first post to this story has Godwinized it already.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  3. You know you are in a totalitarian state if. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ignorant legislator who initiated the dracionian rules tries to repeal them after learning about what his "favored constituents" put in there.

    Google: Operation Gladio.

  4. Uh, hello Germans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between Nazism and the Stazi in East Germany, shouldn't you people be raising a real stink?

    Never forget, ya know?

    1. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      Never forget; until it is convenient to do so. FTFY

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      In Germany, there are laws outlawing iconography of the Nazis. Wouldn't this make it kind of hard to teach history? This even caused Wolfenstein, that was about killing the Nazis to be banned, as it was somehow supporting Nazi ideas to go around shooting them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany, there are laws outlawing iconography of the Nazis. Wouldn't this make it kind of hard to teach history? This even caused Wolfenstein, that was about killing the Nazis to be banned, as it was somehow supporting Nazi ideas to go around shooting them.

      You don't need to show a swastika to teach history. Or practice religion.

      Here in the States, I find it amazing how Hindus and Buddhists practice without their symbol.

      Teaching about totalitarian states of Germany's past doesn't need to show any Nazi anything. Just mention them? And the Stazi shit isn't banned, is it?

    4. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Not the same as the Hindu/Buddhist symbol. The Nazi version is reversed.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      It's no problem. Swastikas can be freely shown in history classes, documentaries, etc.

      Only if some stupid neonazi puts these symbols on his jacket and walks around in public, or puts a flag in his dumb neonazi meeting cellar, then it's going to create problems for him.

    6. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany, there are laws outlawing iconography of the Nazis. Wouldn't this make it kind of hard to teach history? This even caused Wolfenstein, that was about killing the Nazis to be banned, as it was somehow supporting Nazi ideas to go around shooting them.

      You don't need to show a swastika to teach history. Or practice religion.

      Here in the States, I find it amazing how Hindus and Buddhists practice without their symbol.

      Teaching about totalitarian states of Germany's past doesn't need to show any Nazi anything. Just mention them? And the Stazi shit isn't banned, is it?

      I can't speak for Hindis, but not all Buddhists use the same symbol; and the Buddhists also don't tend to be as insane about it as xians are. That said, the behavior and dogma of the Nichiren Buddhists certainly doesn't follow their doctrine about their gohonzon; they're nuttier about that the Southern Baptists are about the whole crucifix vs cross.

    7. Re: Uh, hello Germans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a blanket ban, mostly it's public display that's banned. But putting nazi icons into a game makes them look harmless, and putting nazi symbols on a book cover could be an indicator that the contents somehow claim heritage to the nazis, attracting that kind of people. So that's banned.

  5. Completely missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not about terrorism. It has never been about terrorism. It's about implementing sweeping and unyielding government control over the populace, and it's about time. People must understand that control is good: it's good for the State, which can run things much more efficiently this way; it's good for society, which ends up being way safer and it's good for people, who can use some guidance in their lives. Left to itself, the populace would run everything into the ground. European experience has shown that control, in the forms of bans and surveillance, has benefited everyone. Ban weapons and dangerous objects, society is safer. Filter information and remove questionable content, society is safer. Forbid potentially harmful activities (protests, assemblies), society is safer. Every citizen must understand he/she is just a replaceable cog in a great machine, not a stand-alone individual but a part of something greater than the sum of its part. Every loyal European must be ready to sacrifice everything in the name of Europe. End of debate. Whoever disagrees with this is a nazi.

    1. Re:Completely missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing. I'm just curious: when writing this kind of... Stuff, do you masturbate? If yes, do you need any help? Like, you know, the products of your own defecation?

  6. Re: It's time... by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

    Seriously what the hell would you suggest? There will always be terrorism as long as there are radicals with a score to settle. If you're referring to (sudo-)Islamic terrorism only, there is no way to root out all terrorists. If your thinking of rounding them up Hitler style, you still have a problem. Islam is a faith of choice. If you try to round them up, they'll just deny that they follow Islam. So then what? Round up all brown skinned people? Worldwide they outnumber Caucasians by a huge margin and you still will not get all Muslims as they can be Caucasian too. So rather than vague "final" solutions, why don't you try to be constructive for a change.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  7. Day late... by DoctorBonzo · · Score: 1

    ... dollar short.

    1. Re:Day late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learned from his mistakes.

  8. Re:You know you are in a totalitarian state if. . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What his constituents put in?

    Don't Congress Critters take an oath to uphold the Constitution? Everyone who voted yes on the Patriot Act should have been strung up by their gonads.

  9. Re: It's time... by TheReaperD · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem with this topic is that Godwin can be invoked and be 100% on topic at the same time. Especially with the vitrol Donald Trump is spewing.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  10. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If your thinking of rounding them up Hitler style, you still have a problem. .... If you try to round them up, they'll just deny that they follow Islam.

    Don't you think some of the Jews tried that?

    And ALL faith is a choice - except for maybe the Mormons who "baptize" people when they're dead.

    But serious radicalization is happening. Even here in the States. And it's EXACTLY what ISIS and other Islamic radicals want. They WANT a war with the West.

    Of course, saying we shouldn't play their game automatically brings up shouts of "we shouldn't be extorted into doing nothing!"

    Basically those people are falling for the "Yer yellar! Draw yer gun!" or "What?! Chicken?!" by those Islamic psychos.

    See, they're so delusional, they think that if they die they will go to Heaven. They WANT to die to get into paradise for fighting us Infidel Westerners.

    What I'm saying, this is a problem that Muslims and ONLY Muslims can solve. Because when we intervene, we are ganged up upon by the Muslims because they are helping their "Muslim Brothers".

    But back to Nazis. It could happen. Folks are getting so pissed that there could quite possibly be another Holocaust towards the Muslims. And the radicals in their community would make it all too easy. See, the Jews never really had any violent terrorists that spawned the hatred towards them. The Muslims do. I see horrific parallels to my families history.

    Just saying.

    Yours,

    Grandson of SS

  11. Damn by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    "The cautionary tale is that democracy depends upon a respect for civil liberties. ... Talking about it in practical terms, the answer is to target the people which you know are up to bad stuff rather than bringing in the 99.8 percent of the inhabitants there, including the vast majority of followers of Islam, who have no intention whatsoever of conducting a terrorist attack."

    Having seen the light, I wish this guy would run POTUS under the Common Sense wing of the GOP (which probably no longer exists, given the Trump / Carson / Cruz shit show).

    1. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The cautionary tale is that democracy depends upon a respect for civil liberties. ... Talking about it in practical terms, the answer is to target the people which you know are up to bad stuff rather than bringing in the 99.8 percent of the inhabitants there, including the vast majority of followers of Islam, who have no intention whatsoever of conducting a terrorist attack."

      Having seen the light, I wish this guy would run POTUS under the Common Sense wing of the GOP (which probably no longer exists, given the Trump / Carson / Cruz shit show).

      That wing was killed off long ago by the Southern strategy. It's just taken the likes of Trump / Carson / Cruz to make people realize it.

    2. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your happy with Sensenbrenner's view, why are you not happy with Ted Cruz's? Rand Paul and Cruz have been some of the few consistently good on the issue. Even Carson's view on the NSA, though a bit more tepid, is almost palatable.
      The people on the authoritarian side of things in the GOP are (in order of the most vocal): Rubio, Cotton, Cristie, Bush, and Trump.

    3. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck do you "run POTUS" ??

      English, bitch. Learn it.

  12. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you meant PSEUDO-islamic terrorism, and not really " (sudo-)Islamic terrorism"...

    The difference is horrifying(! ahem)

  13. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, that's the only solution. Ship all the 'lams back to the desert they came from, as their beliefs seem to be anti-human. Don't like it? Too f'ing bad. It's already a holy war. The only way to make peace is to separate the 'lams from everyone else.

  14. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    money problem, its better to die because the economy is in the shitter.

  15. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Exactly. If Sharia is so glorious, then go to ISIS controlled territory, and stay there and enjoy it.

  16. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And ALL faith is a choice - except for maybe the Mormons who "baptize" people when they're dead.

    In Saudi Arabia, they give you a choice between remaining a Muslim and going headless. That's some choice, all right.

  17. Re:PC is a weakness by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

    Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC? http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

    --
    He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
  18. Re: It's time... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

    I hope you meant PSEUDO-islamic terrorism, and not really " (sudo-)Islamic terrorism"...

    The difference is horrifying(! ahem)

    Or worse: apt-get Islamic_terrorism. That kind of describes ISIS.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  19. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E: Invalid operation Islamic_terrorism

  20. Re:PC is a weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC?

    http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

    The killer's brother wasn't an extremest Muslim. I don't see your point.

  21. Re: It's time... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

    E: Invalid operation Islamic_terrorism

    Oops, sorry: apt-get install Islamic_terrorism.

    Although I'd prefer apt-get purge Islamic_terrorism.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  22. Re: It's time... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 4, Funny

    (sudo-)Islamic terrorism

    Oh god, they've got root?! Cut the hard line!

  23. Obligatory by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    (sudo-)Islamic terrorism

    https://xkcd.com/149/

    Presumably it's not a ham sandwich.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. Re:You know you are in a totalitarian state if. . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why I view his apologies as nothing but a joke

  25. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think Trump learned a lot from Hitler about coming to power.

  26. TError by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly I've been programming too much. I read that last word as T-error. I was left wondering what exactly that was and why the EU was doing anything with it.

  27. Re: It's time... by davester666 · · Score: 1

    So, are you saying that Donald Trump is essentially Hitler v2.0?

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  28. Re: Uh, hello Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep

  29. Re: It's time... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there could quite possibly be another Holocaust towards the Muslims

    If that happens, one can be assured Israel will say or do nothing, just as they did with Srebrenica or the near-concentration camps in Bosnia which the Serbs created.

    It's only the Jews which have had bad things happen to them and they will keep reminding people regardless if the same is done to others or if they do the same things to others.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  30. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Trump learned a lot from Hitler about coming to power.

    Better than Hillary!'s "married Bill Clinton" path to power.

    Seriously - name ONE Hillary! accomplishment other than marrying Bill.

  31. False dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's distressing that the first post in articles like this is a bullshit false dichotomy. "Oh so that approach is flawed? Well there's this other approach that is flawed too! Sure, there's an entire multidimensional space of possibilities, containing many potential solutions without either of the above problems, but let's have an irrelevant gun argument anyway! Blup blup blup!" Fuck you and everyone who makes comments like that.

  32. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget that Christians would be doing both the Jewish and Muslim holocausts.

  33. Re: It's time... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Seriously - name ONE Hillary! accomplishment other than marrying Bill.

    Just one? Well, here's a few:

    - successful attorney and co-founder of a non-profit advocacy group in Arkansas
    - first female senator from New York state
    - Secretary of State from January 2009 to February 2013

    That beats the hell out of most of our résumés.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  34. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hypothetical situation: if members of a particular race were meddling behind the scenes on a coordinated national or global scale to benefit their own race at the great expense of other races, and people found out about those schemes, that might spawn a hatred towards them even without any violent terrorists being involved.

    Just sayin'.

  35. No Muslim is Terrorist by ajyand · · Score: 1

    No Muslim is terrorist at birth. They join such groups at some point of time in their lives. Thus even if a handful of them do so, it is needed to monitor activity of all of them so that such a transition can be discovered as it happens. This, however, is a costly process. A long term solution is to educate the public about the effect of fundamentalist religious ideas on the development of minds of our children. Passing on such ideas is a social disease that perpetuates itself. All we need is 'that one single generation' free of fundamentalist ideas.

    1. Re: No Muslim is Terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for even a single generation free of muzzies. When do we start?

    2. Re:No Muslim is Terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Muslim is terrorist at birth.

      No person is a Muslim (or any other religious denomination) at birth. They are indoctrinated into it.

      A long term solution is to educate the public about the effect of fundamentalist religious ideas on the development of minds of our children. Passing on such ideas is a social disease that perpetuates itself.

      If you lose the word fundamentalist from that sentence then you'd be even more correct.

      All we need is 'that one single generation' free of fundamentalist ideas.

      Unfortunately it isn't that simple. While people continue falling for made up bullshit, it doesn't take much for one person to reintroduce the bad ideas that lead to people thinking they need to kill people "for god". Just look at scientology, a religion that there is plenty of clear evidence that it was made up by L. Ron Hubbard and it has been around for less than the average human lifespan, yet there are still lots of people that fall for that bullshit.

      What we need is improved teaching of critical thinking skills, so people are better equipped to see through the bullshit of religion, and of course not allow any ideas to be held sacred and off-limits from discussion and criticism.

  36. Re: It's time... by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

    Oops. I didn't even see that error. Nice catch.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  37. Re: It's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the muslims I know are in western countries because they prefer the rights and freedoms. I've never actually met a muslim who wanted sharia law.

  38. Re: It's time... by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

    No, I think Trump knows the stuff he'd spewing is bullshit but, it plays well with scared old white people who are losing power in the US. He's just a narcissistic asshole that knows what'll get him the Republican nomination. Plus, my understanding is, Hitler was actually a likeable guy if you met him in person; I've never heard that said about Trump.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -