Exactly. Under the constitution, the FCC can't even exist.
The reason the FCC can regulate whether we see boobs on TV or not is because this country no longer respects the constitution -- and the first ammendment in that example.
They can't regulate legally. but they can illegally, and probably will.
As long as liberals and republicans see the government as the answer to whatever cheeses them off, they will both be selling human rights down the river.
And yes, seeing a boob on TV is a fundamental, god given human right.
You have self ownership (The most basic human right) which means you can have freedom of association, which means you can do business with people who put boobs on TV if you choose.
Ban boobs, and you are saying everyone is a slave to the government (in principle, even if total slavery-- where they take the OTHER %50 of our income in taxes-- hasn't yet been achieved.)
If we didn't have the safety regulations we have on cars today, CARS WOULD BE SAFER THAN THEY ARE NOW!
Without these standards, anyone who died in a car crash which could have been cheaply prevented would sue, and hte car companies would quickly make their cars as safe as possible.
Now, thanks to the government, they just have to comply with the crappy government standards, and get out of the suit-- because to provide a safer car would have been illegal (cause the standards are woefully out of date and pointless to begin with, yet prevent safer cars.)
All regulation does more harm than any possible good that can come from it. This is a law of physics-- you regulate soemthing from a central location (like congress) and you will never have enough bandwidth to keep your regulations up to date. Information theory mandates that all regulations from the government will do more damage than they can good.
Yawn, another socialist who thinks without socialism, the free market would never develop the quality of service we have now.
OF course, and in fact, without regulation, we'd be able to simply pick up the phone and ask for the person we want to connect to.
10 digit dialing is not some kind of brilliant innovation that only the government can deliver.
GOVERNMENT, all government, is a DISEASE masquarading as its own cure. It holds the communications industry back for 10 years and then pretends to have given us the "progress" of 10 digit dialing.
With the internet, all these companies work together to carry packets for each others customers. IT would have happened the same way with the phones... only you'd be paying a hell of a lot less.
And, lets not forget, about %90 of what you pay in your phone bill are TAXES. %50 of the listed cost, and then another %40 hidden in the cost the phone company charges you.
So, in summary, we are paying thru the nose for technology that's about 40 years out of date.
A Libertartian agress with libertarians-- the FCC needs to be dissolved, along with dozens of other illegal agencies.
As to private corporate interests being responsible for the crap on TV, that's absurd. IF there was a free market, TV competition would be more about quality in art, not about getting what attention you can with the FCC mandated victorian programming that is allowed.
The FCC has NO AUTHORITY at all. ALL of the exercises of authority that they do are illegal as their existance violates the constitution.
The idea that the FCC doesn't want to regulate VOIP is ABSURD.
They will require backdoors and keys to encrypted VOIP communications to "protect us from terrorists".
By the way-- any rule that the FCC creates is ILLEGAL. The Congress cannot delegate its powers to the FCC, and thus their regulations (Along with their very existance) are unconstitutional.
The FCC is just as evil and anti-american as the IRS, the DEA, the FDA, and most every three letter agency in the government.
Their only purpose is control. They exercise censorship over all the media they can get their hands on, and prevent free communication in direct violation of the First ammednment.
Swear words and nudity on TV are prevented by the FCC, yet the first ammendment says they have NO RIGHT to do so.
Every employee and collaborator with the FCC is a criminal who belongs in jail.
The FCC sees its job as controlling all communications between people. ALL of them.
IT will regulate anything it can get away with, given the current weakness of the constitution.
(If the constitution was strong, the FCC wouldn't exist, as they are a violation of the constitution by definition.)
The FCCs primary job is CENSORSHIP. This is why you can't get broadcast TV (a signal broadcast and owned by a local station) over satellite (Even though the local station and the satellite provider would like to give it to you.) The FCC censors your ability to get local TV.
The FCC will also regulate and censor any wireless technology.
The FCC just like every other agency of the government has NO BENEFIT TO SOCIETY. ITs only purpose is regulation and control.
As long as liberals want to weaken the constitution to exert control over people they don't like, they will be creating agencies like the FCC who will exceed their mandate and control as much of our lives as they can get away with. Republicans are not much better.
What do men in power want? More power.
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure. The FCC creates problems, to justify its existence.
Getting around the FCC is why god invented encryption.
What are you going to do when the FCC bans encrypted voice communication without an FCC approved back door?
You say "does the woman need an AR-16 to ward off her attacker". AS if she shouldn't be allowed to have one.
I pointed out that you didn't even get the gun name right, let alone show any reason it wouldn't be approrpriate for self defense.
You insisted you did get the gun name right, and pointed to the Armalite website.
Well, if you'd bothered to read about the AR16 you'd see that the AR16 never went into production. It only existed as a prototype. Now the AR-15 is a widely known, and widely owned Rifle, and one of the PRIMARY TARGETS OF GUN GRABBERS.
You screwed the pooch and exposed your ignorance and then tried to cover it up... pretendign that the AR16 was a real gun. But since the AR16 never entered in production, it was a really stupid thing to say.
Still waiting for you to explain what the difference between an AK, or an AR-15, or any of the other "assault weapons" (A made up designation from gun grabbers) has that a run of the mill selfloading hunting rifle doesn't have.
Or are we to take from your silence that you don't know of any difference? Come on, put up, or we'll take that you've shut up as concession that you really want to ban hunting rifles as well.
Don't look to the AWB for a description of the difference-- it only bans safety features and bayonnets--- oh, bayonets! What a danger those are to society!
You're a gun grabber, and you're ignorant of the items you want to ban... and that's just sad.
You think that woman should not be able to defende herself against a larger attacker, because you would deny her any firearms.
If you have apple's X11 server installed (comes with panther, but not installed by default) the xwindows are just like regular windows and expose cleans them up and lets you pick the one you want-- along with all the other open windows. Or just among the open x windows if you choose the "pick from apps windows" version of expose.
The x integration seems pretty well done, though I haven't used it much.
No, the airport screening was federally mandated, based on federal requirements, and essentially federally run. They were private companies, but they were NOT under the control of the airlines. The airlines were forced to pay for it, yes, but they were not setting the standards.
The only difference between the airline security now and pre-9/11 is that before 9/11 the government was prevented from doing it by the constitution. After 9/11, nobody cares about the constitution anymore.
The structure you're talking about was there to allow technical complaince with the constitution, while at the same time flagrantly violating it.
Since the airline screening was a mandate by the FAA (itself a violation of the constitution) and the airlines were not allowed to set standards, to say the airlines are at fault for the boxcutters (Which are not weapons) getting thru on 9/11 is kinda silly.
Also, its worth noting that it was only a few months before 9/11 that the FAA finally approved a secure cockpit door. Prior to that, they were essentially banned by the FAA.
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure. Its masquarade is so effective that it has you and millions of other americans fooled into thinking its "fallible but trying to do the right thing"... when in reality, it wants to enslave you.
What do men in power want? More power. They are supposed to be restrained in our system from violating people's rights, but since the constitution failed in the civil war, they have been accruing more and more power to the federal government.
Sorry, I came off terse in that last reply-- I just get annoyed at the widespread perception that the airlines lack of concern for security is what lead to 9/11. Its a falsehood.
The government never takes responsibility for its screwups, and 9/11 was one hell of a government screw up.
No, the gate screeners hired before 9/11 were NOT hired by the airlines. They were hired by the FCC. That was a highly regulated industry-- not an example of what airlines want for security.
Losing one plane to a hijacking could wipe out a decades worth of profits for the airlines. They are a high capitalization, low margine business. They want security because without it they have no profits.
More security == higher profits, and they know it. That's why they maintain their planes well-- they loose one and they face bankruptcy, unless they have a lot of reserves.
You never get real security from the government-- you always get the gestapo. Look at the fact that it was easy for some college kid to violate this security, and peopel are constantly being harassed by the TSA. ITs a joke, and its become even more of a joke since they completely federalized it.
They're pulling out of the market because of government regulation, more than it not being a profitable market, I believe.
Even if there isn't insurance around, that doesn't justify the morality of FEMA. Initiation of force is always wrong, right? But you cannot collect taxes without initiating it.
Yeah, the broken window theory is applicable to the great depression-- the taxes raised to create those makework jobs would have created thousands of long lasting permanent jobs if they hadn't been redirected.
Privately managed forests do not get caught on fire-- what lumber company wants to loose their assets. They manage them well, and they have been doing so for at least a century.
Its this "public" land that is mismanaged, mostly due to erronous environmental concerns.
I disagree. IF FEMA wasn't involved, the insurance companies would handle it. The re-insurance business is in the many trillions of dollars range. The primary insurers are backed by re-insurance, which is often negotiated at the Lloyds of London exhcange-- which has no liability limits.
Insurers know the risks, they calculate them, and they have sufficient reserves to cover tragedies.
The only situation in which insurance companies DON'T have enough reserves is when FEMA is there and that lowers their risk-- but then, FEMA is there to take up the slack, so to speak.
Furthermore, FEMA is really welfare for the uninsured. FEMA is just a subsidy that encourages people not to be insured-- why spend real money on insurance when you can get FEMA money if something bad happens? Its not total coverage, but that partial coverage encourages financial irresponsibility.
Since you recognize socialism for what it is, you probably can see that taking money from tax payers with ability, and distributing it to those with need (uninsured homeowners) only incentivizes people to have that need. And the damage done to the economy by taking that tax money undermines the industry that would provide more jobs and make it so that more people could afford insurance in the first place.
Every time you take tax money and re-allocate it, the cost in terms of taxes is far higher than the benefit to society, because that money is taken out of the place where it will grow more money, and given to an ever increasing population of people who won't invest it wisely.
The standard issue broken-window fallacy applies here. Also, its worth noticing all the reporters who say "disasters have a silver lining! The local economy will get a boom from re-building efforts!" By that logic, disaster is good and we should all destroy our houses. They are not educated enough to know that the damage done far exceeds the boost to the economy from re-building.
So, you think the passengers who storm the cockpit to prevent the next hijacking (say, by hijackers with sneaked on weapons) should be unarmed?
Even if only a few were armed, 9/11 could have been prevented.
And if the policy had stayed the way it was in the 1960s, before the government got involved-- the hijackers would have never even attempted 9/11. - cause one passenger with a gun would have made the plan too risky, even if all the hijackers had them as well.
9/11 is a direct result of the governments meddling in airline security.
Let the airlines do their own security, and they will insure tha their $100 million planes are not being hijacked, and that they don't have to pay out another half billion in claims after one is hijacked.
The government wants CONTROL, not security. The airlines want security.
That is why people are disarmed on planes-- not for security, but to give the government an excuse to violate every airline passengers 4th ammendment rights.
The fourth ammendment was written for a reason-- and whether you and I ever reach agreement, the current situation is an explicit violation of people's 4th ammendment rights (AS well as their second ammendment rights... but if the airlines took over security, as private corporations, they do have the right to require passengers to be disarmed.)
Without the constitution, we have tyranny. Since you are not willing to see the strategic argument, I have to fall back on the constitution. And there isn't much arguing with that.
I cannot prove that armed pilots and passengers would have prevented 9/11, because that would require rewinding history and letting it play out again to see what happens.
But it should be telling that the people who claim to have our security at heart are doing everything they can to prevent pilots-- people who more often than not have military training-- from having guns. And any pilot who wanted to could kill everyone aboard easily. When they won't let the pilots have guns, its obvious security is not their priority.
With gun control, what is a woman to do if she's about to be raped and there's nobody nearby to help her?
Gun control is the idea that she should be raped and does NOT have the RIGHT to defend herself against a much larger and stronger man.
That's what it means to be in favor of gun control.
There is no alternative to her defending herself-- there is nobody to protect her in society-- the police only investigate crimes after the fact, which does nothing for her if her raper decides to kill her.
You are the idiot. That he took a position you can't comprehend does not undermine his credibility, just yours.
Fact of hte matter is there is a bar in every town and people can drive with guns and beer in their car as much as they want, yet we don't see the wholesale destruction you claim would happen if people could fly with guns. We don't have freeway shootouts between drunken idiots.
Secretly, this is what you fear because its what you might end up doing... we all recognize that. But the reality is, responsible people don't.
Hey, and people flew for decades with guns on planes with very few problems.
Oh, and you don't need a pilot to fly a 767. Seriously, you just program in the runway code for the runway you want to land into the autopilot and it will land itself. most pilots do it this way these days as the autopilot is quite good.
And air traffic control could talk you thru setting up the autopilot to land the plane.
Even if the terrorists had had guns, the hijackings would have been stopped... they were in the minority.
9/11 is a DIRECT result of stopping americans from flying with guns (Which, until the 70s, they did regularly.)
False. All it takes is a small percentage who have arms to make it unworkable.
There will always be more jews than SS men. If hte SS men had to worry about whether they would make it home at night when they were going out to fetch jews, they would have been far less effective....
One jewish sniper, who was dedicated, could have protected hundreds of jews.
Disarming the populace is what let it happen. IT doesn't matter that the military has more weapons-- tehy aren't going to be able to level whole cities and so the all-out-warfare oriented weapons are useless.
A tiny group of people who are armed can prevent tyranny.
A majority of Germans did NOT support the Nazis. They were a minor fringe group that managed thru violence to take over the government.
I think its comforting to americans to assume it was some defect in the germans character that allowed the nazis.
But the reality is the opposite-- it was the fact that the Weimar republic had disarmed the populace, and so the Nazis who ignored that law, had guns and were able to take over...
IT helps to think that the Germans are defective, because americans want to believe "it can't happen here" even when it already is under way.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Under the constitution, the FCC can't even exist.
The reason the FCC can regulate whether we see boobs on TV or not is because this country no longer respects the constitution -- and the first ammendment in that example.
They can't regulate legally. but they can illegally, and probably will.
As long as liberals and republicans see the government as the answer to whatever cheeses them off, they will both be selling human rights down the river.
And yes, seeing a boob on TV is a fundamental, god given human right.
You have self ownership (The most basic human right) which means you can have freedom of association, which means you can do business with people who put boobs on TV if you choose.
Ban boobs, and you are saying everyone is a slave to the government (in principle, even if total slavery-- where they take the OTHER %50 of our income in taxes-- hasn't yet been achieved.)
If we didn't have the safety regulations we have on cars today, CARS WOULD BE SAFER THAN THEY ARE NOW!
Without these standards, anyone who died in a car crash which could have been cheaply prevented would sue, and hte car companies would quickly make their cars as safe as possible.
Now, thanks to the government, they just have to comply with the crappy government standards, and get out of the suit-- because to provide a safer car would have been illegal (cause the standards are woefully out of date and pointless to begin with, yet prevent safer cars.)
All regulation does more harm than any possible good that can come from it. This is a law of physics-- you regulate soemthing from a central location (like congress) and you will never have enough bandwidth to keep your regulations up to date. Information theory mandates that all regulations from the government will do more damage than they can good.
Communism is an extreme proof of this situation.
Yawn, another socialist who thinks without socialism, the free market would never develop the quality of service we have now.
OF course, and in fact, without regulation, we'd be able to simply pick up the phone and ask for the person we want to connect to.
10 digit dialing is not some kind of brilliant innovation that only the government can deliver.
GOVERNMENT, all government, is a DISEASE masquarading as its own cure. It holds the communications industry back for 10 years and then pretends to have given us the "progress" of 10 digit dialing.
With the internet, all these companies work together to carry packets for each others customers. IT would have happened the same way with the phones... only you'd be paying a hell of a lot less.
And, lets not forget, about %90 of what you pay in your phone bill are TAXES. %50 of the listed cost, and then another %40 hidden in the cost the phone company charges you.
So, in summary, we are paying thru the nose for technology that's about 40 years out of date.
Gotta love that government!
A Libertartian agress with libertarians-- the FCC needs to be dissolved, along with dozens of other illegal agencies.
As to private corporate interests being responsible for the crap on TV, that's absurd. IF there was a free market, TV competition would be more about quality in art, not about getting what attention you can with the FCC mandated victorian programming that is allowed.
The FCC has NO AUTHORITY at all. ALL of the exercises of authority that they do are illegal as their existance violates the constitution.
The idea that the FCC doesn't want to regulate VOIP is ABSURD.
They will require backdoors and keys to encrypted VOIP communications to "protect us from terrorists".
By the way-- any rule that the FCC creates is ILLEGAL. The Congress cannot delegate its powers to the FCC, and thus their regulations (Along with their very existance) are unconstitutional.
The FCC is just as evil and anti-american as the IRS, the DEA, the FDA, and most every three letter agency in the government.
Their only purpose is control. They exercise censorship over all the media they can get their hands on, and prevent free communication in direct violation of the First ammednment.
Swear words and nudity on TV are prevented by the FCC, yet the first ammendment says they have NO RIGHT to do so.
Every employee and collaborator with the FCC is a criminal who belongs in jail.
The FCC sees its job as controlling all communications between people. ALL of them.
IT will regulate anything it can get away with, given the current weakness of the constitution.
(If the constitution was strong, the FCC wouldn't exist, as they are a violation of the constitution by definition.)
The FCCs primary job is CENSORSHIP. This is why you can't get broadcast TV (a signal broadcast and owned by a local station) over satellite (Even though the local station and the satellite provider would like to give it to you.) The FCC censors your ability to get local TV.
The FCC will also regulate and censor any wireless technology.
The FCC just like every other agency of the government has NO BENEFIT TO SOCIETY. ITs only purpose is regulation and control.
As long as liberals want to weaken the constitution to exert control over people they don't like, they will be creating agencies like the FCC who will exceed their mandate and control as much of our lives as they can get away with. Republicans are not much better.
What do men in power want? More power.
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure. The FCC creates problems, to justify its existence.
Getting around the FCC is why god invented encryption.
What are you going to do when the FCC bans encrypted voice communication without an FCC approved back door?
Hey, well, all you socialist liberals-- this is what you get. You give government total power and they will start legislating your rights away.
I say, if we didn't have an FCC in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem.
Let the free market decide what technologies to adopt and what ones to reject.
But no, "for our own good" you guys say, we need and FCC to decide WHAT WE GET TO WATCH, and what we get to record.
Funny, I bet all you liberals think your against censorship-- but what does the FCC Do? Censorship. That's their primary purpose.
You say "does the woman need an AR-16 to ward off her attacker". AS if she shouldn't be allowed to have one.
I pointed out that you didn't even get the gun name right, let alone show any reason it wouldn't be approrpriate for self defense.
You insisted you did get the gun name right, and pointed to the Armalite website.
Well, if you'd bothered to read about the AR16 you'd see that the AR16 never went into production. It only existed as a prototype. Now the AR-15 is a widely known, and widely owned Rifle, and one of the PRIMARY TARGETS OF GUN GRABBERS.
You screwed the pooch and exposed your ignorance and then tried to cover it up... pretendign that the AR16 was a real gun. But since the AR16 never entered in production, it was a really stupid thing to say.
Still waiting for you to explain what the difference between an AK, or an AR-15, or any of the other "assault weapons" (A made up designation from gun grabbers) has that a run of the mill selfloading hunting rifle doesn't have.
Or are we to take from your silence that you don't know of any difference? Come on, put up, or we'll take that you've shut up as concession that you really want to ban hunting rifles as well.
Don't look to the AWB for a description of the difference-- it only bans safety features and bayonnets--- oh, bayonets! What a danger those are to society!
You're a gun grabber, and you're ignorant of the items you want to ban... and that's just sad.
You think that woman should not be able to defende herself against a larger attacker, because you would deny her any firearms.
Its obvious.
You're talking about expose.
If you have apple's X11 server installed (comes with panther, but not installed by default) the xwindows are just like regular windows and expose cleans them up and lets you pick the one you want-- along with all the other open windows. Or just among the open x windows if you choose the "pick from apps windows" version of expose.
The x integration seems pretty well done, though I haven't used it much.
No, the airport screening was federally mandated, based on federal requirements, and essentially federally run. They were private companies, but they were NOT under the control of the airlines. The airlines were forced to pay for it, yes, but they were not setting the standards.
The only difference between the airline security now and pre-9/11 is that before 9/11 the government was prevented from doing it by the constitution. After 9/11, nobody cares about the constitution anymore.
The structure you're talking about was there to allow technical complaince with the constitution, while at the same time flagrantly violating it.
Since the airline screening was a mandate by the FAA (itself a violation of the constitution) and the airlines were not allowed to set standards, to say the airlines are at fault for the boxcutters (Which are not weapons) getting thru on 9/11 is kinda silly.
Also, its worth noting that it was only a few months before 9/11 that the FAA finally approved a secure cockpit door. Prior to that, they were essentially banned by the FAA.
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure. Its masquarade is so effective that it has you and millions of other americans fooled into thinking its "fallible but trying to do the right thing"... when in reality, it wants to enslave you.
What do men in power want? More power. They are supposed to be restrained in our system from violating people's rights, but since the constitution failed in the civil war, they have been accruing more and more power to the federal government.
"low margine" Ha! AS if they used real butter.
Sorry, I came off terse in that last reply-- I just get annoyed at the widespread perception that the airlines lack of concern for security is what lead to 9/11. Its a falsehood.
The government never takes responsibility for its screwups, and 9/11 was one hell of a government screw up.
No, the gate screeners hired before 9/11 were NOT hired by the airlines. They were hired by the FCC. That was a highly regulated industry-- not an example of what airlines want for security.
Losing one plane to a hijacking could wipe out a decades worth of profits for the airlines. They are a high capitalization, low margine business. They want security because without it they have no profits.
More security == higher profits, and they know it. That's why they maintain their planes well-- they loose one and they face bankruptcy, unless they have a lot of reserves.
You never get real security from the government-- you always get the gestapo. Look at the fact that it was easy for some college kid to violate this security, and peopel are constantly being harassed by the TSA. ITs a joke, and its become even more of a joke since they completely federalized it.
They're pulling out of the market because of government regulation, more than it not being a profitable market, I believe.
Even if there isn't insurance around, that doesn't justify the morality of FEMA. Initiation of force is always wrong, right? But you cannot collect taxes without initiating it.
Yeah, the broken window theory is applicable to the great depression-- the taxes raised to create those makework jobs would have created thousands of long lasting permanent jobs if they hadn't been redirected.
You don't even know that machine guns are already banned?
And you do want to ban hunting rifles-- there is no difference between an "assault rifle" and a hunting rifle.
So, either you explain exactly what the difference is, and why they should be banned, or you admit that you're lying and just want to ban all guns.
Furthermore, all the guns you want to ban are perfectly appropriate for self defense.
You just won't stand behind your words.
It is broke.
Privately managed forests do not get caught on fire-- what lumber company wants to loose their assets. They manage them well, and they have been doing so for at least a century.
Its this "public" land that is mismanaged, mostly due to erronous environmental concerns.
I disagree. IF FEMA wasn't involved, the insurance companies would handle it. The re-insurance business is in the many trillions of dollars range. The primary insurers are backed by re-insurance, which is often negotiated at the Lloyds of London exhcange-- which has no liability limits.
Insurers know the risks, they calculate them, and they have sufficient reserves to cover tragedies.
The only situation in which insurance companies DON'T have enough reserves is when FEMA is there and that lowers their risk-- but then, FEMA is there to take up the slack, so to speak.
Furthermore, FEMA is really welfare for the uninsured. FEMA is just a subsidy that encourages people not to be insured-- why spend real money on insurance when you can get FEMA money if something bad happens? Its not total coverage, but that partial coverage encourages financial irresponsibility.
Since you recognize socialism for what it is, you probably can see that taking money from tax payers with ability, and distributing it to those with need (uninsured homeowners) only incentivizes people to have that need. And the damage done to the economy by taking that tax money undermines the industry that would provide more jobs and make it so that more people could afford insurance in the first place.
Every time you take tax money and re-allocate it, the cost in terms of taxes is far higher than the benefit to society, because that money is taken out of the place where it will grow more money, and given to an ever increasing population of people who won't invest it wisely.
The standard issue broken-window fallacy applies here. Also, its worth noticing all the reporters who say "disasters have a silver lining! The local economy will get a boom from re-building efforts!" By that logic, disaster is good and we should all destroy our houses. They are not educated enough to know that the damage done far exceeds the boost to the economy from re-building.
So, you think the passengers who storm the cockpit to prevent the next hijacking (say, by hijackers with sneaked on weapons) should be unarmed?
Even if only a few were armed, 9/11 could have been prevented.
And if the policy had stayed the way it was in the 1960s, before the government got involved-- the hijackers would have never even attempted 9/11. - cause one passenger with a gun would have made the plan too risky, even if all the hijackers had them as well.
9/11 is a direct result of the governments meddling in airline security.
Let the airlines do their own security, and they will insure tha their $100 million planes are not being hijacked, and that they don't have to pay out another half billion in claims after one is hijacked.
The government wants CONTROL, not security. The airlines want security.
That is why people are disarmed on planes-- not for security, but to give the government an excuse to violate every airline passengers 4th ammendment rights.
The fourth ammendment was written for a reason-- and whether you and I ever reach agreement, the current situation is an explicit violation of people's 4th ammendment rights (AS well as their second ammendment rights... but if the airlines took over security, as private corporations, they do have the right to require passengers to be disarmed.)
Without the constitution, we have tyranny. Since you are not willing to see the strategic argument, I have to fall back on the constitution. And there isn't much arguing with that.
I cannot prove that armed pilots and passengers would have prevented 9/11, because that would require rewinding history and letting it play out again to see what happens.
But it should be telling that the people who claim to have our security at heart are doing everything they can to prevent pilots-- people who more often than not have military training-- from having guns. And any pilot who wanted to could kill everyone aboard easily. When they won't let the pilots have guns, its obvious security is not their priority.
By the way, "well regulated" does not mean state run. IT merely means competant.
Nothing in the phrase says it only applies to people in a state army-- in fact, the founding father opposed a state army.
And the second half of the statement is not dependant on the first, either! As others have pointed out, if it said:
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
you would be arguing that only people in STATE colleges have the right to posess books!
Because you assume the government is always good.
But if a self appointed gang had toppled the Nazis, then WWII would have been much shorter.
With the jews and german populace disarmed, the Nazis had free reign.
The reality is, the government is usually the SELF-APPOINTED GANG-- even in "democracies".
1. Everybody gets a gun.
2. A national emergency of some kind.
3. Everybody uses their gun to defend the nation.
The militia is all the people who are not part of the polcie and army who have guns and are capable of using them to defend the country.
All thats necessary to bring the militia about is to call them up-- literally to go on the radio or whatever and ask for volunteers.
With gun control, what is a woman to do if she's about to be raped and there's nobody nearby to help her?
Gun control is the idea that she should be raped and does NOT have the RIGHT to defend herself against a much larger and stronger man.
That's what it means to be in favor of gun control.
There is no alternative to her defending herself-- there is nobody to protect her in society-- the police only investigate crimes after the fact, which does nothing for her if her raper decides to kill her.
You are the idiot. That he took a position you can't comprehend does not undermine his credibility, just yours.
Fact of hte matter is there is a bar in every town and people can drive with guns and beer in their car as much as they want, yet we don't see the wholesale destruction you claim would happen if people could fly with guns. We don't have freeway shootouts between drunken idiots.
Secretly, this is what you fear because its what you might end up doing... we all recognize that. But the reality is, responsible people don't.
Hey, and people flew for decades with guns on planes with very few problems.
Sure. Any competant person could have.
Oh, and you don't need a pilot to fly a 767. Seriously, you just program in the runway code for the runway you want to land into the autopilot and it will land itself. most pilots do it this way these days as the autopilot is quite good.
And air traffic control could talk you thru setting up the autopilot to land the plane.
Even if the terrorists had had guns, the hijackings would have been stopped... they were in the minority.
9/11 is a DIRECT result of stopping americans from flying with guns (Which, until the 70s, they did regularly.)
False. All it takes is a small percentage who have arms to make it unworkable.
There will always be more jews than SS men. If hte SS men had to worry about whether they would make it home at night when they were going out to fetch jews, they would have been far less effective....
One jewish sniper, who was dedicated, could have protected hundreds of jews.
Disarming the populace is what let it happen. IT doesn't matter that the military has more weapons-- tehy aren't going to be able to level whole cities and so the all-out-warfare oriented weapons are useless.
A tiny group of people who are armed can prevent tyranny.
Hell, they defeated the british!
A majority of Germans did NOT support the Nazis. They were a minor fringe group that managed thru violence to take over the government.
I think its comforting to americans to assume it was some defect in the germans character that allowed the nazis.
But the reality is the opposite-- it was the fact that the Weimar republic had disarmed the populace, and so the Nazis who ignored that law, had guns and were able to take over...
IT helps to think that the Germans are defective, because americans want to believe "it can't happen here" even when it already is under way.