Slashdot Mirror
Invoking Orlando, Senate Republicans Set Up Vote To Expand FBI Spying (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set up a vote late on Monday to expand the FBI's authority to use a secretive surveillance order without a warrant to include email metadata and some browsing history information. The move, made via an amendment to a criminal justice appropriations bill, is an effort by Senate Republicans to respond to last week's mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub after a series of measures to restrict guns offered by both parties failed on Monday. Privacy advocates denounced the effort, saying it seeks to exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers. The amendment would broaden the FBI's authority to use so-called National Security Letters to include electronic communications transaction records such as time stamps of emails and the emails' senders and recipients. NSLs do not require a warrant and are almost always accompanied by a gag order preventing the service provider from sharing the request with a targeted user. The amendment filed Monday would also make permanent a provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the intelligence community to conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" suspects who do not have confirmed ties to a foreign terrorist group. A vote is expected no later than Wednesday, McConnell's office said. Last week, FBI Director James Comey said he is "highly confident that [the Orlando shooter] was radicalized at least in part through the internet."
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If you are the silent type of guy and just go grab your gun and shoot people, how would all this surveillance help?
CNN article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/1...
For what it's worth, this has been down-played in media (haven't seen it blasting twitter and stuff much)
So basically NONE OF THE PROPOSALS would have prevented him from getting a gun.
As a voter, I'm sick of intelligent and informed voters being sidelined by media and legal cowboy politicians.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
> The Democrats want to take our guns [...] the Republicans want to spy on us [...]
Great! Let's compromise and have both! What's not to like?
despite ALL the evidence gathered prior to the shooting, no one (gov't agency-wise) did anything. ...things that make you go "hmmmmm"
It's almost like they knew, but waited, so they could use it as an excuse to get more power...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
What happened to the party of small government and suspicion of government interfering with people's personal lives?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
That shooter took away my freedoms! Thank you politicians for doing the right thing. Freedoms!
Counting the 50+ deaths in Orlando as the act of an Islamic terrorist, which is at least debatable, there have been fewer than 100 deaths in the US since 2001.
This is not exactly the sort of threat that sane men forfeit their liberty for.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What incentive does the government have to actually capture these lone wolf nut jobs? You could easily capture 90% of them and let the other ten get away with their crimes just to justify a "budget" increase.
There's a special place in hell for these do-nothing bureaucrats.
And call his office and call your own congress critters instead of just spouting off here.
dear lawmakers. count to 10 before doing something really stupid after a major event.
It won't do any good, because that's exactly what they'll do: count to 10, then do something stupid.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws? We have both parties successfully chipping away at each side. Soon there will be nothing left.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
I see both parties have pulled out their favorite whipping boys, the Democrats are blaming all of societies woes on an inanimate object and roll after roll of useless red tape, at the same time the Republicans are blaming it on the government not having a complete lack of oversight and a runaway defense/law enforcement budget.
Like Australia did then this is the next best thing. I don't think mental health services would have helped the shooter. It's been suggested he was a repressed homosexual taking it out on the night club attendees. That was likely due to his religious upbringing so It'd be hard to insert mental health services into that without at least the appearance of attacking his religion. America is big on hard-line religion. Basically take gun control and the prospect of mellowing out religion away and I can't think of any other tools. And when you're only tool's a hammer...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If I only have the choice to hand over my gun or my privacy, the choice is pretty easy.
And please, don't gimme that "but the gun can defend your privacy" bullshit. My assault rifle against the US army. Yeah. Sure. The only reason you still have your guns is that they know pretty well that it's not even offering the pretense of you being able to defend against your government's whims.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The guy was also a religious nutjobs. Can we disarm all religious nutjobs as well?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This should be obvious, but I guess politicians need to be seen doing something, and apparently reasonable gun control in a country that makes up a 1/3 of violent gun crimes just isn't going to fly.
The guy was nuts. He had a documented history of being nuts. His friends thought he was nuts. His family thought he was nuts. And yet, he could still get plenty of ammo and guns. The problem wasn't that there wasn't enough surveillance. The problem is that no one was paying attention to the information that was ALREADY AVAILABLE.
"Oh, I see you have a history of being bat shit insane. Here, let me get you a special discount on our Sandy Hook signature line of guns."
~X~
" Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and sponsor of the amendment"
Why am I not surprised. McCain never saw a tyrannical action he couldn't embrace. . .
What's there left to hate?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We can't possibly do anything to prevent (or even slow down) people from getting guns, because reasons. So instead we'll expand domestic spying, which we all know works so well and never has any negative consequences. That's the ticket, right there.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'd say they should count further, I just don't see any indicator that they are able to.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's already been worked on, but something this big takes time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They are definitely able to count higher than 10. That's how they tally up all the lobbyist money they take in.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There's a good book of the same title by Naomi Klein.
It's a simple concept,. and the summary summarizes it for this situation: exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers.
Here's what we know:
1. Born in the US, thus a US citizen (child of immigrants, but most all of us are)
2. Had two wives (and one divorce) and a small child
3. Worked in security (where they carry guns)
4. Was investigated twice by the FBI (someone he attended religious things with had reported him)
5. Was legally able to purchase firearms
I'm sorry government of the United States, you weren't going to stop this guy. Except, he had been investigated and vetted as not a threat. THAT IS WHERE THE SYSTEM FAILED!
Could the system have been successful? We will probably never know. But:
* Him researching guns wouldn't have raised any eyes (it shouldn't have anyway).
* is father was rather wordy and seemed supportive of some "bad" groups (him searching for such things could have easily been painted as "know thy enemy" or simple curiosity).
He's basically Timothy McVeigh but against the gay community rather than the Federal government (and also no where near as deadly as Timothy).
BlameBillCosby.com
You might not have noticed, but all four gun control bills that came up yesterday in the Senate were blocked.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
It's not a choice. We are losing on both fronts.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
And the bad part about this being...?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws?
There is enough stupid going around that there is no need to make up new stupid to supplement what is already there.
The Democrats proposed 4 bills in the senate fully knowing that they would not go anywhere due to GOP opposition in both the house and senate. However, if you look at what the bills proposed, there really wasn't much "control" in them. One was universal background checks, which is a measure that over 80% of Americans - and a majority of gun owners - support. Another was to prevent purchases by people on the FBI no fly list, which also has broad support.
Nowhere was there a bill proposing to take away an existing gun from an owner who is legally entitled to have a gun. Nowhere was there a bill that would restrict sale of guns between legal owners. Nowhere was there a bill that would make guns or ammo more expensive or difficult to obtain for legal purchasers.
If you don't like what was proposed, that's fine. At least be honest about it, rather than making up shit and pretending that the proposals contained things they did not.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There is still something they do themselves and don't have their goons for?
Must be like in the old joke, "Boss, is fucking your wife work or leisure?" "Leisure you idiot, why?" "Thought so, if it was work I'm sure you'd have made me do it".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1984! 1984! 1984® {1984} £1984 1984% 1984
www.wavefront-av.com
So, why not use your guns for what you all say the law is for, and take on your government?
Yay! More surveillance, who couldn't be super-duper happy about that? Remember, citizens, it's for our own good and it will never be used for anything bad, okay? Alrighty then, carry on!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
What a coincidence right? Seeing how quick the US took advantage of this "tragedy" makes me believe in those false flags theories as time passes by....
I think that's illegal for some odd reason.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know what you know about concealed carry, so I'll note this: it is illegal in Florida to carry in an establishment whose liquor sales qualify it as a bar. That is an admirable law and I don't disagree with the idea. My point is, no one at the night club could have help. None of them could have been armed.
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
One million dollars...
...Ten million dollars!
Two million dollars...
Now, how did you want me to vote again?
Come on baby, give it to me harder. Yea, that's the way I like it. Can I just put the surveillance equipment on my gun?
My assault rifle against the US army.
Federal law forbids the use of the military for domestic purpose. If the US army is fighting citizens on US soil then we have far, far greater problems than privacy.
Better known as 318230.
Have you seen our military budget? An armed rebellion would last about 15 minutes.
piss on the Constitution and wipe their dirty jackboots with the Stars and Stripes? I'm a Canadian so to a certain extent I don't have a horse in the race; but even so, this really bothers me, if for no other reason than the US government's history of getting its own laws and practices and Peeping Tom-ness implemented extraterritorially. If I actually lived in the States, I'd be ready to chew battleships and spit out nails over this latest attempt to circumvent due process.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Huh, no idea where you got that notion from my one sentence. That's some impressive reading between the lines.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws?
There is enough stupid going around that there is no need to make up new stupid to supplement what is already there.
The Democrats proposed 4 bills in the senate fully knowing that they would not go anywhere due to GOP opposition in both the house and senate. However, if you look at what the bills proposed, there really wasn't much "control" in them. One was universal background checks, which is a measure that over 80% of Americans - and a majority of gun owners - support. Another was to prevent purchases by people on the FBI no fly list, which also has broad support.
Glad to see you love using secret lists with no due process for controlling the population.
No, no bad part. You could rent the space out to immigrants :)
I did notice, but it's not preventing them from trying over and over again.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
the number of fags in the population is very low
Most of the democrats are gay
If there are so few democrats, then they're probably not going to be a very relevant party for much longer.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Keeping and bearing arms is a right. They aren't "for" any one purpose. You don't need a reason. That's what a right is.
Makes sense to me. Lets look at the facts. FBI does what while reading the emails? The mentally ill with rage issues are allowed to walk the streets and buy what? AR15's are easier to buy than what? And which dumb ass thought ISIS was what?
It won't do any good, because that's exactly what they'll do: count to 10, then do something stupid.
It WILL slow them down - not all of them can count that high.
#DeleteChrome
What? You mean politicians are trying to pass/block laws that wouldn't really affect anything? Merely for soundbites? DURING AN ELECTION YEAR?
OH. MY. GOD.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Depends on who the rebels are. It doesn't matter how much the budget is if the soliders refuse to fight their own citizens.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
http://www.snopes.com/orlando-... 1. What has his political party got to do with anything? 2. Registering one time as a Democrat ten years ago had little to do with whatever his political views were two weeks ago. After all, Trump was a Democrat too. In my mind, when you tossed in the weak link to Democrats you immediately lost any and all credibility. Your further comment about "bleeding hearts" pegged you down as jJust another Rush Limbaugh listening, low info voting, Guns and Ammo reading while while stroking partisan shill.
Green Party motto:Let's make America like Venezuela!
the FBI has become public enemy number 1.
I firmly believe that the right would allow all of their constitutionally acknowledged rights be siphoned away, as they are simply just too distracted polishing their guns to notice.
I have to say, I'm not a gun nut by any possible stretch of the imagination, and I'm glad the bill that would restrict firearms purchases for people on the no-fly list got blocked.
It would have been declared unconstitutional so fast, it wouldn't even be funny. Mind you, the fact that a bill is clearly unconstitutional on it's face has never really stopped a fair number of Congresscritters (or state legislators) from trying to pass bills.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Second reply: Yes, a determined killer will kill. But easy access to guns makes it much more likely that an unhinged person will take down a whole bunch of others. It's exceedingly unlikely that a guy with a glass bottle or a knife would kill 49 people before being stopped.
Look at Australia's experience with gun control. In the 18 years prior to 1996, they had 13 mass shootings (defined as 4 or more victims.) Since 1996 when they brought in draconian gun laws, they have had zero mass shootings. Zero.
Not only have mass shootings been drastically reduced, but the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That's because a lot of homicides and suicides are not planned, but occur in the heat of the moment, and are much likely to take place if there's easy access to deadly weapons. Here's the reference (PDF).
Where I do agree, though, is that gun control probably will not work in the US. You have way too many guns in circulation, and you're poisoned by 200+ years of the Second Amendment. Fixing that is well-nigh impossible, but just ignoring the problem is not going to help.
I's not necessarily fair to say that all Republicans are for more FBI/etc domestic spying - the Libertarian wing of the party certainly isn't.
Yeah, all three of them. Amash & Massie in the House, Paul in the Senate.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Hmm, maybe this could work to our advantage. If we can persuade them that Facebook and Twitter are to blame then September might finally end...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The military oath specifically states to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign or domestic. Also, the Constitution specifically allows the people to dissolve the government and setup a new one if the government doesn't meet the needs of the people.
Hint: the men guarding the Japanese internment camps containing both naturalized and natural born citizens during WW2 are not civilians.
The government obeys law when it's convenient.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
So is (or should be) privacy....
Remember, the US Constitution does not "grant" rights....its purpose is to enumerate the supposedly LIMITED powers and responsibilities of the Federal Govt.
The bill of rights is an odd duck...in that it does actually list some rights...there was a lot of argument on that at the time, as that the founding fathers didn't want there to be the misconception that it granted rights.
But I would argue that privacy, is a right, not for any one purpose and that for privacy, you also "don't need a reason"....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Heads I win (FBI spys on people like the secret service in East Germany, arbitrarily at any whin and no oversight/controls) or Tails (remove all individual rights to the point we are sheep to be herded). The terrorists have indeed one, America is no more and we are all cowering a cattle without the guts to do anything significant to truly stop it. The terrorists we have to worry about, are governments in the USA creating environments no different than Russia, we who open condemn. (But I wonder if we are taking cues from him in fact given news like this...)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
And as an added advantage, you have the ability to use deadly force to avenge your shoes for the beer someone unfortunate would happen to spill on them.
You're implying they still remember numbers that small.
Thirty four characters live here.
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
The police have a saying for this "Better judged by twelve than carried by six."
Police forces are reactive, not proactive. Self defense is a basic right because of this simple fact.
What? You mean politicians are trying to pass/block laws that wouldn't really affect anything? Merely for soundbites? DURING AN ELECTION YEAR?
Lol, shocking, isn't it? But don't worry, the NEXT set of laws we come up with, they'll really work, fer sure, we promise!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando?
Now that's a question we cannot answer because the bar was a "gun free zone" legally. Meaning that law abiding folks who enter the establishment where not able to bring their weapons along. Concealed Carry Permits in FL do not allow you to carry in establishments where adult drinks are sold. The only one with a gun inside was the shooter until the police entered the building a couple of hours later.
Now I'm not saying that having a bunch of drinking folks carrying guns is a good idea, but I am saying that a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll. However, we will never know the answer to all these "what if" questions.
But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings) not the other way around. The statistics don't lie, and they tell a totally different story than what you think, especially if you tend to be on the left side politically. We also know that mass shooters seek out gun free zones to ply their trade. According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.
So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys. Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions... However, this "assault weapon" ban garbage or the attack on the AR-15 in particular is a non-starter as is most of the "gun control" legislation coming from the lefties. But I'm beginning to think that this is really about political posturing and not really about doing anything, it's about blaming the other side for saying "no" to them on a topic that garners them emotional support from the sob stories, and not anything else...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
But that's because you got your entire system system backwards. In any sane country most members of the police would newer(Not even once) have people shooting at them in their entire 40 year carrier.
Just for the fun: Try to look up police shootings in Germany or Denmark.
But this all comes back to the insane amounts of weapons in the US
Those wars were not won or lost by fat accountant weekend warriors who've watched too much Red Dawn, lacking logistical support, training, and anything approaching a chain of command. The conflicts you named did use guns, true, but the real danger faced by those fighting were explosives - either IEDs, mortars, artillery, dropped/shot from aircraft, etc. Guns were used, but they were not even close to being the decisive weapon.
Ask someone who came back from Iraq or Afghanistan what their biggest fear was - rifles or IEDs?
Shouldn't somebody be hired to look at how useless this all is? Every time something bad happens, your government rushes to spend more money on "Security" but in the end, mass tragedies still happen. I think they really need to go back to the drawing board and find a more effective way to resolve these issues.
Maybe visiting a scenic pier with family? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or going shopping for deals after Christmas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I hear running in the park can also be dangerous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu, die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren. (Terror is the best military strategy to manipulate the masses.)
The security had guns, but clearly one can't start shooting into a crowd and hope to only hit the perpetrator. Throw some more guns into the mix and you'd end up with people trying to be the "good guy with a gun" they hear so much about, and shooting the shit out of each other every time a car backfired or a champagne cork popped.
If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.
There was an armed individual in the club - Officer Adam Gruler, member of OPD since 2001. He was armed, in uniform, and completely incapable of reacting, as you can't really shoot into a crowd of people and expect to only hit the assailant.
You might want to change your argument, as the facts seem to disagree with your little dangerous fantasy.
I know you are being inflammatory, but there is a serious question lurking back in that..
In the USA, the government CANNOT infringe on a person's constitutional rights without due cause. So, you cannot go collect guns from "religious nutjobs" (assuming there was a legal way to determine that) unless the government can show reasonable cause.
For instance, to many, I'm a religious nut case. Some of the families in my religious group are HEAVILY armed and we routinely have "fellowships" out at the private range where we bring and share food, weapons and ammo for an enjoyable day of gun safety training, target practice, and tactical training. We bring the kids and shoot some pretty interesting weapons and have a blast. Are you planning to take MY weapons?
I sure hope not, because there is nothing about this that is a problem in my mind. We are not advocating violence, just self defense and fun. Some of the guys get into heavy weapons for the fun of it, not plotting the overthrow of the government or advocating that somebody use these weapons to attack/kill people who oppose our common religious, political or world views. Quite the opposite.
So I ask you the question... How do you decide who to take guns from and who gets to keep them? Surely a religious test is going to be unconstitutional no matter how you slice it...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You're an idiot.
YES THE GUN WILL DEFEND YOUR PRIVACY.
How? Are you going to shoot your phone and computers, then go on a rampage to murder all the servers?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Incidentally, there are NO existing gun laws in the US that would have helped. Not even from the gun control happy state of California. Mateen had security clearance that would have enabled him to obtain guns regardless. This incident isn't a lax gun law issue. Mateen was an armed security guard. He would have even been able to get guns under strict Canadian gun laws.
How are you going to guaranteed that your encryption is secure? Especially once quantum computing becomes a reality. Your encryption will be as protective as Swiss cheese is to a Hellfire missile. Best to put up as many blockades as you can. Bureaucratic as well as technological.
Place something witty here
Hopes are that we don't have to get to that level of guerilla tactics. Also, drones aren't easy to avoid. But securing communication could prevent a bit of potential targeting by drone strikage.
Place something witty here
Let's see the FBI already was talking to the buy but they BUNGLED it badly. so we need even more spying capability?
Honestly, This is insane. Every single thing those asshats ask for is insane.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Background checks are already done. Disallowing people on the FBI no-fly list allows the government to arbitrarily ban people from purchasing guns without due process in court and is massively open to abuse.
And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.
The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely. That has always been the end-goal of all the legislation the left continues to try and pass. Gun owners wised up years ago - when they see a liberal saying there needs to be a compromise what they see and hear is a liar who will make absolutely no compromise on his end, while demanding compromise on the other.
And very importantly, the statistical data does not actually back up the leftist viewpoint that firearms cause crime, violent crime, suicide, or homicide. In fact, the only "statistics" they're ever able to drum up are vague claims of "you're more likely to die from a firearm if you own a firearm!" and "more firearms means more firearm deaths!". They even just outright lie about mass shooting statistics.
Even better, the boogeyman of the anti-gun lobby: The deadly "assault weapons", are used in such a vanishingly small number of homicides that more people are murdered each year in the US from blunt weapons or fists.
Conservatives, Libertarians, and anyone else who values the second amendment and the right to self defense are quite frankly sick of the duplicity and hypocrisy surrounding this shit.
It was never about safety; it has always been about control.
He didn't settle on Disney Springs. Also there's several interviews of folks talking about how he flirted with the night club patrons. You don't need to do that just to case a joint..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Or it simply means he didn't bother to change it. I can hardly remember what I had for dinner yesterday let alone what political party I registered for ten years ago. Regardless, his party has nothing to do with what he did.
Federal law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act, restricts the use of the United States Army and the United States Air Force in enforcing US Federal Government domestic policy in the US - it does not cover the US Navy, nor the US Marine Corp, and it does not apply to the National Guard (Army or Air) when invited to act in a law enforcement capacity by a state governor.
The Insurrection Act can be used to deploy US military capability within US borders against US citizens without violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
You do realize that these mass shooting have all occurred in gun free zones, don't you?
I didn't accuse the poster of any ad hominems. I did throw a couple out there. I guess I was just put off by someone seemingly lumping me in with this terrorist and monster simply because I tend to identify with democrats.
Do you honestly believe that more gun-free zones and laws would've stopped him?
Do you think having little to no access to guns makes it harder to commit a shooting? If you're answer is anything but yes you're a fucking moron.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I don't know what you know about concealed carry, so I'll note this: it is illegal in Florida to carry in an establishment whose liquor sales qualify it as a bar.
You can't even legally walk through a bar in Florida. If you're at a restaurant and the restrooms are in the bar area then you cannot legally walk through to the bathroom. I think that is an excellent idea but I think you could legally order a drink from the bar as long as you did not enter it.
Go back to 1860 and ponder that question.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And you can keep that right, as long as you can defend it. They aren't some magical force field that keeps the cops away.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
This is the thing. You guys either need a shitload more guns or a shitload less. I'm sure any reasonable person that was armed would do what they could to stop these situations but there just doesn't seem to be any around when this shit goes down. I'm not aware of any of these events that have been stopped by an armed bystander. That's not to say it doesn't happen ever, just doesn't make the news where I live, if anyone has any examples please share.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
My assault rifle against the US army.
Federal law forbids the use of the military for domestic purpose. If the US army is fighting citizens on US soil then we have far, far greater problems than privacy.
It also forbids warrantless searches. So what's your point?
The guy passed a background check.
Now if you are suggesting people get added because they are on the terror watch list - a list you get put on with no due-process - as part of the background checking criteria, then you suddenly have a different type of problem.
He did react. Unfortunately, since he was the only one there armed, all the gunman had to do was go on the other side of the crowd.
On June 12, 2016, just after 2 a.m., an Orlando Police Officer working extra duty at the Pulse Nightclub, located at 1912 S. Orange Ave., responded to shots fired. Our officer engaged in a gun battle with that suspect and the suspect went deeper into the club where more shots were fired. The incident then turned into a hostage situation.
You're delirious. A quick Google search would show you mass shootings HAVE been prevented.
And frequently by people who were not carrying a gun, but just tackled the shooter.
Look up how often a police officer in the US will ever be shot at and how often they'll ever have to draw their weapon on duty over the course of their careers. The vast majority will never experience either. Now of course there are some exceptions to this, for example, certain parts of Chicago, but for the vast majority of the US, gun violence is actually incredibly rare. I know that doesn't jive well with your view of things, but sometimes reality doesn't match your opinion. Where I live there was a memorial for officers fallen in duty. The number one cause, car accident. Number two, heart attack. In fact an officer was killed on duty by a shooter about 3 years ago, it was the first one in 25 years for the region. That's how frequent police shootings are in most of the US. Now of course you have the gang hot spots where it's much more frequent, but those are not representative of the whole.
Do you honestly believe that more gun-free zones and laws would've stopped him?
Do you think having little to no access to guns makes it harder to commit a shooting?
How did stronger gun restrictions help in Paris?
They didn't need to have warrantless spying on the guy in Orlando. They could have gotten a warrant on him. They interviewed him. Twice. Anyone interviewed by the FBI twice probably has done enough to get an electronic records warrant on them. The question is what to do with guys who are just talking smack vs the guys who are really ready to snap and act on it. I think a continued surveillance warrant is justified to observe a potential proverbial ticking bomb. But warrantless surveillance? Of browser history? That's a bad idea not only from civil liberties point of view. It's a bad idea from a technical point of view. Part of extracting of information from data is culling of data. The more data is collected, the more difficult the complexity of analytics. And the big-O of analytics grows as O( (n!)^K ), where K is constant, but n grows as the amount of data grows. In other words, it grows even faster than the exponential O(n^k). Even under the best case scenario, the computational capacity grows as exponential. So the amount of collected data will very quickly outpace the amount of analyzable data. If nothing else, warrants act as a way to cull to the data to be analyzed. The fact the data is initially analyzable can create a false sense of security and allow complacency of investigators to set in. This is not just wrong. This is dangerous.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Bear arms? Pfft. In Russia, you have right to whole bear.
"Have you seen our military budget? An armed rebellion would last about 15 minutes."
It doesn't take a large well armed military to tear down a government -- if it did, why would supplying a handful of rebels in (Libya/Syria/Iraq/%anysouthamericancountry%) be so effective and toppling governments?
Dont underestimate how the effect of a small number of dissatisfied citizens.
Well, I guess they decided to target at least one amendment in this shitstorm, and if the 2nd can't be infringed, they'll settle for that old punching bag, the 4th.
Easy just don't encrypt with RSA or any public key crypto algorithm based on integer factorization problem, the discrete logarithm problem or the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem as those are all trivial for quantum computers using Shor's algorithm. So that would leave something lattice based crypto as a solution for public/asymmetric key crypto. For symmetric key crypto quantum computers offer a dramatic speed up but even with the AES competition there was a belief that quantum computers weren't that far out so they went with a key length of 256. Granted using Grover's algorithm offers a very nice speed up so a 256 bit key requires only 2^128 effort that is still a huge amount of energy. Or to put it another way cycling a 128 bit counter through all possible states on an ideal computer (our best ones are many orders of magnitude worse) would take a sizeable fraction of the total world wide energy output for an entire year. That is just to generate the key space, not any decryption attempts. If you truly don't want to worry about the government likely breaking your crypto you need either a larger symmetric key, you run out of energy in this universe some where around 600 bits even on ideal quantum computers, or use a one time pad which would be unbreakable in any universe.
Time to offend someone
So tell me what an assault rifle is? It's already illegal for a private citizen to own a gun that fires more than one bullet at a time.
Is an assault rifle one that's all scary black? The same rifle with a woodgrain stock does the exact same thing.
Big scary scope? Same thing on a hunting rifle. Heck the red dot scope on my .22 target pistol would probably make you grab your teddy bear for comfort.
Folding stock? Makes it easier to store and haul around. Nothing at all to do with functionality.
Forward pistol grip? That's what gun control is - being able to stay on target.
Stop trying to say anything that's legally available is an assault anything. It isn't. Everything fires a single bullet on a trigger pull.
The definition of an 'assault rifle' is a rifle with a high capacity magazine capable of firing multiple bullets designed for military use. Since there's no legal rifle that fires more than one bullet at a time STOP CALLING A RIFLE AN ASSAULT WEAPON.
Right, nitpick. That's the way to solve things.
In my opinion, private citizens should not be able to own guns, period, unless they can prove a compelling reason. I know that's heresy in the United States, but I don't give a fuck. Specifically, the AR-15 should certainly be banned because it's capable of firing dozens of rounds per minute.
In that particular instance, not much, neither at charlie hebdo before that. There is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan, you can't uninvent the gun and if you could they would use something else. You do know though that those guys didn't just walk into a shop to buy their guns and ammo the week before. They went to a lot of effort to get those guns there. When was the last shooting in Europe before that, and the one before that, and before that? No one is saying it doesn't happen because it does but compare that to the frequency of shootings in America and then tell me gun availability has nothing to do with it. In Europe it's very rare, in America it's all too common.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
You're not correct that the use of the extremely stupid 'No Fly List' is an acceptable method of preventing gun ownership. When a six month old child gets on the list due to having a name that's similar to someone they're profiling then it proves the list is useless. There's no accountability for that list, no methodology for how someone gets on the list, no transparency, nothing. So you're saying there's majority support for using it as a guide for denying Constitutional rights?
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws?
No, because such a thing never happened. Well, at least not since the last time we had a functional Congress controlled by that party that wasn't totally cowed by the Gun Lobby. IOW: not since 1994. That's 22 years ago, for those of you who are math impaired. There are 4 years of voters who weren't born yet the last time "Democrats were expanding gun control laws", and even then it took the support of notorious liberal Ronald Regan to get it passed..
Seriously, Republicans need to go find themselves a more credible boogyman.
Radicalized by the Internet?
Yep. He was minding his own business enjoying being a moderate, peace loving Muslim when the internet snuck up on him, locked him in a room, and brainwashed him to become a fellow radicalized internet.
I can think of a few but they all involve being out in the woods in northern Minnesota and coming up on or being stalked by a large predator. Apart from that I tend to avoid known shit holes. Also it isn't like I'm going to walk around in Harlem wearing a sandwich board that says "I hate Niggers" or do other equally stupid things.
Time to offend someone
I too am glad that bill was defeated. The no-fly list is clearly unconstitutional and does not provide any meaningful security.
First you have the fact that this list doesn't even identify people properly. It's simply a list of names with no accompanying biometric data. No photographs, no fingerprints, etc. People are wrongly prohibited from flying as a result, including U.S. senators, because first/last names are not unique.
Then there's the fact that the people on the list haven't done anything criminal. When they approach the ticket counter and are told they are on the list, they are not arrested and they are not fined. These people on the list are so dangerous that they are simply allowed to walk away.
Finally, if allowed to proceed, people on the no-fly list would go through the same security procedures as everyone else. Their luggage would be screened and they would pass through a metal detector or body scanner. At that point how could they pose any sort of security risk?
What exactly is the point of this list, other than infringing peoples' freedom of movement? How does is protect anyone?
I have to agree completely. While it SEEMS like "common sense" (which gun control advocates seriously need to stop saying, btw) to bar someone on the no-fly list from buying a gun, the hard truth is that it is in fact stripping you of a constitutional right without due process. And that's bad, bad, bad. If you don't believe that it should be a constitutional right, then that's your burden to bear to try to get it amended. But time and time again the supreme court has upheld that interpretation. They tried to smooth it over by saying there would be an appeal process, and I get that. But that's guilty until proven innocent, and once again, and very scary proposition, tbh.
According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.
I doubt it, seeing as Adam Lanza shot up a bunch of elementary school kids in Newtown Connecticut. James Holmes did the theater shooting in Aurora Colorado. I think it's important, when talking about your mass murderers, to get the attributions correct.
Ironic, since the Republicans got their Senate majority in part by the running of ads claiming O is spying on citizens. (Disclaimer: the group who created the ad may be independent of actual Senate candidates.)
Table-ized A.I.
ONE Guy? In Uniform?
Easy to avoid.. However, the more good guys with guns you throw into the mix, the less likely the shooter will continue to do damage unscathed. Which is EXACTLY why you need MORE weapons in the hands of good guys in situations like this. If you want to stop the shooting before the gunman does the maximum damage, you need good guys with guns to stop them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Remember, the US Constitution does not "grant" rights....its purpose is to enumerate the supposedly LIMITED powers and responsibilities of the Federal Govt.
Exactly. All other powers were left to the states to regulate. That was the design. This included the Bill of Rights. The whole point of the second amendment was that the Federal Government was not to interfere with the States' rights to regulate their own militias. If the States wanted to ban guns, that was supposed to be their right (stupid, in a world with no standing army and surrounded by hostile natives and oppressed slaves, but their right). Same with establishing religion, or banning speech. If you didn't like it, you could move to a better state.
The 18th Amendment was a constitutional "hack" that applied the Bill of Rights to the states (and other sub-governments). The process is called incorporation. Its probably a good thing in terms of most of the Bill of Rights, but it completely broke the original concept of the 2nd Amendment to do that to it. It was never the idea that nobody would regulate guns at all. The word "regulation" is in the freaking amendment just to emphasize that point.
Yep, that's what those in power want. Divide everyone along silly partisan lines so they can r a p e the hell out of us and we won't fight back because we're too busy fighting with each other...
That's basically how the Soviet Union fell. Communist hard liners sent the military to go after Boris Yeltsin but he gave a speech which turned the tanks around to go arrest the Communists.
I dunno, I don;t think a lot of the standing army would actually go long with an attack on the American people.
Give up your gun and you are giving up every other right too
Actually, that was a case where the military, itself, was divided, as was the rest of the country. It would have been a very different fight if the whole military had sided with the Union and the Confederacy had to put together militias with civilian owned weapons.
Choose: Guns or your imaginary friend. It's been shown time and again that insane people and weapons don't mix.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's basically how Persia became Iran. The 4th largest army on the planet could not stop it.
The problem is, the cure wasn't much better than the disease.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's interesting that you vouch for all of the other members of your group. How can you be sure that the interest in heavy weapons isn't research for the next mass killing? Also what's stopping the next killer from copying and pasting your safe/patriotic excuse for owning and using weapons frequently?
Making guns illegal =/= making guns unavailable/inaccessible, particularly in the case of people who pay no attention to laws in the first place, and plan on dying in the execution of their plans in any case.
Certain drugs have been illegal for many decades, and yet they are still widely and easily available for anyone that wants them and can pay the going rates.
You want a small sample of what banning guns in the US would look like? Just read up on the 1920's-era Prohibition effort to ban alcohol. Now ramp up the carnage and loss of life by orders of magnitude.
It won't result in fewer AR-15s. It will result in an all-out proliferation of fully-automatic AK-47s, M4 carbines, and other NFA and prohibited firearms. If all guns are illegal, might as well be a very well-armed criminal with a fully-auto weapon as opposed to currently-legal Glocks or AR-15 semi-automatic weapons.
Guns will never disappear in the US no matter what laws or Amendments are passed. Those horses left the barn over 2 centuries ago. It would require the genocide of the vast majority of people living in the US with the remainder put in prison camps. Not a viable option for anyone who is sane.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
That is true here in the US as well. There are a whole lot of police and not that many actually are involved in shootings.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
The police here shoot and kill unarmed folks. Homeless, mentally ill, and just about anyone who 'disrespects' them.
The only difference between them and your average gang member is they have a badge.
And you REALLY think that if they wanted to take your guns you'd stop them? For real? Are you that delusional? After 2-3 people and their families get slaughtered, do you REALLY think there will be any more resistance?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is that the same encryption that has probably by now more backdoors in it than proper access ways?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Throw some more guns into the mix and you'd end up with people trying to be the "good guy with a gun" they hear so much about, and shooting the shit out of each other every time a car backfired or a champagne cork popped.
There are lots of places in the country where there are several armed civilians in virtually every crowd. So if what you say is inevitable, shouldn't it have happened? I can provide links to several counterexamples, where people with concealed carry permits withheld their fire because they didn't have a clear shot. Concealed carry instructors (like me) stress to their students that they do not have the same level of protection from the system that police officers do, and that they are fully and completely responsible for every bullet they fire. What we see in practice is that people with permits do understand that and do behave responsibly -- far more responsibly than police officers, in fact. Which makes sense because cops know that they'll get the benefit of the doubt and have an organization to stand behind them and fund their legal defense, if needed.
If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.
If you think you live in a place where there's no chance that you'll need a gun, you're delusional. No place is that safe.
Now, if what you believe is that the probability that you'll need a gun is very low, that other risks are greater, and that you, personally, wouldn't know what to do with a gun if you had one, that's a reasonable position. But it's not a counterargument for those of us who do know what we're doing. I agree that the probability that I'll ever need to draw my gun is very small, and I sincerely hope that it never happens. But I also believe that we're all safer if a significant fraction of law-abiding citizens is armed and prepared to respond to situations that may occur, because the police basically never arrive soon enough. They can't be everywhere.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
With proper planning and execution, a popularly supported armed rebellion against an overreaching government in the US would only last a few moments.
Before hostilities commenced all that would need to be related to those in power is that the American people have ensured their protection by and of their government by protecting those most vulnerable to counterattack by violent factions of disaffected Americans. Namely, the relatives, friends, and close associates of every elected official. They would be taken into protective custody. In addition, all of the families, friends, and close associates of military officials, colonel and above, would also been placed in protective custody.
Hacking USAA and disclosing the names and addresses of all of those military personnel and their extended families would be a powerful deterrent to any rank and file military personnel taking up weapons against the population. I'm sure Eichmann didn't have his family and property at stake when he was "just following orders." It would streamline the decision tree for our armed forces personnel I am sure.
The lesson, if you are in our military and will attack the US people, the US people will make sure you have nothing and no one to come home to. If you are in political power and are ordering attacks on the US people, the US people will make sure your family are the first up against the wall. Not a hard decision at that point as to whether or not violence will ensue.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
It protects you by preventing dangerous people from spreading ideas to their family members in Minneapolis over the vulnerable Thanksgiving weekend. Ideas can't be detected with a scanner**. You want to be protected from that, don't you?
** Yet. I'm sure that's being rectified.
You ARE aware that in all those cases the "rebels" had the backing of a nation state with a military machinery to supply the goodies they need to fight, yes? There are only two kinds of "guerilla" uprisings that were successful. One, one that had serious backing from a military superpower and two, one that had an enemy that was as poorly equipped as they themselves.
What you want to do here is wage guerilla war without any backers against the largest military power on the planet.
Good luck.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What right do you think could you possibly defend with your gun? You have been stripped of rights left and right and didn't even bother to say "But...", let alone grab your gun and defend it.
Why bother defend a right to a gun if you're not willing to use it for anything but playing with your big boy toy?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If they had some type of due process system for putting people on that list - and a way to get off of it if you were put on it by mistake (a way that wasn't too difficult), then I'd be all for the idea. Of course, how you would set this list up without false positives and without potential for abuse is anyone's guess. This idea is one of those things that is good in theory but the details derail it.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Next you're going to tell me that the politicians aren't really going to do everything they promise to do while they are campaigning.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Ok, why didn't you bother to defend any of the other rights that have been taken from you? The only "rights" you have left are the ones that don't matter to them because they can easily take them from you if push comes to shove.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sort of like those "dangerous" containers of liquids that you're not allowed to bring on your flight which all get dumped in one bin right by the security area. If the liquid's so dangerous, why wouldn't you immediately usher it away from the crowds? Why toss it with all the other "dangerous liquids" in a big bin? Oh, right. Security Theater.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
why can't we just limit that right to arms that aren't intended for exclusive use in war zones?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And here I thought that in Soviet Russia, the Bear would eat you.
But, I do believe that the intent was not JUST for the militia, at least in the modern sense of the word...but that individuals could own guns and that shouldn't be infringed upon....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
To too many people in the US, it seems like all they care about (or know about) is the 2nd amendment. Just a quick look at the Bill of Rights (original 10 amendments)
Amendment 1 is pretty much toast.
3 is not really applicable any more.
4 is a joke now.
5, gone.
6, nope.
7 is very dated, not really applicable.
8 is up for interpretation
9 is a joke
10 is a blanket statement.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/bill_of_rights.htm
But dammit, let us keep our 2nd amendment!
I'm going to start telling the gun lovers they should have used their firearms to protect the rest of our rights.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Well, if we are going to pick and choose just remove the gang violence in the US and you would have parity with Europe. Or just remove a few cities like Chicago (which have some of the strictest gun laws in the US) and again you would have parity with Europe for gun violence.
Your "all too common" is misleading when we are talking about 0.00002% and especially when you want to ignore "particular instances". As you say "there is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan". Well then, isn't that the case for Orlando?
If you think bans work, tell me about how drugs are off the street and the great success story of Prohibition.
Violence is down trending across the board with or without guns.
All rights have a price in blood. Owning a gun in the US is a right on par with free speech. Ideas can kill millions, should we ban ideas or the expression thereof?
Persia became [internationally known as] Iran by the Shah's request in 1935. You're talking about when Iran became the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This space intentionally left blank
Let's remember that this is not a political blog. It's a technology news from yesterday (or dupe thereof) forum. So the only reason this is on-topic is because Internet. You have to admit, though, that it's a little ironic how Republicans hold up the second and fifth amendments (arms and due process) as sacrosanct, while using the fourth and first (search and assembly/religion/speech) to wipe their ass. Maybe they only like prime numbered amendments?
*googles "Insurrection Act"*
Holy shit! how come none of my redneck gun-nut friends know about this law? I'm surprised they haven't tried to get it repealed. Forget Obamacare, this gem is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream!!
But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings)
No it doesn't. It just allows people to try to return fire. It does nothing as a deterrent.
This is the sort of soft headed thinking that got us into the current mess. Guns are not shields, they are swords. Swords don't protect you from harm, they just allow you to stab back.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Look you're missing my point. But do you really think the prohibition would have been as violent if it was guns that were banned instead of alcohol? Organised criminals are always going to have guns so it's not really an even comparison. Even if you do ban guns you still have the problems of all the guns already in circulation. You can't just say ban guns and problem solved but you also can't say they're not part of the problem. Keyword, part.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The second amendment is just that. An amendment. It's time to repeal or modify it because clearly, the gun totters and gun sellers and even the FBI are not mature enough to play with them.
Yep, you want gun bans and restrictions, that right there is the way to do it. SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd - it's an individual right. If we want to empower the Federal government to restrict gun ownership, changing the Constitution is the way to do it.
Don't forget, while we're at it, we're going to need to get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment too. No other way to allow the police to go house-to-house searching for guns during the confiscation.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I think there would be more resistance if people actually start getting killed.
But let's get real, here. It's not in the corporatocracy's business plan to have their security forces (AKA the US military) killing people and causing riots. It's much better for the "bad guys" to not be identifiable people like "the Baker family down the street," but rather "terrorists" and "pedophiles" and "drug dealers." Maybe my tin foil hat needs to be readjusted, but I really think anybody in power stands a much better chance of staying in power if they just roll with things and don't make too many changes too fast.
Besides, what's the benefit of taking our guns? The threat of taking guns? That's a different story. Lots of money to be made by threatening to take guns. Just look at the last 5 or 6 mass shootings. The gun-nuts and right-wing whackadoos fall for it every time. And the gun companies just devour the profits and whip the NRA into a frenzy for the next round.
Thanks for the correction... Sorry I get my crazy nut job's names switched sometimes... Was that Hillary or Barack who said that? Oh what's the difference...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
After 2-3 people and their families get slaughtered, do you REALLY think there will be any more resistance?
No, I think there would be a LOT more resistance.
You know, some of us sheeple were highly trained solders back in the day and have first hand experience of small units who can blend in with the local population taking on superior military forces. Everyone seems to think 'resistance' would be a group of people with shotguns and hunting rifles trading fire with tanks rolling down Main Street or something silly like that.
If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.
Well that's just it, isn't it. The US is not a "civilized" country, and never has been. It's easy to mistake it for one, so I understand your confusion. Here's an easy test: View how the people in Japan (a civilized country) reacted after the Tsunami hit. Now compare with how the people acted after Katrina hit New Orleans. See the difference?
Yea, that's why people walk around armed in the US: It's not really a very civilized place.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Another was to prevent purchases by people on the FBI no fly list, which also has broad support.
While this sounds good in concept I take issue with it as that fucking list and many of the other fucking lists the government creates like the terror watch list, have no real oversight or due process associated with them. We live in a country that has laws and depriving someone of their rights without going through the proper process can't be done and is actually its self against the law. No where in the constitution does it give the government to regulate an individual's travel between the states. Then add in that the people on these lists are never informed that they are on them, until they are turned away at the airport, and that there is no way to get off of them or standard documented criteria for getting on them and I certainly wouldn't want to deny someone's rights based off of their name being on a questionable list.
Time to offend someone
I can't seem to find what the actual bill number is for this bill. I would like to contact my representatives and tell them to vote against this... but I need better info. Anyone have the details on this bill?
when you can be held indefinitely until you surrenders the encryption key?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
A "well regulated militia" that YOU have to own an M-16, be able to use it competently, and go to war with the Army IMMEDIATELY upon given notice to do so.
Although mental masturbation over the language in the 2nd Amendment is really quite irrelevant. It's there and you want to ignore it. That's the problem here in general. People want to ignore the law and our founding principles. They want to take fascist Gestapo tactics that never should have been in place to begin with and EXPAND them. Plus add new ones.
Want to steal everyone's guns? Revoke the 2nd Amendment first. There are rules and procedures here. They exist for a reason. They aren't just there to make the life of politicians or the FBI inconvenient.
In the meantime, if you want to take guns start with the ones that are already illegal. Try cleaning out Chicago.
Empty platitudes and bad precidents get no one anywhere.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required,
What kind of fucked up life do you have where that's ever a concern?
Just because you go out of your way to avoid trouble doesn't mean trouble won't find you regardless.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Take out all the shootings apart from the ones which make international headlines and America is still way above. Columbine. Virginia tech, sandy hook, that cinema, this last one, san bernadino, that church, the Washington sniper guy, Harris county, fort hood ... The list goes on and on and that's just of the top of my head. What has there been in Europe? Paris x 2, Ralph moats, that Sweden thing.... I'm struggling to think of examples. If you can rattle some off please do.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
His party affiliation is an obvious Red Herring.
He's affiliation (desired or otherwise) with the the Caliphate is a fact. This also applies to the last mass shooting. So we've had two Islamic terrorist attacks one after the other and what are the moron liberals doing?
Are they suggesting to fight against radicalization?
No. They want to grab the glamour guns.
If anything, they're trying to stick their heads in the sand and claim this has nothing to do with terrorism or radical Islam.
A highly motivated attacker is an entirely different problem. These are people that will use explosives and can get banned weapons into a country with much more stringent gun laws.
It's like the guy that tried to shoot Trump. He said he would try it again upon release. He might even improve his plan next time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Another was to prevent purchases by people on the FBI no fly list
The FBI no-fly list is an invasion of rights, has no real oversight, and should be gotten rid of.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Specifically, the AR-15 should certainly be banned because it's capable of firing dozens of rounds per minute.
So is my shotgun and my just barely modern (made in 1897 last rebarreled in 1944) Finnish M39 rifle I use for hunting. A well trained civil war era rifleman using a musket was capable of firing off about a dozen rounds a minute, or at least that is what I remember being told on one of my trips to Fort Snelling years ago. Then there are those really evil things that General Patton called "The greatest battle implement ever devised" the M1 Garand semi automatic rifle that fires a substantially more powerful round than that used by the AR-15.
Time to offend someone
But, I do believe that the intent was not JUST for the militia, at least in the modern sense of the word...but that individuals could own guns and that shouldn't be infringed upon....
Believe what you want, but let's not engage in "faith-based" history, please. The 2nd amendment talks about lower-level governments regulating arms right in the freaking amendment. They really couldn't have made it much clearer for us. Then we have the ensuing 200 years of caselaw (the first few decades of which came from the authors of that amendment themselves) attesting to states and cities being perfectly able to regulate guns.
The second amendment wasn't even incorporated until 2008 (8 years ago). Why so long? Because it was damn clear that "no regulation by anybody" was explicitly not intended, and it required a whole generation of post-Regan Republican-appointed SCOTUS nominees to stack the court enough to incorporate it anyway.
We could of course make this explicit (one way or the other) with some kind of clarifying constitutional amendment. Notice nobody is doing this, because packing the court and making up stories about the founders is much easier.
If you don't have a real plan for getting rid of guns then you should really just shut up and stop the hysterics already. You are whining about things that can't really happen because there are a number of practical and legal hurdles that have to be dealt with. They can't just be ignored.
Otherwise, people that think like you could clean up Chicago already. Those guns are already illegal. Go and take them. The rest of us would love to see you try.
Now that is only ONE SMALL part of the overall problem. If you can't clean up Chicago without engaging in tactics that would cause a mass revolt, the rest of this discussion is meaningless.
Not that the guns are even the real problem for politically motivated killings.
Someone mentioned banning speech in this thread. Ideology is really much more important here. There really needs to be a culture war where the liberals stop making excuses for backwards Muslim countries and un/anti-American branches of Islam. They need to apply the same bile they would apply to Xian fundies and treat both types of fundies with equal contempt.
It's not OK to throw gays off of rooftops or commit mass murder on them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> What kind of fucked up life do you have where that's ever a concern?
If you listen to the media "ANY AMERICAN" has that problem.
On the other hand, some people just like to be prepared. It's not paranoia to be prepared. I may never use my fire extinguisher but I have one. I also have a pretty intense first aid kit. I also have a AAA membership despite a preference for VERY reliable cars.
OTOH, I routinely carry non-lethal weapons because no one wants to control their dogs any more. They have less sense than actual wild predators.
I would expect to need to shoot an animal before I would need to shoot a human.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Here's the thing I don't get about breaking the encryption on messages.... How do you recognise that you have done it?
Let's say that I take my message, which is written in English in ASCII. I then encrypt this. So to an observer it looks like random noise. I then encrypt this a second time.
Anyone breaking the second, exterior encryption, even if they do it perfectly, all they see is the random noise of the first, interior encryption.
How do they know they have successfully broken the encryption?
It's still better to be in jail than dead, or to have to bury your own child.
That said, no one should ever draw unless they are willing to do hard time for it. There are standards for the use of deadly force and generally such occurrences are very much worth any harsh consequences you may suffer.
Of course the liberal media won't tell you this, but on occasion someone who shouldn't be carrying will save the day.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There's only one reason enumerated in the 2nd amendment, true enough.
However, if you are seriously going to argue that in 1790, the authors of the constitution were not considering hunting and self-defense as valid uses of arms... I'm afraid you've simply talked yourself out of any chance of being taken seriously.
Now about rights: Rights pre-exist the constitution. The constitution doesn't "give you" that right. What the constitution does is forbids the government from infringing on that right. Here, let's read it:
See how that's written? It's an instruction to government. It's not an "award of a right." It was thoroughly understood that you had that right already. All the 2nd amendment does is tell the government they couldn't interfere with it.
If they do want to interfere with it, the only legitimate path offered by the constitution is found in article five, where the authorized mechanism to change the constitution itself is described.
Instead, the government is arbitrarily making laws that infringe. They have made many laws about specific arms you are forbidden to keep and carry. This is exactly the wrong (and unauthorized) way to go about solving problems. Why? Because if they can look at the 2nd amendment and say "nah, we're just going to do it the way we want to and to heck with that part", then this sets the stage for them to do it with the other amendments, and for that matter, parts of the constitution outside of the amendments.
And so it has played out. This precise kind of "nah, we'll just do what we want" behavior on the part of both the legislature and the judiciary has led to the de facto inversion of the commerce clause; search and seizure without warrant, probable cause, or specifics as to what is being searched for and what is to be seized; blatantly ex post facto laws that increase punishment after sentencing; government favoritism of specific religions; government taking of property for commercial purposes; government taking of property without warrant or due process; restriction of peaceful assembly; infringement on the right to keep and carry arms; compulsion to witness against one's self; the arrogation of rights that clearly belong to the states; and more.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Japan is a high compliance culture. It has never had a culture of liberty or democracy. It's the kind of place where very recently you could get summarily executed for not bowing low enough to a low ranking soldier.
Japan is less "civilized" than it is cowed.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A guy walks into a bar with a rifle and a pile of magazines.
How does THAT happen to begin with?
How does that bar deal with a rowdy junkie high on something that makes him feel no pain?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Many "good guys with a gun" in a chaotic situation could easily make a bad situation much, much worse.
Don't you know? There's a "good guy with a gun" tell that they all know about.
It's kinda like "gaydar"....they just know their own kind. However, they can't explain how they know.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
You should take a look at sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA bill, passed in closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing, and signed into law by President Obama in late 2011.
TL;DR: Posse Comitatus, not so much these days.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
How? He walks into a shop and buys them with no bother at all. Do you not see the problem with that? Maybe the answer is more guns. So the bar was supposed to a gun free zone but maybe some designated staff should be able to access a few guns hidden about so that if anything does go down at least two people should be able to try do something to stop it before it becomes a hostage stand off with the police.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The 2nd does not mention "guns." The 2nd talks about "arms", which certainly includes, but in no way is limited to, guns. It also includes IEDs, non-improvised explosives, knives, bats, caltrops, arrows, bombs, grenades, rockets, etc. The founders were familiar with them all. And you know what they put in the 2nd? Not "guns", not "muskets", not "flintlocks", but this:
Arms.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Here's a slow burn for what to do about the entrenched guns problem. Cut off the supply of ammunition. With out bullets a baseball bat is a better weapon. If there was an easy fix it would have been enacted long ago by people much smarter than me.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
You are a fool. Anyone that equates a gun with a penis is a fucking idiot.
But the "good news" is that no one they are spying on will be restricted from buying whatever firearms they want.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Gun control laws decrease shooting deaths, both homicides and suicides.
So says research and common sense.
If you don't care, then fine. Your rights are more important than (usually innocent) people's lives. But when you oppose gun control, you have blood on your hands.
As to the 2nd amendment? Stop holding it so sacrosanct. Don't forget that the 3/5 clause was part of the original constitution, too.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
Federal law forbids the use of the military for domestic purpose.
That's okay. The government has had much success turning local police into military force.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Can you name a single time this has happened?
Liar.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Cut off the supply of ammunition.
Now you're just moving the same problem around and still fails for similar reasons that Prohibition and the War On (some) Drugs has, and is, failing.
They can't prevent Palestinians from obtaining all kinds of military guns, bombs, rockets, etc when there is a military blockade in place on all sides. How do you propose, exactly, to stop ammo/guns from flowing across the borders into the US? There is also cartridge and shell reloading that many already do to save on ammo costs.
It is simply impossible in any rational, practical, non-nation-collapsing way to ban firearms in the US. It simply cannot happen without destroying the US and killing a majority of the population and incarcerating most of the rest.
US firearm bans are insane fantasies with zero chance of succeeding short of mass genocide. Such calls for bans are nothing but propaganda and demagoguery.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
A great read, and applicable to today. Basically, the North didn't have it's heart in the fight with the South until Southern supporters became increasingly hard-line in their dealings with the Feds.
I think people like you will be really surprised if they start something that wakes the silent majority of Americans. The ones who aren't happy, but are willing to work with the system.
Cheap storage VM.
Yes, and you missed my point. Even with all of that you are talking about something like 0.00002% difference between the two. That isn't "all too common".
If you remove a few cities then the US is on par with Europe with these statistics. You want to apply "there is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan" for those instances in Europe but not for the examples you gave in USA.
The fact is, violence is decreasing across the board regardless of a gun or not. We are talking about vanishingly small rates.
And again, even if the rates were 10x what it is: Rights have a price in blood. In the USA, owning a gun is a right just like the free speech.
That is the beauty of the one time pad. you can never be sure that you have recovered the correct message. At best you recover all possible plain texts (provided it is a message smaller than the 140 character limit of a tweet). For things like block ciphers (symmetric or asymmetric key) it is easy because you are usually after the key so if all blocks decrypt to something non gibberish it is highly likely that you have the correct key or key that also works. This assumes that a Message Authentication Code (MAC) wasn't also used, if one was then it becomes easy to verify that you have successfully decrypted the message.
To use your example, which is not too dissimilar to what VeraCrypt (and previously TrueCrypt) did. When someone is attempting to break a cipher they will focus on just one of them at a time and figure out how to break just that one. Once they have broken each one separately then they go and just try them in all combinations until they find one that works produces non gibberish output. If you roll your own crypto, and it isn't a one time pad with a proper true random source, you will likely screw it up and it will fall to simple stasticial analysis. Even things like wheel ciphers and reuse of a one time pad can quickly be broken through some neat little tricks where you try to find the length of the block used to encrypt.
If you are interested in some of these things a good place to start might be by reading Applied Cryptography by Bruch Schneier (if you don't want to buy the book you can easily find a PDF version online but I do suggest supporting Bruce as he seems to be a big advocate of freedom and does do a lot of good work). For a simple introduction to modern cryptanalysis you can check this guy's page out. for a more detailed explanation of linear and differential cryptanalysis you can read this paper. Those should provide a good starting point if one wants to learn about making and breaking crypto.
Time to offend someone
All of US military history is the big ol army repeatedly losing to a bunch of rebels with rifles, and even smoothbore muskets. For fifteen years the US military has been in Afghanistan fighting rebels with rifles and pickup trucks. (yes, they declared "victory" and evacuated most US troops a few years ago, but they are still fighting there too.) See also the USSR experience in the same location. The US began when the most powerful military in the world was defeated by a silversmith, a printer, and their drinking buddies. Between then we've had Vietnam (the US military can EASILY defeat a bunch of poor people in 12 foot fishing boats, right?) and several others.
These are all examples where the entire US military was united, the whole US military vs foreign rebels.How many US servicemen and women would fire on their own families, do you think? If YOU would in the air force and President Trump ordered you to bomb your home town, what you YOU do? I have a pretty good idea of what I would do, and it might involve an orange stain on the rubble on Washington.
Obligatory car analogy...
*Points to recent car accident, in which someone died*
How did seat belts help when *passenger* died in aforementioned car accident?
*cough*
Well, clearly in that specific instance they didn't. In the other thousand accidents in which no-one died they did.
Of course, it's an imperfect analogy, as it's impossible to point out attacks with illegal weapons that did not happen, as a result of those weapons being unavailable to use in the first place.
Tell me (irrespective of your, or my, position on gun ownership), can you at least see the logical error inherent within your question?
Wow, intoxicated people who then go on an adrenaline rush, shooting a gun in a crowded area full of panicked people, what could go wrong ??? And when it becomes 2 or more people, they have no idea who the original shooter is, but hey, there is a guy over there with a gun, lets shoot at them. Freedom is not the right to carry a gun, its not needing to.
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando? Or any other mass shooting?
When they help out you usually don't hear about it in the press.
That's partly because it's against most press outlets' (often publicly announced!) editorial policies to print anything that portrays self-defense use of firearms as desirable. And it's partly because, when civilian gun-toters stop an attempted mass murderer, the murdered mass is small to non-eixistent.
A case in point is the Clakamas Mall attempted mass shooting.
The wikipedia article is pretty sketchy, mentioning only one CCW carrier who showed his weapon. As I hear it, after this guy started shooting, while the store personnel were helping their customers out the service passages at the back, several mallgoers (not all of them armed!) started stalking him, and he noticed. This was in Oregon, where both open and concealed carry is legal and common, so the expectation would be that several armed people would be present, and this impromptu platoon would be a serious threat. So he retreated, eventually ending up in a dead-end passage where he killed himself.
Shooter with an AR-15 and 120 rounds (not counting the additional 30 in the magazine he dropped in the parking lot on the way in), opening fire in a mall crowded with 8,000-10,000 ordinary people. Score: Two victims dead, one victim seriously wounded, one perpetrator dead at his own hand. No shots actually fired by the defenders (mostly due to not having a good shot due to other civilians as backstops).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Moron, the word "regulate" has another meaning.
You can't say for sure whether any single shooting incident would be prevented by a given law. The same way that you can't say for sure that any given 100 degree day was caused by climate change.
However, you CAN say that laws restricting access to guns decrease the number of gun deaths. So says research.
Oh and we need to take guns away from people not just prevent their sale. The Democrats bills don't go far enough, but they are a start.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
Pick any city in America and it's total gun death will probably be more than all of Europe. Where are you getting your figures from? It's good overall violence is on it's way down and if you think the price in blood is worth it then good for you. I'm just glad I live in a place that managed to give up their guns after we'd had enough of this shit without having a societal meltdown where everyone becomes blood crazed which is apparently what would happen in America.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That all may be true, and the price you pay for that is in blood. If you think it's worth it then that's on you. We gave up our guns in the UK after dunblain and managed not to have a societal breakdown. Australia managed it too. How many innocent people have to die before you start to question if it's really worth it?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
This. What most people don't understand is that safety and security do not exist on their own. They do not exist at a certain place or location. Nor are they provided by your government, your laws, or even by your local law enforcement. You, personally, create safety and security and bring them with you. Or you don't. It all depends on how prepared you are, how aware you are, and how forearmed you are. That includes pulling the wool from over your eyes and seeing that nowhere is safe, nowhere is secure, save you personally make it so.
For those that disagree, this is your responsibility. Take it or leave it, but please don't try to foist it off on someone else, blame someone else for not taking care of it, or act and think like this is not how it is. You may be able to ignore reality now because you have never truly had your life threatened by someone who is intent on killing you, or someone you love. If you did and survived it you would have learned this lesson already. It was put best to me in this way "violence is not the solution for every problem. However, for some problems it is the only solution."
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Just for fun, realize that comparing America and Denmark is incredibly stupid and doesn't result in any usable results. It has already been established conclusively that the presence of firearms does not always result in an increase in violent crime. In some places it lowers crime and violence. So that being removed from the equation, we have to find other ways to be like Denmark or Germany if we want to have less crime, right?
Both Denmark and Germany are rather monolithic culturally and racially, or at least were before the recent immigration in Germany. If we follow your comparison to its logical end, the only solution available to make the US like Germany and Denmark is to remove all of the non-white, non-American people from the country. How very German of you to suggest it! Personally I think its a fucked up idea, but you go ahead with that.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
No, a couple of armed idiots with guns would just have more than likely increased the carnage. If you fire a gun and miss the intended target (and most do in these sorts of situations) then that bullet does not just disappear, it will go into what ever is in its way, the shooter, the wall, the girl running away behind the shooter, the person hiding behind the bar. Then of course Idiot B sees Idiot A with his gun and so takes a shot at them, with all the same risks. This is not s gun range where all the shooters stand at one end of the range and everything behind the target is safe. Its not even an area where the police have been able to clear innocent people (and potential victims) from to reduce the chances of accidental shootings. Idiot A and Idiot B don't have signs popping up over their heads saying the are the good guys, to everyone else they are a gunman. The original shooter is not a stationary target at what ever fixed distance away a paper target on a range is, they are not there as a clear shot with no one running around. There are all sorts of visual distractions, is that person running towards you another shooter ??? This is not a John Wayne movie where the hero can shoot 7 shots from his six shooter and kill all 9 baddies while not hurting anyone else. Gun control works. And did you also note, Idiot A and Idiot B want hand guns, you don't see them wanting to carry an AR17 like shooters do into a bar, take away these military weapons and you will reduce the carnage. Adam Landza Shot up Sandy Hook primary school, not an airport, not a movie theatre . Mass shooters typical choose a target that has meaning to them, school, place of work, etc etc etc, and yes even military areas, Then , as far as police are concerned, they don't have one active shooter, they have 3 and will treat them all the same.
Ammunition is pretty easy to make.
All the things you need you can get from an industrial supply shop and a machine shop and it can be made anywhere.
That includes the smokeless powder and the percussion caps.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Any of them *could* be armed, it would just be illegal to do so.
Laws don't prevent thing from happening, they only provide punishment if you are caught.
We have laws against murder, but it did not stop him.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
There is the gotcha:
if you are being watched, you are not the sort of person they want to know is being watched.
Defeats the purpose of catching you doing whatever you were put on the watch list for, right?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The incident then turned into a hostage situation.
In other words, interference by a single person with a gun stopped most of the potential for killing. I see this so much, often with examples used by gun control advocates. Shooting the shooter(s) is not the only possible positive contribution a gun wielder can do for an ongoing massacre. Getting the shooter to change their behavior to something that causes a lower body count is another positive contribution.
You just said the entire Middle East is pathetic and uncivilized. Are you a racist?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You do realize don't you that you can change neither the person's actual intent, nor the history of how that was understood, both during their lifetime and after (in this case up to the passage of the 18th Amendment), by taking selective phrases that seem to support your desires and building a logical argument around just them?
All of this is quite well-documented. If you don't want to look at it that way, for whatever reason, I suppose that's your business. But it doesn't change the past just because you'd like it to. You don't get to redefine reality with your sheer reasoning power, formidable as it may be.
You are right about one thing though. If anyone wants to regulate guns today, they either need to reverse the 2008 incorporation ("Heller"), or more definitively they need to change the Constitution. The former seems more likely (it was a 5-4 and one of the 5 died, with no likely prospect of a like-minded replacement), but the latter would be the superior option. The 18th "broke" that amendment, so proper fix would be at the same level. I don't like the idea of going back and forth on incorporation. That's chaos.
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
First, no it isn't. Secondly he didn't say it was IN the Constitution, he said it was part of the Military Oath of Enlistment.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Outlawing guns in the US means that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS have "little to no access to guns." If you think that this will prevent criminal elements and progressive radical terrorists from getting their hands on them you're a fucking moron.
Criminals can ship illegal aliens from Mexico, across the US border and almost to Canada, have them arrive alive, unmolested by immigration personnel, and ready to work in less than 3 days. You don't think that guns will be able to make the same journey, or one similar? You're a fucking moron if you think that you can outlaw guns in the US without major changes in this country,
If you really want to address gun control in the US there is one job to do first. Completely close the southern border. This will require legalization of all drugs in the US, with domestic production and easy, low cost, stigma free access to these drugs. The side effect will be no more illegal immigration. Since our government has expressed little interest in either of these things, our guns are safe.
The corollary of this is simple: Once the democrats start voting for closing the border, I will start to seriously worry about the second amendment.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
He wrote "the Constitution specifically allows the people to dissolve the government and setup a new one if the government doesn't meet the needs of the people".
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right of the people to dissolve the government and set up a new one; nor in the Oath of Enlistment. The Declaration of Independence mentions that very prominently early on, however.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Can /. please link to the draft of the Bill so we can examine it in these stories.
Like Burr-Feinstein on Encryption this appears to be another 'look at the silly monkey' ploy. This time using the 'They're gonna take our guns' theme - while they make an attempt on your right to free association.
This is the game to be wary of that the mone^h^h^h^hcongresscritters are playing with people.
It's not even political anymore it's an all out assault on peoples rights via a shell game. Please next time this is submitted can we have the draft of the Bill to see if the definitions are similar. I would have looked for the draft myself however I am pressed for time.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Have you seen our military budget? An armed rebellion would last about 15 minutes.
1. If you can't do better than a bunch of sheep-f***ers in Afghanistan then you probably should go ahead and butt out of this conversation.
2. This is the same ole "can't beat them drones" argument. Well, they have to land somewhere sometime. Also, drones and fighter jets can't occupy land and keep the civilians in check. Bombing literally everything and everyone into dust defeats the point of a civil war (resources) as well as turning the population against you-- so the government isn't going to do that.
3. Would you rather have weapons to stand up to tyranny or just be raped with nothing you can do to even fight back?
It should be mentioned that in those days cannons, warships, swords, halberds, pistols, and muskets were all totally legal for civilians to own. You had to pay for it yourself, of course (TANSTAAFL), but the point is that these were all the same things that were available to the military of the time.
Hey there, illiterate/disingenuous one! Read this.
So... since the feds and virtue-signalling sjw retards are trampling on the rest of the constitution and our rights we should go ahead and give up more rights?
The security had guns
[citation needed]
You don't know that, and a whole bunch of defenseless folks got shot the way this went down. It's a bad situation when some guy is shooting up the place and killing people no matter what and this didn't end until he was confronted by someone using deadly force (HOURS after it started).
I'm not claiming to know if having multiple armed people in the building would have helped, but it HAS helped in the past. Chances are it could have helped here too if there was enough people who could use deadly force. It's possible they could have made it worse, but given that would not be their intent, I dare say the amount of damage the law abiding would inflict is a far cry less than the heavily armed shooter bent on killing as many as possible..
Give the folks inside that nightclub a chance to defend themselves, let them be armed.. Yes, it's a risk, but all not as bad as letting the guy have free reign to shoot until his ammo runs out.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The legally insane, yes, keep guns out of their hands, but that's not what you said before. Before you said "religious nutjob" which is far from a legally defined description of a group of people who shouldn't carry guns around.
Understand, I'm trying to get you to say what you *really* mean and drop the rhetoric designed to inflame...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Thank you for the book recommendation. I am a voracious reader and have been ignoring my military history itch for too long.
"Popularly supported" means with the support of the majority specifically. Make sure you read my comments in light of that sentiment, otherwise you will miss the premise completely.
Also, the scenario I described where the majority of the US population supports armed rebellion is incredibly unlikely. Our government officials have spent untold billions of dollars on focus groups, psychological testing, mock speeches, and sound byte research and have fully mastered the art of dividing the American people and setting them at each other's throats. If there ever is an attack on the American people by our own government you can bet it will first be against one group of citizens who has been ostracized, demonized, and marginalized so well that the rest of the people support it. Popular support will be FOR attacking our own people, not against.
I don't know what you mean by "people like you."
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I don't, but neither do you.
That's my point. There is a legal limit to what law enforcement can do to find and disarm people who wish to do others harm. Like it or not, unless a person is a known danger to himself or others and this danger can be proven, the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms. Rights cannot be taken away on a hunch, the government MUST have and show there is a real reason before they can infringe on an individual's rights. That's why you cannot be summarily searched or be jailed without a trial or charges, why the government cannot force you to say or not to say certain things or why they cannot just take your property away. People have rights, even the weird dangerous looking ones...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The radical Islamics want nothing more than for the West to loose our freedoms, and they are winning that war big time here in the U.S. Fox News and CNN are their biggest and most effective weapons in that regard, and the American people are readily handing them over like candy on Halloween night.
Christ, Fox News' unyielding insistence on calling the Orlando shooting an act of terrorism by the radical Islamic State with no hard evidence, damn near before the sorry asses shells were cold, is proof of their desire to spread fear all in the name of ratings.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.
The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely.
I hear lots of people saying that democrats want to ban all guns. Oddly, none of them are democrats. I wonder why that is?
As far as I can tell, most democrats want to not fear being killed because of their skin color, or sexual orientation, or religion, or really for any other reason. They also don't want their neighbors, both their gun-toting and non-gun-toting neighbors, being killed. They're just not sure how to do that, except for limiting (but not banning) guns. It's worked in other first world country in the world, so it seem logical that it would work here too. As proofs go, that's fairly convincing.
If you have a way to greatly decrease violent deaths besides limiting guns, we'd love to hear it and your proof.
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
When the government says "we need to spy on you or EVIL TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU" it is a pathetic excuse.
When you say "I need to carry a gun or EVIL CRIMINALS WILL KILL ME" it is... ????
Spreading fear is spreading fear. Please don't do it. Also, please don't fall prey to it. Turns out that the more hammers that are out there, the more problems look like nails. And the more guns are out there, the more situations seem to require deadly force. Somehow us non-gun-carrying folks seem to avoid deadly-force situations; I suspect that you can too.
Oh of course, how silly of me. What you needed in that situation was one more gone, not one LESS. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And if the people DO kill people then add more guns until it stops happening. Got it.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
"So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys."
But you don't. You don't disarm the bad guys. You continue to make it trivially easy for them to get weapons that go way beyond personal protection.
"Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions."
Like the one where you prevent someone who's a certified nut-job buying a military grade weapon and walking down the street with it unhindered?
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Another was to prevent purchases by people on the FBI no fly list, which also has broad support.
No where in the constitution does it give the government to regulate an individual's travel between the states.
I've seen that argument before, but it doesn't hold water and I'll tell you why. The no fly list prevents you from getting on a commercial aircraft. It does not prevent you from travelling by car, rail, foot, bicycle, boat, or even a private plane. Sure, if you were looking at a $300 plane ticket and a 5 hour plane ride but now you're looking at several days in a car and many hundreds of dollars worth of gas, that is a big inconvenience. However it is not preventing you from doing it - you just have to plan a little more ahead of time.
Does that make the list perfect? No, not by a long shot. But do you know of a better law enforcement curated list of potential terrorists? You don't get on that list by going to tea party rallies or blogging about how terrible you think congress is.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We have Democrats demanding reasonable waiting periods and background checks for guns
We have Republican'ts demanding spying without probable cause
So who is attacking our "Freedoms"?
Not Democrats
It doesn't matter how much the budget is if the soliders refuse to fight their own citizens.
Thought experiment for the day: President Trump decides to start deporting Muslims. Muslim citizens arm themselves to resist the totalitarian government.
How does that one play out?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Bill of Right let's the people bear arms,
but it didn't say the right to sell arms.
So ban all public/private gun shops and private sell of guns, if they want to stay in business they have to be for the government or move to limited located with regulations. Promote tranquilizer guns /sleep gas guns to replace as a safer lighter alternative.
Note this is not a ban to stop those good or bad people from building guns, bomb, cannon, rockets in their basement or using their 1980's rifle, it only stops the $49.99 on sell gun for the go.
Also delete the existing police teams, the police system is stupid. Police shouldn't be doing everything from ticketing cars, resolve domestic issues, patrol street and shoot people, because no polices remember or follow all states and federal laws. If they do, they are called lawyers, not police. They should be separated where ticket police only care about transportation, domestic police act as middle man to stop both side from doing stupid things, and crime police only act when a thief occurred. Only then, can we trust police to help us. Otherwise, we will still need guns to protect ourselves from stupid polices that cannot stop eating donuts, meeting stupid ticket quotas, fearing for their life in emergency, punch people out in the blue and shooting brown people for free.
For counter argument that it doesn't matter the weapon the terrorists use:
Yea, it really doesn't matter.
When you compare the situation after they are armed with either guns, cannon or bomb, It.is.already.too.late. The victims or the officials at the site are only betting on luck of survival. Giving the victims a gun with a good aim may stop the terror, but not when it is organized. One fire only brings in more fires. Sleep gas or smoke bomb as emergency distraction may help the victims in the seconds of escape, but those all all betting on luck of survival.
The best way is still early detection. The bigger the source, the bigger terrorist's risk, the easier it is to track them. If illegal guns now has to be exported from the boundary, get the scanner. At least the source is the boundary line. If private bomb now need a basement lab for test, get the bomb dog. She's smell the source.
The Paris attack was too late from the start. However, if the authorities actually put the effort to track the source, it works better than spying on every single person. ($38k/yr to read 1mil spied image per day, who's going to find anything? oh and 459mil images to go) After the Paris attack, they tracked the bomb creator's room and stopped further terrorist attack. So it is a proven solution.
Note the above is only to decrease easy gun use, and forcing them to use alternative (and bigger and riskier) source for terror attack.
But for stopping terrorist, it has more to do with political, social, culture issues. Unfortunately with the 9/11 conspiracy, I doubt the FBI or the government is look for the solution.
You are right about needing "good guys with guns to stop them".
But it can be done while respecting the other sensible law about not carrying guns where drunkards abound. It has the added advantage of working in places that are gun-free zones for other reasons. How? Observe the places of frequent easy gun violence - there are 3 factors that together enable the violence :
1. Easy availability of guns and ammunition outside.
2. No guns inside.
3. No proportionate security at the border between outside and inside.
Note that any one of these factors removed, and gun violence becomes extremely difficult. Consider :
1. Schools outside the US have factors 2 and 3 listed above, yet rarely suffer from gun violence.
2. Coffee shops in gun-culture states of the US : They have factors 1 and 3, but not factor 2 so they are safe..
No mad gunman is mad enough to shoot in coffee shops in Florida. The "good guys with guns" will make mincemeat of him before the mad gunman can do much.
3. US-Canadian border : It has factors 1 and 2, but not factor 3. US-canadian border security is armed well enough to stop a mad gunman from the north US to shoot in schools in south Canada.
Now the US has the factor 1 in ample amount. So they just need a large factor 3 too - bars/schools need multi-layer security formation with occasional mock drills. This is the cost of American 2nd Amendment.
If Americans cannot afford this, they cannot afford their 2nd amendment.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I say that people who are mentally unstable should not be allowed near instruments of destruction. And that includes all groups that have a higher than average chance of going on a killing spree because they think some voice in their head thinks that's a really swell idea, or that some imaginary friend likes them so much more if they go and kill innocent people because their imaginary friend doesn't like them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Europe's going to get its try in the next few days.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The real lever you have against tyranny is protected by the first, not the second. That's why it's getting eliminated.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I support what for what reason now?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You think the army wouldn't go against its own people? Think again. You first slander whoever you wish to kill as terrorists and enemies of the state, then create a bullshit story around them for being some sort of cult (it shouldn't be hard to find something that differentiates them from "the normal people"), spin it for a few weeks and you'll have a hard time keeping them from simply executing anyone they get to surrender.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And if you get enough people together to boycott $bad_company they have to change their business practices.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the US history is a lot of guerilla warfare victories against an incredibly powerful enemy. Only the sides shift from time to time.
And there's a reason I'm not in any army anymore. The chance of me standing against them when push comes to shove is one of them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Muslims don't have to arm themselves because there will never be a case where that would be enforced. And where would you "deport" a citizen to? No country would accept being forced people of another nationality.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
... the shooter was a problem. They didn't know exact plans and timings, but they had successfully identified a potential problem.
As with so many previous incidents, the current 'spying' privileges allowed the identification of a potential problem.
What was lacking was funding to allow continued surveillance, NOT more in depth surveillance, just more surveillance. See the difference?
Is there a belief that deeper 'spying' will permit law enforcement to do more with increasingly less funding?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
So then were in the constitution does it state that the federal government can regulate which mode of transportation Also you don't know you are on their stupid list until you are turned away at the airport so at that point they really are preventing you from traveling. I can use?
As far as the list goes there have been some big fuck-ups so my faith in it being correct is about zero as the vast majority of people on it are not terrorists. I say that because if even a sizeable amount of the people on the list were terrorists the US would look a lot more like Fallujah.
Time to offend someone
From your post
"Why bother defend a right to a gun if you're not willing to use it for anything but playing with your big boy toy?"
You implied even without using the word.
Nice try kid
I'd like to think our armed forces aren't that stupid to fall for that, but indoctrination seems to be working so well with the general public.....
Being a very responsible gun owner and having two friends that are firearm instructors (one military and one civilian), I can say with certainty any well trained CC holder has "situational awareness" hammered into their head over and over. It is critically important. With that being said, in this situation at some point you have to decide: should I fire. This man shot over a hundred people. The armed guards should have stepped in and risked collateral damage.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
No, it's humorous that the 2nd amendment seems to be the only thing the NRA crowd actually care about.
There are people in my office (Ohio suburbia) that don't want any gun regulations because of the BoR but at the same time believe the Bible should be the rule of law.
My opinion is that people should only be allowed to own certain classes of guns; shotguns, single action rifles, semi-auto handguns. Everything else you could shoot only at certified gun ranges.
I grew up around guns, fwiw. It's not that I'm anti gun, I'm just anti irresponsible people who can easily get guns. Going through a token CCW class does not mean you'll be a good decision maker in a stressful situation.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Fine. Less hypothetical thought experiment: It's 1942, and Japanese-American citizens arm themselves to prevent the totalitarian government from rounding them up and putting them in internment camps.
How does that play out?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
So then were in the constitution does it state that the federal government can regulate which mode of transportation
That's a flimsy argument at best. That statement fits in with the same league as those who say the second amendment means you should be allowed to have your own personal nuclear arsenal if you can afford it. The no fly list only restricts you from using one form of transportation. The federal government says you cannot ride a horse or bicycle on the interstate highway, why are you not angry about that?
Also you don't know you are on their stupid list until you are turned away at the airport so at that point they really are preventing you from traveling.
The airlines have access to this information. They could check ticket sales against the list before selling tickets and tell buyers they are on the list, but that would impact their profits ever-so-slightly.
I can use?
I don't know. Can you? I'm not sure what this thing might be that you are asking me if you can use.
As far as the list goes there have been some big fuck-ups
It's not perfect. If you read my previous comment you would see I already admitted that. You don't seem to want to acknowledge a possibility of us agreeing on something here but indeed I said it is not perfect.
as the vast majority of people on it are not terrorists
That is one huge generalization, there. Do you even have the slightest idea how many people are on the list? It is essentially impossible for you to support your statement if you don't know how large the list is.
I say that because if even a sizeable amount of the people on the list were terrorists the US would look a lot more like Fallujah.
No, there are several things wrong with that statement.
One, the list includes people who are known to not be in the US. Osama bin Laden was on the list after 9/11 even though the chance of him ever flying within the US after then were essentially zero.
Two, the purpose of the list is to prevent terrorism in the US. Hence it was a curated list of both people who had committed acts of terror - here or abroad - as well as people with connections to terror. There were, of course, problems with the list but it is the best list we've had so far.
I still haven't seen you offer up a better list. If the FBI and others are watching for potential future terrorists, how do you propose for them to share that information amongst themselves? Or do you want them to just get out of the business entirely and let the chips fall where they may?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll
But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates
So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys.
The US has an incurable illness.
Erh... don't get me wrong, but in the army, you not only have ... let's say very few Nobel Prize laureates, it is also very easy to ensure that people in that club will only get to hear the news that you want them to hear if you're controlling it.
Historically armies have been the least informed and worst indoctrinated people ever. 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia, the armies were fully convinced that they're fighting a small band of rebels controlled by the west and that they are actually being welcomed by the general population.
Why do you think that wouldn't work in the "free world"? You just put a different boogeyman in ("terrorists") and discredit anything contradicting your official doctrine as terrorist propaganda from hacked accounts on Twitter and Facebook.
For reference, see Ukraine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry, I lumped you in with the "we can refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" crowd, the part that says the Army will spontaneously come over to their side and refuse to attack them despite being attacked. You seem to have a more grounded view.
Look at those Mahar guys, they were smart enough not to start shooting, but many people still supported an armed response. If they had committed any real violence there is no chance that an armed response would not have had general support.
Cheap storage VM.
Bullshit.
"Towing being necessary for my Boy Scout troop, I bought a truck."
That isn't the only reason for my truck, just one of the reasons. Where in the sentence you quote does it say there are no other reasons?
Also, the Militia was every able bodied male aged 12-60, so sure, let's restrict the second to those people, after all, that is more people than current laws allow to carry.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yeah, but on American soil, you've got your fellow Americans, not to mentions friends and family.
Plus, seeing all the promises the armed services make to get recruits, and how shitty the government treats them after they are done maiming them to make a few billionaires richer, I would hope the actual trust and belief most soldiers have to be an act and just a case of "I'm here cause I got no where to turn" and there not to be much loyalty to the government itself...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Privacy is a specifically enumerated right, just like the right to bear arms. It isn't any less or more of a right, it is the right of every single US citizen. HOWEVER, nothing in that amendment states that the external contents of a letter (the to and from addresses, etc) are protected. In this case, the FBI is asking for the ability to read the outside of all the envelopes you send through the internet to your friends (etc).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Except, that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the external contents of a piece of mail, or in this case email to and from and date.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You're delirious. A quick Google search would show you mass shootings HAVE been prevented.
And frequently by people who were not carrying a gun, but just tackled the shooter.
Yea, you know why nobody in the Pulse nightclub did that?
They weren't thinking straight.
Oh that's bad. Or, well, it is a good pun, but just a little bit too early.
I wasn't expecting FARK-style Comments...
Loyalty or considering doing something "important" means jack shit. All it takes is someone with a gun pointing at your head offering the choice to kill or be killed.
Worked like a charm for the Soviets in Stalingrad.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That all may be true, and the price you pay for that is in blood. If you think it's worth it then that's on you.
Ah! And you see, that's precisely the point!
In a free and open society that promotes and protects individual freedom, the very nature of such means that there is also the freedom that can allow the occasional bad guy or group to commit bad acts.
When I grew up guys like us in high school usually had a couple rifles and/or shotguns in a rear-window gun rack, and not unusual to also find a handgun in the glove or behind/under the seat in a locked box. Many left after school and drove directly to the range. It just was never an issue. Nobody was being shot, nobody dialing the police just because somebody had guns in their rear pickup window, guns were just another tool and basic means of defense. If you said "school shooting" to one of us back then we would think you meant something related to the school rifle or skeet teams.
The trick is to address the actual root causes of a societal/cultural problem like gun violence is, rather than abridge civil rights in an ill-conceived and doomed-to-fail shortcut to addressing only one of the many symptoms while utterly ignoring the root causes.
The difference I see in US society that stands out most glaringly to me over more than a half-century of observation is that then, people of all ethnic & cultural backgrounds in the US generally held a shared, common sense of right and wrong, a common moral framework, a concept which many people today who push 'diversity' would consider anathema to their beliefs.
A lack of a common moral framework combined with special protected and entitled classes, the breakdown of Rule of Law and equal accountability, class warfare demagoguery and racial/identity politics and hate groups, failed social programs like the 'war on drugs', 'war on poverty', the 'great society', the 'new deal', all served to divide and pit people against each other and empower government by taking power and wealth from the people and then doling it back out as they see fit.
Until actions are taken to address those problems nothing will get better and more people will suffer and die. Guns owned by law abiding people are not the problem and never have been.
You can't solve a cultural problem by technological means.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Before 9/11/2001 we didn't have this list of terrorists to watch and we all saw what we ended up with. What prevents another 9/11 from happening is not the lists but installing hardened locking cockpit doors and actually locking them which has been done. Also now when some barely functional terrorist (seriously I'm surprised these guys don't choke on their own tongue) tries to light his underpants on fire the passengers on the plane seem to be more than willing to try and turn him into a grease smear on the carpet.
Even in this case the Orlando shooter was known to the FBI beforehand and had been provided additional information on him before this attack. The government seems to get lost in all the noise that they are gathering so they miss things like this douche nozzle.
As far as the number of people on the list it is kind of hard to tell but it sounds like there are probably some where well over a million people on the watch list which seems to be a pretty big fucking list of people to keep an eye on. The no fly list looks like it may contain somewhere around 50,000 people with a couple of percent being Americans. Now since it is a simple name matching thing those ~1.5% on the list who are Americans will likely affect a much larger portion of Americans who happen to share a name or have a similar name, not to mention those on the list who are not American citizens.
Also it looks like getting on the list while sounding good is open to abuse from those 2 sources. So saying that there have been some fuck ups seems like an understatement as I did a bit of searching and I haven't found a case where someone was caught because of the no fly list, so I will lump it in as being as effective as the TSA is at catching terrorists, or about as effective as the jar of mayonnaise in my fridge at the same task. So please tell me again why we should deny someone their right because their name is similar to one on a list that you can be put on without any due process by the whim of some unknown bureaucrat, that has been shown in the past to have some pretty egregious errors. If you want that how about we also deny these people's right to free speech as they could go and incite other to take action.
Well considering that some nukes are single man operable devices and that the supreme court has ruled that weapons used by the military are protected by the second amendment it seem that one should be able to own a nuke. But back to the topic at hand the 9th and 10th amendments as well as other parts of the constitution make it clear that the government can only do the things laid out in the constitution. If you want to make a claim that the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate my movement or how I can transport my self around the country they you are welcome to do so but keep in mind what that allows and as that is a very slippery slope as has been shown in court case after court case since the Wickard v. Filburn case. I mean we had to pass the 18th amendment to ban alcohol but now it is done all the time with other drugs by regular federal law, or even being on a FDA list.
Time to offend someone
Why would gun control be about controlling people? It's not like owning a firearm will help you if you've got a problem with the authorities. It may help you with other problems, but the government has enough people with guns that you're going to be taken down no matter what.
Do you have any actual evidence that liberals as a whole want to ban guns entirely? Some do, but your reasoning seems to be that they're doing what your paranoid fantasies say they'll start with.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The more good guys with guns you throw into the mix, the more likely they'll be shooting each other and innocents. Gun owners in the US are not required to go through tactical training so they can work together well in a situation like that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You are my enemy.
Given how law enforcement is equipped and operates today, this does not matter however there are exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act including drugs, riots, and national disasters which conceivably swallow the law. The drug exception allowed the military to be used during the initial Koresh raid and the military had no problems helping with the confiscation of firearms during Katrina.
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando? Or any other mass shooting?
By definition a civilian with a firearm will never stop a mass shooting because if they did, then there was not a mass shooting and if they did not, then they failed to shop a mass shooting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
It would have been declared unconstitutional so fast, it wouldn't even be funny. Mind you, the fact that a bill is clearly unconstitutional on it's face has never really stopped a fair number of Congresscritters (or state legislators) from trying to pass bills.
I am not so sanguine about that. Heller was a 5 to 4 decision and Scalia is dead.
Gun owners wised up years ago - when they see a liberal saying there needs to be a compromise what they see and hear is a liar who will make absolutely no compromise on his end, while demanding compromise on the other.
Gun Control Compromise Cake
Sure, let's do everything except what will actually help, which is to restrict assault rifles.
I am sure they will keep their victim disarmament zones and maybe add a few more. Does inaction to repeal a law which may have made things worse count?
Bear arms? Pfft. In Russia, you have right to whole bear.
In U.S., we have the right to arm the bears! 8-)
Actually, that was a case where the military, itself, was divided, as was the rest of the country. It would have been a very different fight if the whole military had sided with the Union and the Confederacy had to put together militias with civilian owned weapons.
Actually, they just about did. The Confederate forces that routed the federals, in the initial battles, were civilian trained and equiped militia. And so were many of the federal units, but their training was more flashy and less practical.
All over the country, militia units had their own uniforms and military kit. The units were treated as social gathering areas, just like many volunteer rescue units are, in rural areas today. And their training is very professional.
That is true here in the US as well. There are a whole lot of police and not that many actually are involved in shootings.
This is true. A policeman's job is mostly psychology and knowing all the laws. Firearms are not what they do, day to day.
Contrary to popular opinion, the civilian gun enthusiests are often better trained, on firearms, than the police or miitary, because they train and compete for fun.
... If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.
That's reality, in every place that people live. Most crowds that you see anywhere, have several people carrying loaded guns. It's just that some people can pretend that they don't know that. Suit yourself, but don't be hitting me.
... Specifically, the AR-15 should certainly be banned because it's capable of firing dozens of rounds per minute.
So does a bomb or IED, but laws against them didn't seem to make much difference.
You are still not saying what you mean.. But hey, at this point you either don't really know what you mean and don't want to risk being called out or are just being abrasive on purpose.
I think it is the latter...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Where I don't disagree, I do think that you leave out one more factor...
IF you have a gun free zone, you need to provide both physical protection that keeps guns out as well as some kind of protection should your physical layer fail to keep all guns out and someone starts shooting up the place. You need well trained, armed guards ON SITE and emergency plans that include isolating the shooter from their intended victims as quickly as possible and meeting their force with overwhelming force to subdue them (or eliminate them) as necessary. This means office doors that lock, interior doors that won't let you in, even with the proper credentials and a building design that allows for multiple means of escape/refuge for potential victims and an effective way to communicate what to do to those in danger.
In short, if you run an establishment that is a gun free zone, either by your choice (by prohibiting firearms) or legally mandated, the owners are legally responsible for security and liable when the security fails and somebody gets hurt.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How is it "trivially easy" for bad guys to get guns? We already do background checks and heavily regulate how guns can be bought and sold. What more do you want?
We have that pesky 2nd amendment thingy that says we have to allow people to have and carry guns. You got to allow folks to buy guns. We also have a legal principle that says the government cannot abridge rights without cause, reasonable provable cause. So unless you can prove somebody is "bad" you cannot abridge their right to buy, own, and carry guns..
So... I ask you, how do you propose we keep the bad guys away from guns? We already do background checks and don't allow a whole host of folks to buy weapons.... What more do you think we can do that 1. Doesn't infringe on constitutional rights and 2. keeps even *some* bad guys from getting guns? What you got?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
ON SITE
If by "on site" you mean at the border between inside and outside : that is what I meant by the factor 3.
If you mean "within" : do you have examples where adequate border security frequently couldn't prevent massacres within ? Maybe American guns carried into Canada to cause massacres in Canada , taking Canada as a kind of gun-free zone? Or outside guns used inside "gun free zones" in airports in the US?
Occasionally flaws in border security will be found, but that is no reason to change the way of life if we can learn from it and prevent it from happening in the future. If it happens frequently, we need to deal with it.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
You still allow someone to own a machine gun for "personal protection". There's a problem there I think.
You have that pesky 2nd "alteration" to your constitution. That you could just alter. Hmm yes I see that's quite an intractable problem.
You don't do background checks at gunshows. FFS how is that even a thing that you do? But yeah maybe close that loophole?
There's 300,000,000 guns in your country. If there were 299,999,999 then 50 healthy happy people would still be alive, and you could still stop King George from taking your farms. In fact there would still be 50 people who could help you turn back the redcoats.
Need I go on?
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
This is exactly what I mean. I don't know what you want to hear, and frankly, I don't care, but I hope I may still decide for myself whether I am saying what I mean, thank you very much.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You still allow someone to own a machine gun for "personal protection". There's a problem there I think.
You cannot seriously be that dense.. Machine guns have been strictly controlled and licensed in this country since the 1930's and I don't hear anybody of note calling for the repeal of that, including the NRA. Certainly I'm NOT asking for the repeal of that ban as it makes perfect sense to tightly control machine guns. We are talking about "Assault Weapons" which are NOT machine guns but a definition usually associated with a now defunct law which defined the term, mostly based on the appearance of the weapon and not it's function. The AR-15 is such a weapon, if you buy it with certain options it is classified as an assault weapon (Say a folding stock with a pistol grip and a barrel threaded for a silencer) but you can take the same exact mechanical parts, with a hunting stock and standard barrel and it's NOT an assault weapon, even though it's performance has not changed one bit.
But either you don't know anything about guns and are parroting the media's party lines on this issue, or you are not being honest about exactly what all this means. I find that it's usually the former. The world is filled with people who think appearance is everything and if you paint something in camo it somehow makes it a military item. Don't just be a sheep in the flock, take the time to learn something.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Otherwise, people that think like you could clean up Chicago already. Those guns are already illegal. Go and take them. The rest of us would love to see you try.
The way to solve it is to allow law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms. The problem will be self-correcting, as criminals are cowards that prefer their victims helpless and unarmed, which is why crime & violence in Chitcago, with its' extremely restrictive gun laws, is so much higher than elsewhere.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Machine Gun: Noun: an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
But hey, if calling that an assault rifle and trying to draw attention to slight differences in whether or not it has a fucking sniper scope or laser sights or tracer rounds or whatever helps you sleep at night, then good for you.
(Where I presume you have one under your pillow although you most likely pull it out to look at while you masturbate.)
Please, die in a shootout soon so the rest of your country can move forward.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.