Yes, that's why the footage in question shows the citizen protestors protesting, and then the sound of a car accelerating and injured people screaming. And the overhead shot which shows the car stationary from outside the crowd and driving into it.
I recently saw some footage of a high ranking Nazi carrying a gun (and talking about using his gun) pre the incident in Charlotte where a Nazi attempted to mow down a group of citizens with his car. And then, post the incident, the same Nazi describing the murder as a victory.
Can't speak in detail to the German example, it seems the German Nazis were fond of guns, they sure made and used a lot of them, and the modern day Nazis seem to be pretty keen on them as well.
The whole 'guns are essential to our liberties' is a bit of a false flag operation. If guns made a real difference, they would already have done so. Instead, people fools themselves into thinking that tyranny could never happen 'because guns' and thus the tyrant sneaks in while the populace sleeps.
Although half of them would be on the side of tyranny. So the two side would effectively cancel each other out - or one side would win by mass slaughter, and install/re-install a tyrant who was hated by the other.
Which, I suppose, is why actual liberties are more important that pretend ones.
Lot's of people lost in the election, including the GOP. They can't all be made whole by electing Hillary.
The fastest path back to the rule of law would be for the GOP to either support impeachment, or failing that, to not nominate Trump as their candidate. They had serious doubts before, and those doubts have been confirmed several times over by now, not the least by Trump's traitorous blaming of Russian aggression on the United States.
Trump needs to to go to jail for the prestige and reputation of the country to be restored and there seems to be no reason to delay.
The people buying the oil will pay also, without a doubt. But that doesn't make them liable for the deception that has been attempted here.
We could have begun dealing with climate change 20 year ago. Had we done so, not only would we be mostly done by now, the bill would have been a fraction of what it is now, owing to the extra CO2 that has been injected into the atmosphere and must now be accounted for.
The reason we didn't start this process 20 years ago is because of these controlling minds, and also because of their numerous denying minions who did their bidding. Both fully aware all along that climate change is real and that climate change will inevitably wreak havoc on the world economy. These people should pay the cost of their deception. And to be clear by "these people" I don't just mean the oil companies, but also the denialist mouthpieces, if you knowingly spread lies and cause others suffering, then you ought to pay.
So, definitely the ones funded by gas, oil and coal companies and/or their PR goons,
But probably not the ones who had their funding threatened because they defied the narrative of the government and the coal, gas and oil companies that own those governments, nor the ones who carried on speaking the truth after the lives and lives of their families were threatened by denialist thugs.
Yep, people are pretty angry. Including Trump himself, given he didn't want to be president in the first place, and his party didn't want him to be president, even the members of his campaign wanted him to lose. The guy just wants out, but can't find a dignified way to do it that protects his ego.
People were angry at the time, too, because Comey opening an investigation days before the election and then closing it again ("oooops sorry, my bad, haha") cost the election and hand the presidency, once held by Washington and later by Lincoln, to Trump, a dangerous, stupid, egotistical, narcissistic buffoon.
A closer read of the article reveals that the idea (and it is still an idea) was conceived by an entrepreneur who, you guessed it, has a financial sake in getting that particular coal plant restarted.
Coal power in Australia is not competitive, for the reasons you state: a trade deal with China makes panels cheap, and unused land is cheap and there is sunlight going free. Even this plan is part of broader plan to transition to solar on site at the coal plant.
In Australia we are treated to the curious sight of having right wing 'economic dry' conservatives attempting to socialize the production of power to build coal plants because private industry - to whom they sold the plants, won't build more and keep shuttering old ones.
You disappoint me. You began by arguing well, using a reasoned argument. Don't fall into the ideological trap of using insults, micro specificity, and shouting "You're wrong!" "Your'e wrong!"
Actually you said "gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty".
That's true, I did say that, but in the conversation you replied to, I said: In the United States, however, a large proportion of the population think that owning a gun will magically prevent tyranny. That is frankly absurd. Might as well swap that gun for a statue of Ba'al carved from a bar of soap, and then pray to it to prevent tyranny. .
Your reply does not address this point, instead drew on other instances where liberty and gun ownership might intersect. Hence my assumption that you agree that this oft quoted trope is a fantasy.
Self defense is exercising liberty so you are mistaken
Those two statements don't belong together. And your view is one dimensional. There is nothing wrong with reasonable self defence. But if one citizen shoots another then the net result is a loss of liberty, since a dead person cannot exercise any liberty. For this reason a true libertarian will always seek to minimise instances where that scenarios can arise. Logically then, the presence of guns in such a scenario is a negative to the overall exercise of liberty.
There is no right to riot.
Well, there is. People in France (arguably the ideological home of the liberty) riot all the time. In the US, it is (arguably) protected under the First and Second amendments, which drew on similar enlightenment principles. You just meekly gave up more essential liberties in exchange for baubles.
. In the 1990 LA riots Korean shopkeepers were specifically targeted for violence by some rioters.
If they broke the law, then punish them according to the law. Right to fair trial is an essential liberty. And so is the right to protest. Just because they are racist arseholes doesn't mean they don't have rights. Does this sound at all familiar to you?
The arson that accompanies some riots can also endanger lives.
Also, shooting someone endangers their life. So that didn't work. Say, maybe you could, I dunno, punish them according to the law. because maybe the right to fair trial is an essential liberty?
The entire purpose of the TPP is to enshrine America's draconian copyright term lengths in international treaty so it can never be repealed ever. It's the Berne convention but three times worse.
Well, yes, that's how the US makes money out of the deal.
The TPP was and still is bad. Everyone was against it but Hillary Clinton. She claimed to be against it. She also sang its praises only months earlier. Everyone knew what would happen if she was elected. It would pass, rubber stamp. If Trump has done anything right at all during his presidency, it was killing TPP.
Well, the entire point of the original (US instigated) TPP was to benefit the US, a sort of last hurrah of US global dominance, eking as much warmth out of cowering in the carcass of that dead cow before the new cold set in. It stinks, sure. But is the stink really worse than the deadly cold?
As for Hillary, should she have denounced the TPP, pulled out of it, and then returned to it later when every possible good the US could eke out of it has been stripped from it, as Trump as done? Nobody is going to respect your IP now.
The US can't win against China, but they can choose how much to lose. That was what (the original) TPP was about, accepting a small loss over a big one. The legacy of the US century is that that the US owns a substantive amount of IP - that is what the US sought to protect via the TPP. They made concessions on labour because they are going to lose that battle anyway. Pick the battles you can win. Without the TPP, Asian labour is still cheaper, and they still outcompete the US on every export market. IP is money for nothing. And Trump threw it away.
if he took a salary, hew would be admitting that he is employed (by the people of the United States) to do a job. That implies some sort of obligation, and the idea of being obliged is inimicable to him. He sees himself as having 'done a deal' with the people of the united states, and that deal does not include him being personally obliged to act on their behalf. He agreed to do certain things, they agreed to vote for him, that's the deal. He didn't make mention of the other things, such as using the presidency to his own fiduciary benefit and enrich himself and his family, how is that YOUR business?
So you accept the argument that guns are useless for defending against tyranny, which is what I actually said.
You ignore the right to self defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as a right derived from the second amendment. Self defense being a historic militia activity as well, so the spirit of the original militia persists into modernity in that sense. Actually it exists in rare other senses as well, suppressing a riot for example, witness the armed business owners of the 1990s LA riots. Only the militia in the sense of military conflict is obsolete.
In many countries, people are fined and pay compensation to shop owners if they break or damage property. This especially applies to countries based on Common Law, because people should be allowed to make mistakes and not be summarily executed without trial. People possess fundamental rights, shop windows do not. Common Law means that humans, no matter how lowly they are perceived to be by society, can't be summarily executed for crimes that the government (or agent of the government) accuses them of.
So, taking your example, i.e. the circumstances being that citizens are rioting as an expression of grievance against the government and what they (the citizens) judge to be a break down in the rule of law. They are exercising their second amendment rights to rebel against tyranny. So straight away, the right of a shop owner to exercise his/her right to protect their windows and goods has to be weighed against the rights of the rioting citizens to be treated fairly under the law, their right to a fair trial, and that the punishment for crime fit the seriousness of the crime, and that in America, they have a right to exercise violence against the government, and it's agents, to protect against tyranny.
I'm not arguing about it's utility at the time it was drafted. It might have served it's intended purpose for a while, it might not have. The fact is, in modern times, the 'right' to own a gun is no more essential to liberty than the 'right' to own toothpaste or pseudoephedrine. Consider the following:
1. If I live in a democratic country and we decide (jointly) to restrict access to guns, and then later there is a problem and the government must be overthrown, does the fact there is a law saying "you can't own guns" pose some sort of problem? Of course not - once the rule of law has been set aside, then that law has no meaning or power.
2. In the United States, however, a large proportion of the population think that owning a gun will magically prevent tyranny. That is frankly absurd. Might as well swap that gun for a statue of Ba'al carved from a bar of soap, and then pray to it to prevent tyranny. The president recently signed a law making it illegal for prostitutes to advertise services. He also visits prostitutes and pays for sex. What is legal and permissible for some, is illegal for others. The rule of law has no meaning. Yet everything is okay, because you own a gun?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's why the footage in question shows the citizen protestors protesting, and then the sound of a car accelerating and injured people screaming. And the overhead shot which shows the car stationary from outside the crowd and driving into it.
In the meantime I'll repeat: If guns upheld your (the US) liberties, then you wouldn't be under the present tyranny.
What, are all of Slashdot going to schlep up to the lunar surface? Have we been selected by some secret process?
Don't get me wrong, if you are offering a ticket, I'd be happy to squeeze it in to my busy schedule.
But if not, why would some NASA employees going to the moon (and good luck to them) be the same as going ourselves?
I recently saw some footage of a high ranking Nazi carrying a gun (and talking about using his gun) pre the incident in Charlotte where a Nazi attempted to mow down a group of citizens with his car. And then, post the incident, the same Nazi describing the murder as a victory.
Can't speak in detail to the German example, it seems the German Nazis were fond of guns, they sure made and used a lot of them, and the modern day Nazis seem to be pretty keen on them as well.
That's a good point.
The whole 'guns are essential to our liberties' is a bit of a false flag operation. If guns made a real difference, they would already have done so. Instead, people fools themselves into thinking that tyranny could never happen 'because guns' and thus the tyrant sneaks in while the populace sleeps.
Which, I suppose, is why actual liberties are more important that pretend ones.
The fastest path back to the rule of law would be for the GOP to either support impeachment, or failing that, to not nominate Trump as their candidate. They had serious doubts before, and those doubts have been confirmed several times over by now, not the least by Trump's traitorous blaming of Russian aggression on the United States.
Trump needs to to go to jail for the prestige and reputation of the country to be restored and there seems to be no reason to delay.
We could have begun dealing with climate change 20 year ago. Had we done so, not only would we be mostly done by now, the bill would have been a fraction of what it is now, owing to the extra CO2 that has been injected into the atmosphere and must now be accounted for.
The reason we didn't start this process 20 years ago is because of these controlling minds, and also because of their numerous denying minions who did their bidding. Both fully aware all along that climate change is real and that climate change will inevitably wreak havoc on the world economy. These people should pay the cost of their deception. And to be clear by "these people" I don't just mean the oil companies, but also the denialist mouthpieces, if you knowingly spread lies and cause others suffering, then you ought to pay.
The Second Amendment is there to defend the First.
Really?
Any idea why it didn't work?
But probably not the ones who had their funding threatened because they defied the narrative of the government and the coal, gas and oil companies that own those governments, nor the ones who carried on speaking the truth after the lives and lives of their families were threatened by denialist thugs.
Which "climate scientists" do you mean? The ones funded by gas, oil and coal companies and/or their PR goons?
People were angry at the time, too, because Comey opening an investigation days before the election and then closing it again ("oooops sorry, my bad, haha") cost the election and hand the presidency, once held by Washington and later by Lincoln, to Trump, a dangerous, stupid, egotistical, narcissistic buffoon.
If anybody wants to watch 7:13 ET is apparently 23:13 (UTC) so adjust for your own time zone... aaand you've missed it.
A closer read of the article reveals that the idea (and it is still an idea) was conceived by an entrepreneur who, you guessed it, has a financial sake in getting that particular coal plant restarted.
Coal power in Australia is not competitive, for the reasons you state: a trade deal with China makes panels cheap, and unused land is cheap and there is sunlight going free. Even this plan is part of broader plan to transition to solar on site at the coal plant.
In Australia we are treated to the curious sight of having right wing 'economic dry' conservatives attempting to socialize the production of power to build coal plants because private industry - to whom they sold the plants, won't build more and keep shuttering old ones.
So no? It's not falsifiable?
Actually you said "gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty".
That's true, I did say that, but in the conversation you replied to, I said: In the United States, however, a large proportion of the population think that owning a gun will magically prevent tyranny. That is frankly absurd. Might as well swap that gun for a statue of Ba'al carved from a bar of soap, and then pray to it to prevent tyranny. .
Your reply does not address this point, instead drew on other instances where liberty and gun ownership might intersect. Hence my assumption that you agree that this oft quoted trope is a fantasy.
Self defense is exercising liberty so you are mistaken
Those two statements don't belong together. And your view is one dimensional. There is nothing wrong with reasonable self defence. But if one citizen shoots another then the net result is a loss of liberty, since a dead person cannot exercise any liberty. For this reason a true libertarian will always seek to minimise instances where that scenarios can arise. Logically then, the presence of guns in such a scenario is a negative to the overall exercise of liberty.
There is no right to riot.
Well, there is. People in France (arguably the ideological home of the liberty) riot all the time. In the US, it is (arguably) protected under the First and Second amendments, which drew on similar enlightenment principles. You just meekly gave up more essential liberties in exchange for baubles.
. In the 1990 LA riots Korean shopkeepers were specifically targeted for violence by some rioters.
If they broke the law, then punish them according to the law. Right to fair trial is an essential liberty. And so is the right to protest. Just because they are racist arseholes doesn't mean they don't have rights. Does this sound at all familiar to you?
The arson that accompanies some riots can also endanger lives.
Also, shooting someone endangers their life. So that didn't work. Say, maybe you could, I dunno, punish them according to the law. because maybe the right to fair trial is an essential liberty?
What is this falsification?
Or by referencing the above, are you saying your theory is unscientific?
The entire purpose of the TPP is to enshrine America's draconian copyright term lengths in international treaty so it can never be repealed ever. It's the Berne convention but three times worse.
Well, yes, that's how the US makes money out of the deal.
The TPP was and still is bad. Everyone was against it but Hillary Clinton. She claimed to be against it. She also sang its praises only months earlier. Everyone knew what would happen if she was elected. It would pass, rubber stamp. If Trump has done anything right at all during his presidency, it was killing TPP.
Well, the entire point of the original (US instigated) TPP was to benefit the US, a sort of last hurrah of US global dominance, eking as much warmth out of cowering in the carcass of that dead cow before the new cold set in. It stinks, sure. But is the stink really worse than the deadly cold?
As for Hillary, should she have denounced the TPP, pulled out of it, and then returned to it later when every possible good the US could eke out of it has been stripped from it, as Trump as done? Nobody is going to respect your IP now.
The US can't win against China, but they can choose how much to lose. That was what (the original) TPP was about, accepting a small loss over a big one. The legacy of the US century is that that the US owns a substantive amount of IP - that is what the US sought to protect via the TPP. They made concessions on labour because they are going to lose that battle anyway. Pick the battles you can win. Without the TPP, Asian labour is still cheaper, and they still outcompete the US on every export market. IP is money for nothing. And Trump threw it away.
if he took a salary, hew would be admitting that he is employed (by the people of the United States) to do a job. That implies some sort of obligation, and the idea of being obliged is inimicable to him. He sees himself as having 'done a deal' with the people of the united states, and that deal does not include him being personally obliged to act on their behalf. He agreed to do certain things, they agreed to vote for him, that's the deal. He didn't make mention of the other things, such as using the presidency to his own fiduciary benefit and enrich himself and his family, how is that YOUR business?
You read the sig incorrectly.
You don;t live under tyranny. So you are a part of the tyranny?
WRONG
You ignore the right to self defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as a right derived from the second amendment. Self defense being a historic militia activity as well, so the spirit of the original militia persists into modernity in that sense. Actually it exists in rare other senses as well, suppressing a riot for example, witness the armed business owners of the 1990s LA riots. Only the militia in the sense of military conflict is obsolete.
In many countries, people are fined and pay compensation to shop owners if they break or damage property. This especially applies to countries based on Common Law, because people should be allowed to make mistakes and not be summarily executed without trial. People possess fundamental rights, shop windows do not. Common Law means that humans, no matter how lowly they are perceived to be by society, can't be summarily executed for crimes that the government (or agent of the government) accuses them of.
So, taking your example, i.e. the circumstances being that citizens are rioting as an expression of grievance against the government and what they (the citizens) judge to be a break down in the rule of law. They are exercising their second amendment rights to rebel against tyranny. So straight away, the right of a shop owner to exercise his/her right to protect their windows and goods has to be weighed against the rights of the rioting citizens to be treated fairly under the law, their right to a fair trial, and that the punishment for crime fit the seriousness of the crime, and that in America, they have a right to exercise violence against the government, and it's agents, to protect against tyranny.
Can you prove your theory?
no answer provided
You can't provide any proof?
1. If I live in a democratic country and we decide (jointly) to restrict access to guns, and then later there is a problem and the government must be overthrown, does the fact there is a law saying "you can't own guns" pose some sort of problem? Of course not - once the rule of law has been set aside, then that law has no meaning or power.
2. In the United States, however, a large proportion of the population think that owning a gun will magically prevent tyranny. That is frankly absurd. Might as well swap that gun for a statue of Ba'al carved from a bar of soap, and then pray to it to prevent tyranny. The president recently signed a law making it illegal for prostitutes to advertise services. He also visits prostitutes and pays for sex. What is legal and permissible for some, is illegal for others. The rule of law has no meaning. Yet everything is okay, because you own a gun?