Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters. It's like a man of sartorial elegance who refuses a haircut, and, distracted by the wonder of his hair, gets stabbed in the stomach by the barber. Then he wonders why, why didn't his right to refuse a haircut protect him from fatal abdominal wounds?
The fact of the matter is, liberal numbers of personal firearms and the right to carry those firearms wherever is just window dressing. It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.
Instead, a great deal of effort is expended in protecting the right to carry a gun (window dressing) which provides people with a false sense of security, and means that the reaction to actual acts which take away liberties is muted.
You answer did not comprise "yes" or "no" with either a justification of genocide (for the first answer) or any kind explanation as to how you would avoid genocide (for the second answer).
Instead it was befuddled incoherent rambling betraying a frightening lack of knowledge of US history and then an apparent paranoid fantasy in which you were being oppressed by me. You are free to construct whatever fantasies you want for your own amusement, but if you can't answer my question, I'll have to assume yes: yes, you do support genocide (as defined under the Geneva Convention) and, in the event of an attempted secession from the United States, you would commit genocide and kill peaceful (US) loyalists who refuse to abandon their land and refuse to swear allegiance to your junta.
This being the case I do hope a drone strike cleanses the soil of you and your kind, swiftly and with totality. We won't miss you.
So you're concerned about the definition of genocide that I'm using? Genocide as defined by the Geneva Convention is fine. So I ask again: if landholders refuse to give up their land to you in order for you to form your new state, are you prepared to kill them? Are you prepared to commit genocide (as defined under the Geneva Convention)?
Sounds to me like the kind of disaster we just saw unfold in the Crimea. 30% of the population might want to secede - but the land that they want to keep is occupied mainly by other people. Will you force those people off their land? If they refuse, what next?
Genocide?
Its easy to point to all kinds of disasters and genocides throughout history -- more actually due to accession than secession.
So - is that a yes? you are prepared to commit genocide?
Look, I know you don't want people to escape people like you. You're a parasite. I got that. Just be aware that your parasitic nature entails dependence and if those upon which you depend are determined enough, they can and will simply cut you off and you will die. They don't need to attack you personally.
Interesting. So - who is it, in your sick psychotic fantasy, that I depend upon for survival? Do tell.
If that 30% was willing to accept the secession of 30% of the territory of the existing US by land value I don't see how their demand for self-determination is incompatible with notions of self-ownership as well as government by consent.
Sounds to me like the kind of disaster we just saw unfold in the Crimea. 30% of the population might want to secede - but the land that they want to keep is occupied mainly by other people. Will you force those people off their land? If they refuse, what next?
Genocide?
Indeed, I not only can, but do see how the 70% not wishing to secede would be imposing tyranny of the majority by denying such secession. They would be fair game.
Fair game eh? So - they refuse your attempt to rule by force, and your attempt to secede by taking their land fails because they refuse to accede to your demands to hand it over. So, you think you are then free to start killing them? I think you will find it is not so easy.
Hence, probably, my surprise to find that after many posts denying climate change you seem to have finally grasped that indeed, the central argument against agw is nonsensical. I'm not complaining, merely observing.
Ah, a so your criteria for tyranny includes a decrease in tyranny over existing governments.
It is what it is. If 30% of the current population of the US rose up (which is absurdly optimistic, more like 5% or less), would their aims/views be universal enough to results in less tyranny overall, comparative to the current tyranny?
1. Under the model proposed less than half of the people could actually vote, and the system heavily favoured landholders and the wealthy elite - tyranny. There were a large party of people who did not favour independence from England - they were forcibly subdued - tyranny.
2. That war was actually a conventional war, fought by armies and navies, and was in large part a skirmish in an ongoing conflict between France and England.Hardly the revolution you were looking for.
The majority of what you were taught about American history in elementary school is propaganda: lies designed to preserve the status quo. Sorry.
Fists can and often do kill. Human bodies are a lot less sturdy than what you see on TV. Knock someone out? That could kill them.
Fists rarely kill or seriously injure, it's just that the rate of fistfights is much higher than the rate of gunfights. In my country there has been a campaign of de-escalation after 2 (read it: 2) people were killed after being punched from behind ("king hit") in a single year. When a fight is brewing, the only successful outcome is de-escalation. De-escalating from the point where fists might come into play is much easier than de-escalating from the point where one person is looking to kill the other.
Also, I'd prefer a gunfight to a fistfight with someone twice my size.
And if I'm twice your size and not looking for a fight yet you irrationally decide I pose some threat to you, I'd prefer you weren't weaponized so that you aren't a threat to me.
An old lady would prefer a gunfight to a fistfight with me.
The sort of person who would punch an old lady would think nothing of drawing a weapon on her either, leaving her in a situation which has escalated from serious to deadly.
What I take from that anecdote is that there is always a far greater diversity of opinion then violent revolutionists care to give credit for. Thus, violent uprisings result in tyranny. The new power structure is established to promote the view of the revolutionaries, not the people, the former preferring to stay ignorant of the views of the masses for as long as possible.
What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion [militianews.com] toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?
When and where, the last 50 years, has war been waged successfully by citizens of a country against the military forces of that country, using only the weapons that had legally acquired under the rules of the ousted government?
When and where, the last 50 years, has war been waged successfully by citizens of a country against the military forces of that country, using only the weapons that had legally acquired under the rules of the ousted government?
Yes, I only applied the sequence of about 20 wars in recent history. What would history tell us, eh? Let's stick to fantasy re-renderings of wars from the 18th century.
What your attacker uses isn't up to you. What you use is.
Fraid not. If it's convention for people to carry a gun for defence, they will also be used offensively. If you have a gun, I'll assume you'll use it offensively as well. If you're prepared to kill someone rather than look for ways to de-escalate an argument, even at some personal risk, then I would assume you are not right in the head, and inclined to be unpredictable.
Your method disarms, and renders helpless, anyone how has no experience at personal violence.
And you method favours those who would kill rather than suffer a punch. Psychopaths, in other words.
Military personnel are less inclined to support your cause if you have a history of taking potshots at them. Want the support of the military? Don't shoot in their direction.
Just look to Libya if you want to see what happens when a poorly armed populace rises up against an oppressive military regime. The key though is numbers.
No, the key is being able to smuggle in the right equipment (like rocket launchers, machine guns and the like) when you need to. Handguns don't do squat. The libyan rebels won because (a) air support and (b) their cause was relatively popular and (c) they had access to smuggled/appropriated weapons.
If you are fighting the government using weapons then it seems blindingly obvious that the governments rules over who can own what weapon is not really a consideration. The whole idea is nonsense.
Seems quite simple. Let's say a militia decides to attack the government. Some people come down on their side, some on the side of the government. Acts of terror, shooting at the military and other violent acts will tend to sway people away from favouring the militia. Their success depends on getting enough public support. Shooting someones kid (who happens to be in the marines) is a surefire way to have them turn against you. Military personnel, public servants, even members of the government are just as american as you are - and they have more friends and allies. Sort your problems out peaceably or you will not sort them at all.
ou don't even have to win the battles to win the war, or beat your enemy to defeat him. You just have to take away his will.
You make the assumption that your will is stronger than that of the government and the people who support it. If militias are the magical bullet you claim, why hasn't the militia prevented the current tyranny. And how is tyrannical rule by militia better than oligarchy?
If I have to defend myself, I'd rather defend myself from a guy who is coming at me with fists then a guy pointing a gun at me. Saying "I'd prefer to have a gun in a fight" is actually saying "I'd prefer a gunfight to a fistfight". Fists hurt, but I'd rather lose a fistfight than win a gunfight, if this means that someone's son is dead. Who needs that on their conscience?
Speaking as an Australian, I never feel afraid of being gunned down in the street, or being accidently shot in a robbery, or having to shoot someone in self defence. These sorts of things are so rare here we don't even think about them.
The difference is like this - in the US, if you are woken be the sounds of someone in your house, you have to assume they are armed. After all, if homeowners arm themselves, then robbers have to arm themselves as well.This leaves you with the choice of cowering and hoping not to get shot, or getting out your gun and preparing yourself to live with the consequences of killing someone.
In Australia we tend to turn on the light, and the robbers run away. They generally aren't packing - who needs the grief of being caught with a gun? They don't feel compelled to kill you - you aren't a threat to them. They make free to leave, and that's it.
By AGW supporters, you mean your friendly denialists, right? After all, only members of that group claim that global warming will actually be good for our species => they are the only people who could validly be called "AGW supporters".
If anthropogenic global warming is not only real but as apocalyptic as its proponents claim,
By AGW proponent, you mean yourself, right? Denialists who argue that global warming will be good for our species (what with us all becoming russian and that) are the only people who could be accurately termed "AGW proponent".
To put it another way: the greenhouse effect, if it is actually happening, is already a form of geoengineering. It is making cold countries warm. If it's going too far, the geoengineering steps in this article are what it might take to arrive at the stable, human-based optimum we want for our long-term survival.
Perhaps. But if you AGW proponents/denialists are scared of the amount of money needed to replace aging coal fired power plants with more efficient technologies, you'll quake in your boots when you see THAT bill.
By AGW proponent, you mean yourself, right? Denialists who argue that glonbal warming will be good for our species (what with us all becoming russian and that) are the only people who could be accurately termed "AGW proponent".
We don't need consensus. There's a body a science which says it is caused by humans, and no body of evidence that says it isn't. You can play a piano and sing "Feelings" as loud and as tunelessly as you like. Nothing your feelings tell you will change reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters. It's like a man of sartorial elegance who refuses a haircut, and, distracted by the wonder of his hair, gets stabbed in the stomach by the barber. Then he wonders why, why didn't his right to refuse a haircut protect him from fatal abdominal wounds?
The fact of the matter is, liberal numbers of personal firearms and the right to carry those firearms wherever is just window dressing. It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.
Instead, a great deal of effort is expended in protecting the right to carry a gun (window dressing) which provides people with a false sense of security, and means that the reaction to actual acts which take away liberties is muted.
Instead it was befuddled incoherent rambling betraying a frightening lack of knowledge of US history and then an apparent paranoid fantasy in which you were being oppressed by me. You are free to construct whatever fantasies you want for your own amusement, but if you can't answer my question, I'll have to assume yes: yes, you do support genocide (as defined under the Geneva Convention) and, in the event of an attempted secession from the United States, you would commit genocide and kill peaceful (US) loyalists who refuse to abandon their land and refuse to swear allegiance to your junta.
This being the case I do hope a drone strike cleanses the soil of you and your kind, swiftly and with totality. We won't miss you.
So you're concerned about the definition of genocide that I'm using? Genocide as defined by the Geneva Convention is fine. So I ask again: if landholders refuse to give up their land to you in order for you to form your new state, are you prepared to kill them? Are you prepared to commit genocide (as defined under the Geneva Convention)?
So - is that a yes? you are prepared to commit genocide?
[irrelevant blather]
A simple yes or no will do.
Sounds to me like the kind of disaster we just saw unfold in the Crimea. 30% of the population might want to secede - but the land that they want to keep is occupied mainly by other people. Will you force those people off their land? If they refuse, what next?
Genocide?
Its easy to point to all kinds of disasters and genocides throughout history -- more actually due to accession than secession.
So - is that a yes? you are prepared to commit genocide?
Look, I know you don't want people to escape people like you. You're a parasite. I got that. Just be aware that your parasitic nature entails dependence and if those upon which you depend are determined enough, they can and will simply cut you off and you will die. They don't need to attack you personally.
Interesting. So - who is it, in your sick psychotic fantasy, that I depend upon for survival? Do tell.
If that 30% was willing to accept the secession of 30% of the territory of the existing US by land value I don't see how their demand for self-determination is incompatible with notions of self-ownership as well as government by consent.
Sounds to me like the kind of disaster we just saw unfold in the Crimea. 30% of the population might want to secede - but the land that they want to keep is occupied mainly by other people. Will you force those people off their land? If they refuse, what next?
Genocide?
Indeed, I not only can, but do see how the 70% not wishing to secede would be imposing tyranny of the majority by denying such secession. They would be fair game.
Fair game eh? So - they refuse your attempt to rule by force, and your attempt to secede by taking their land fails because they refuse to accede to your demands to hand it over. So, you think you are then free to start killing them? I think you will find it is not so easy.
Hence, probably, my surprise to find that after many posts denying climate change you seem to have finally grasped that indeed, the central argument against agw is nonsensical. I'm not complaining, merely observing.
Ah, a so your criteria for tyranny includes a decrease in tyranny over existing governments.
It is what it is. If 30% of the current population of the US rose up (which is absurdly optimistic, more like 5% or less), would their aims/views be universal enough to results in less tyranny overall, comparative to the current tyranny?
1. Under the model proposed less than half of the people could actually vote, and the system heavily favoured landholders and the wealthy elite - tyranny. There were a large party of people who did not favour independence from England - they were forcibly subdued - tyranny.
2. That war was actually a conventional war, fought by armies and navies, and was in large part a skirmish in an ongoing conflict between France and England.Hardly the revolution you were looking for.
The majority of what you were taught about American history in elementary school is propaganda: lies designed to preserve the status quo. Sorry.
Fists can and often do kill. Human bodies are a lot less sturdy than what you see on TV. Knock someone out? That could kill them.
Fists rarely kill or seriously injure, it's just that the rate of fistfights is much higher than the rate of gunfights. In my country there has been a campaign of de-escalation after 2 (read it: 2) people were killed after being punched from behind ("king hit") in a single year. When a fight is brewing, the only successful outcome is de-escalation. De-escalating from the point where fists might come into play is much easier than de-escalating from the point where one person is looking to kill the other.
Also, I'd prefer a gunfight to a fistfight with someone twice my size.
And if I'm twice your size and not looking for a fight yet you irrationally decide I pose some threat to you, I'd prefer you weren't weaponized so that you aren't a threat to me.
An old lady would prefer a gunfight to a fistfight with me.
The sort of person who would punch an old lady would think nothing of drawing a weapon on her either, leaving her in a situation which has escalated from serious to deadly.
What I take from that anecdote is that there is always a far greater diversity of opinion then violent revolutionists care to give credit for. Thus, violent uprisings result in tyranny. The new power structure is established to promote the view of the revolutionaries, not the people, the former preferring to stay ignorant of the views of the masses for as long as possible.
What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion [militianews.com] toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?
Then those 30% would be proposing tyranny.
When and where, the last 50 years, has war been waged successfully by citizens of a country against the military forces of that country, using only the weapons that had legally acquired under the rules of the ousted government?
When and where, the last 50 years, has war been waged successfully by citizens of a country against the military forces of that country, using only the weapons that had legally acquired under the rules of the ousted government?
Yes, I only applied the sequence of about 20 wars in recent history. What would history tell us, eh? Let's stick to fantasy re-renderings of wars from the 18th century.
What your attacker uses isn't up to you. What you use is.
Fraid not. If it's convention for people to carry a gun for defence, they will also be used offensively. If you have a gun, I'll assume you'll use it offensively as well. If you're prepared to kill someone rather than look for ways to de-escalate an argument, even at some personal risk, then I would assume you are not right in the head, and inclined to be unpredictable.
Your method disarms, and renders helpless, anyone how has no experience at personal violence.
And you method favours those who would kill rather than suffer a punch. Psychopaths, in other words.
Military personnel are less inclined to support your cause if you have a history of taking potshots at them. Want the support of the military? Don't shoot in their direction.
Just look to Libya if you want to see what happens when a poorly armed populace rises up against an oppressive military regime. The key though is numbers.
No, the key is being able to smuggle in the right equipment (like rocket launchers, machine guns and the like) when you need to. Handguns don't do squat. The libyan rebels won because (a) air support and (b) their cause was relatively popular and (c) they had access to smuggled/appropriated weapons.
If you are fighting the government using weapons then it seems blindingly obvious that the governments rules over who can own what weapon is not really a consideration. The whole idea is nonsense.
Seems quite simple. Let's say a militia decides to attack the government. Some people come down on their side, some on the side of the government. Acts of terror, shooting at the military and other violent acts will tend to sway people away from favouring the militia. Their success depends on getting enough public support. Shooting someones kid (who happens to be in the marines) is a surefire way to have them turn against you. Military personnel, public servants, even members of the government are just as american as you are - and they have more friends and allies. Sort your problems out peaceably or you will not sort them at all.
ou don't even have to win the battles to win the war, or beat your enemy to defeat him. You just have to take away his will.
You make the assumption that your will is stronger than that of the government and the people who support it. If militias are the magical bullet you claim, why hasn't the militia prevented the current tyranny. And how is tyrannical rule by militia better than oligarchy?
Speaking as an Australian, I never feel afraid of being gunned down in the street, or being accidently shot in a robbery, or having to shoot someone in self defence. These sorts of things are so rare here we don't even think about them.
The difference is like this - in the US, if you are woken be the sounds of someone in your house, you have to assume they are armed. After all, if homeowners arm themselves, then robbers have to arm themselves as well.This leaves you with the choice of cowering and hoping not to get shot, or getting out your gun and preparing yourself to live with the consequences of killing someone.
In Australia we tend to turn on the light, and the robbers run away. They generally aren't packing - who needs the grief of being caught with a gun? They don't feel compelled to kill you - you aren't a threat to them. They make free to leave, and that's it.
Bit more civilised, no?
By AGW supporters, you mean your friendly denialists, right? After all, only members of that group claim that global warming will actually be good for our species => they are the only people who could validly be called "AGW supporters".
If anthropogenic global warming is not only real but as apocalyptic as its proponents claim,
By AGW proponent, you mean yourself, right? Denialists who argue that global warming will be good for our species (what with us all becoming russian and that) are the only people who could be accurately termed "AGW proponent".
To put it another way: the greenhouse effect, if it is actually happening, is already a form of geoengineering. It is making cold countries warm. If it's going too far, the geoengineering steps in this article are what it might take to arrive at the stable, human-based optimum we want for our long-term survival.
Perhaps. But if you AGW proponents/denialists are scared of the amount of money needed to replace aging coal fired power plants with more efficient technologies, you'll quake in your boots when you see THAT bill.
By AGW proponent, you mean yourself, right? Denialists who argue that glonbal warming will be good for our species (what with us all becoming russian and that) are the only people who could be accurately termed "AGW proponent".
We don't need consensus. There's a body a science which says it is caused by humans, and no body of evidence that says it isn't. You can play a piano and sing "Feelings" as loud and as tunelessly as you like. Nothing your feelings tell you will change reality.