I'd believe that. Elmo won't play fetch, but he'll sit on command...well...sometimes it takes two or three commands (and my ex used to say that he just got tired of standing there listening to me).
Oh, I don't know. My cat Charlie will play fetch with one of his toys. And both Elmo and Charlie respond to their names. Elmo won't play fetch though (and I have to admit that he's quite a bit more intelligent than Charlie is).
That's close, but not completely right. I'm a CAP pilot, and here's how it really works:
Elt goes off, sat goes over. Three passes and the AFRCC can pinpoint it to a geographical area. In the meantime, they're checking with the FAA.
After it's pinpointed (or maybe somewhat before, to get the ball rolling earlier), the AFRCC contacts the appropriate Wing representative (one Wing per state). That rep. gets a Mission Commander involved and the MC starts looking for aircrews. Once an aircrew is available (what ever time it is, and YES, we do get called in the middle of the night), that crew gets briefed, creates a search plan and launches. Only after it is been pinpointed further does a ground crew go out, mainly because the geographical area for finding the ELT is just too large to do otherwise. I have *never* had any luck finding an ELT on the ground without an aircrew getting it down a little more precise than the AFRCC can get it. On the other hand, I've tracked down an activated ELT in a FLYING airplane from the air (he finally landed).
Sometimes crews just aren't available, and that's a fact of life, but to make it sound like people just don't care and ignore calls because they're sleeping is completely wrong. There isn't a crewmember that I know what won't get up in the middle of the night and fly a mission, because even though 99% of the time it's an accidental activation, you don't know when that call will be the real one.
I use a shelf from the kitchen cabinets that I removed a few years ago.
It's a good size, my laptop sits on it nicely, it allows airflow that is just as good as having the laptop sitting on a desk, and, best of all, it was FREE.
Just go get a piece of wood that's a good shape for you, paint it, and you're done...
Guess you don't know how to search the 'net after all...
Just found this one:
According to a 1998 study by the National Center for Health Statistics, in a comparison of 11 industrial nations, except for the United States with a rate of 13.7 per 100,000, France had the highest firearms death rate at 6.3 per 100,000.
Expanding on your statement, this means that France would have, what, 5.2M people? But...that's not right, France has 59M people last time I checked...
Looks like your "sources" are a bit off...your massive gap just closed a little bit, didn't it?
Still, I will agree that the US is more violent. I think it has more to do with the society than with inanimate objects. The assertion that guns cause violence is akin to an assertion that flies cause shit. I contend that things would be much worse if the people were not able to defend themselves. Look it up for yourself...all you have to do is check out the skyrocketing crime rate in the UK, for example.
I contend that you don't know the majority of gun owners or NRA members.
Almost every gun owner I know, myself included, is an NRA member, but I'll have to readily admit that I don't know the majority of gun owners.:)
I think about 1/2 of the population in the US owns guns. If my numbers are correct, then that would mean that, based on your thought, only the other 1/2 of the country is concerned about civil rights. I don't think that is the case, especially considering that gun ownership crosses many demographic lines.
How likely is it that the US government would ever put the gun-owning population into a position where they would even contemplate armed resistance/revolution?
My friend Matt brought this exact thought up last night. The answer is "very remote", but that doesn't negate the need for them. In fact, I think it is the very presence of them in the general population that prevents this. So, contrary to the assertion that guns will never protect any subset of the US citizenry from the government, I contend it has and does, and without having to actually fire a shot!
It is the presence of them that helps to keep things in check (note that I don't think it's the only thing, only part of the puzzle). But, this is not the only place where this effect is felt. It has been shown that the presence of an armed populace is also a deterrent to violent crime (and other types as well), so this is right in line with what I do and would expect.
If it's plausible, how successful would such a resistance/revolution be?
I think it would be *very* successful, if the population kept it's focus and did not give up before the fight was won. Consider these numbers: 2.5M US troops (I think, at most) armed with advanced technology vs. ~130M US citizens, armed with light weapons. No, those aren't the actual numbers, I think they would be much smaller on the US troops side, but that is a worst case. I think the citizens would win...
1) re: gun owners don't care about civil rights: My experience does not coincide with your assertion, but...maybe my experience is different from yours. Haven't seen any studies on this, so for me it's in the relm of experience/opinion.
2) the rest of the situations you bring up are good points. I think that the answer may lie in how little the vast majority of the population is actually affected by this. For example, how much of the non-gun owning population is actually making a big deal of it? The vast majority of the population, in general, seems quite unconcerned about this, and gun owners fall into those numbers just as other groups do.
Re: the "right to vote": I followed the Fla. thing intently, reading every published court submission that I could get my hands on. Contrary to a lot of people, I think the court system actually called this one right, legally speaking. But, that's a debate that will never be settled and it's time to move on.
Who is asking you to give up? Giving up weapons does not equate to giving up the fight.
Sure...you could fight then, but how, exactly, would you expect to actually win? Pray they just give in? Get real.
OK. So why do you need the firearms if you are relying on the solidarity of the arms and legs of the government?
Ok, maybe this is just too basic for some people, but...perhaps because you can't count on that for *everyone*? The "solidarity" I speak of is obviously not universal. Com'on, you can do better than this...
You seem to be implying that if one gives up the "right" to possess firearms, one has given up the fight. Only in your mind, brother.
Whatever. If the time comes, what are you going to do, cry on them?
Rhetoric has nothing to do with it. I was merely anticipating a counter argument from you.
Ok, if that's what you say...
blah..blah...blah..throwing a tantrum...blah...blah...blah
Throwing a tantrum? How is this a "tantrum", exactly?
...So now I'm part of the Slash-borg
And you're different in what way?
so far you havent convinced me that firearms possession by the general populace will actually help one defend against the government.
And again I ask, when/if the time comes what WILL you do? Just give up, or pray that they do?
Because I acknowledge that this is, in certain circumstances a valid reason to possess a weapon. But that wasnt the pro-gun argument I was trying to address. Not everyone lives in an area populated by bears or snakes. And granting such people the ability to acquire weapons does not mean that possessing weapons needs to be a basic right.
Let me clarify here (seriously)...do you think that the only reason one should be able to own weapons is to defend themselves against animals? What about people that are bent on harming others? And, since the world we live in is ripe with such people, and in many cases the most (or ONLY) effective counter is to use the same or greater level of firepower, how does this not become part of a basic right so that one can preserve one's self?
Sure. But where do the firearms come into the picture for the second one? Again, its only in your mind that resistance needs weapons. Weapons which wouldnt do you any good anyway.
How, again, do you propose that you counter? What real "resistance" is there in your situation?
I contend, and history has shown, that a disarmed populace is defenseless and can offer no effective resistance.
Weapons which still make you rely on the goodwill of the members of the armed forces.
I don't contend that one has to RELY on this, only that the scenario is not the hopeless one that you have presented. Still, in the US (as I said in another post), the military is, estimated, 2 to 3% of the population. I contend that they can't win anyway (think 2.5M, with advanced firepower, against approx. 135M with light arms), and this is the most militarily advanced nation in the world.
BTW - where were you with your weapons when Bush took away the right of US citizens to have a fair trial?
Different subject, different thread. The two are not related. Still, since you brought it up, all avenues to rectify this situation have not been exhausted. Use of force in a situation such as this is not the FIRST resort.
Why should I care if your country self destructs?
I don't suggest that you should. But, what about your own country? Are YOU truely free? How do you propose to counter a tryannical government above you? Oh, wait...you can't can you?
The most powerful military machine in the world, the US, has, what, at most 2.5M military members?
The general US populace has, at the last count I saw, 273M people, 1/2 of which are armed. So, take 130-odd Million people armed with light weapons, against (and even this is a leap) the entire US military.
I don't think that even the US military will win. First, nukes are out because the environmental ramifications are too great, and it will negatively affect the very people that are trying to be in control. Ditto for widespread germ/chem warefare. So, you're left with, basically, conventional warfare.
In this situation, the US military will *not* win all battles. Yes, the cost to the populace will be high, but their determination will prevail, and when it does they gain the tools that were once used against them. At some point, given that the populace does not give up, the tide will turn.
Now, this assumes that the entre military will fight against the populace. But, that won't happen. Further, this assumes that the military continues to have access to the reserves (fuel, ammo, etc.) that they have to have to win. Unfortunately for them, who produces those items? The populace.
In short, the populace is in control, despite how it seems on the surface. They *can* win, but only if they don't conceed the battle before it even gets started, like the original poster has done. The proof, as you have said is shown in history. Now, what was that about the reasons behind gun control? People cannot remain free if they do not have the tools to do so...
To whoever modded *me* down as offtopic, and the parent down as "insightful", try again.
And I'm posting it *again*, because it's a valid response to the posting above if you don't like what I've written, REPLY TO IT.
Of course, you're living on the other side of reality.
Here in the real world, people have an inherent human right to defend themselves. Despite what any government might say and do, no government has the right to impede this.
As far as your assertion that "other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits", that is just ludicrous. Personally, there has been more than one situation where I came *very close* to *needing* a firearm to defend myself, both from robbery (and, quite easily, very much worse) to simple defense from an antagonistic stray animal. Both of these situations are not just not unjustifiable needs for firearms, they are a personal responsibility one has for one's self. Of course, to say that "well you didn't need it" is to miss the point. The only reason I didn't is because of sheer LUCK. One cannot expect a response from the police in a split second (not that that's what happened anyway), nor can one expect an animal to suddenly decide not to attack. It takes an intervening event to change those situations and, personally, I'm not willing to delegate my safety to such chance.
And if you really believe that "guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things", then you're not a very astute student of history. Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple purpose of control, displayed under the guise of safety. The reality is that law-abiding, good men and women do not and will not misuse their tools, whether it is a simple hunting rifle or a fully automatic machine gun, and therefore the only reason to restrict them is for different means. Note that despite "gun control" laws, the criminals always seem to be able to get them. Now, why is that? How can one come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the populace in general, when only the honest people are disarmed?
For all of the talk of "human rights" in these postings, people are missing the most very basic of human rights: the right to self preservation. Without it, no other rights really exist. Then, of course, there's basic liberty. "Gun control" for the general populace is contrary to both of those basic rights.
Somebody please mod the parent down as a complete troll.
Ok, first off, I was *in* the military for 10 years. This means, of course, that I'm well aware of the military capabilities of governments.
However, had your "we can't win, the odds are overwhelming" attitude been taken in the revolutionary war (and, make no mistake, the odds seemed the same to them), then the US wouldn't exist now, for example.
Yes, governments have a vast array of firepower. But, this firepower is wielded not by some faceless entity, but by brothers, fathers, mothers and sisters of the populace. The tools that an armed populace has are much more than firearms. Yet, to simply lay down one set of tools in the face of what seems to be an absurd attempt doesn't quite seem to be the right attitude for a free man.
Further, I never suggested that a revolution would happen. You inserted that into the conversation yourself, as if you thought you knew what I was thinking. Nice rhetorical ploy, try again.
Still, you may wish to live your life as part of the chattel controlled by government, but, personally, my pledge to defend the Constitution (yes, I'm an American) remains a valid pledge for me, even though I'm no longer in the service. If this means that I give my life for principle, then so be it (I think the phrase was "live free or die"). I will not, if it is within my ability, allow the tools that it takes to do so be restrained by people like you.
If more people were concerned about their freedom, and the freedom of others, then our world would be a better place. Isn't freedom what people here on Slashdot are constantly pushing for? Why then, do the most basic of freedoms somehow get pushed into the back of the list?
Conspicuously absent from your reply is a comment about the right to self-preservation. Since you think that "they are prone to taking silence as meaning that they won the argument", why did you not comment on this?
If self-preservation is valid, then so is the right of the populace to at least *attempt* to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. The two go hand in hand.
And, in response to your "right-wing nuts" comment, I choose to live free to the best of my ability. Give me one good reason why I should freely relinquish myself to a subservient status, as you apparently choose to do.
Oh, and to whoever who modded *me* off-topic, all you did was point out that you're biased asshole. I didn't start this thread, someone else did, yet you decided to mod me down. Next time, at least mod the parents down too as they are the one's who started the "off-topic" part. If you don't like what I've written, respond to it. Modding down a view you don't like doesn't count. And, by the way, I can post more than you can mod.
Of course, you're living on the other side of reality.
Here in the real world, people have an inherent human right to defend themselves. Despite what any government might say and do, no government has the right to impede this.
As far as your assertion that "other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits", that is just ludicrous. Personally, there has been more than one situation where I came *very close* to *needing* a firearm to defend myself, both from robbery (and, quite easily, very much worse) to simple defense from an antagonistic stray animal. Both of these situations are not just not unjustifiable needs for firearms, they are a personal responsibility one has for one's self. Of course, to say that "well you didn't need it" is to miss the point. The only reason I didn't is because of sheer LUCK. One cannot expect a response from the police in a split second (not that that's what happened anyway), nor can one expect an animal to suddenly decide not to attack. It takes an intervening event to change those situations and, personally, I'm not willing to delegate my safety to such chance.
And if you really believe that "guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things", then you're not a very astute student of history. Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple purpose of control, displayed under the guise of safety. The reality is that law-abiding, good men and women do not and will not misuse their tools, whether it is a simple hunting rifle or a fully automatic machine gun, and therefore the only reason to restrict them is for different means. Note that despite "gun control" laws, the criminals always seem to be able to get them. Now, why is that? How can one come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the populace in general, when only the honest people are disarmed?
For all of the talk of "human rights" in these postings, people are missing the most very basic of human rights: the right to self preservation. Without it, no other rights really exist. Then, of course, there's basic liberty. "Gun control" for the general populace is contrary to both of those basic rights.
Somebody please mod the parent down as a complete troll.
They're not equivilant to me at all. Abortion laws are about the protection of what is believed to be human life. This bill, which I have not taken a stand on, seems to be about granting/limiting knowledge, compilation of knowledge, etc.
Leave it to a slashdotter to equate bills about the base right to continuation of life with the freedom to do something when you *already* exist.
In anticipation of ones that will claim that the former is about a person's right to do whatever they want with their own body, let me point out that in the former there is believed by many (myself included) to be not one person, but *two*. The concepts are not equal.
This is "insightful"? How does this bill relate to the concerns of an average person, who, these days, is just trying to make ends meet, and what in the world does studying the Bible or using AOL have to do with it? There are a lot of people in this country who maybe don't even understand (can't? possibly.) the issue, and therefore not only won't be concerned about it, but can't be expected to be. It's just not an issue that is anywhere in their sphere of existence.
And, funny, having read significant portions of the Bible, more than once, I don't see anywhere in there where it says anything about copyrights, intellectual property, etc. (Can't say I'm an AOL user though...)
I'm not sure where I stand on the subject. Regardless, your comment is simply casting stones.
I lived there for about 7 years (off of Duke St.). Now I don't.
One of the primary reasons I left is because of the stupid drivers. Them, and the metro busses...
I was addressing the "purely constitutional" aspect of them deriving from one and the same foundation/clause - an irrelevant point if you argue that the constitution is flawed.
That was a JOKE, by the way. Man, get a sense of humor!
I'll pretend you didn't mention abortion
No need to. Abortion is the termination of an individual human life. One cell, two cells, a billion cells, it doesn't matter to me. I believe it's an individual human life.
you'll pretend I didn't mention Gay marriage
An oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Flag burning
I don't get worked up over the destruction of an inanimate object.
The war in Iraq
Something I think we should have done, for multiple reasons. With almost 10 years in the military, I support this action and the troops that are over there doing it.
States rights
The States retained all rights that were not given to the Federal government to exercise. The Fed. gov. currently oversteps its bounds in this area.
Criminal possession of information
My view on this depends on what that information is.
Marijiuana Legalization
I'm fine with "medical" marijiuana.
Hate speech
"Hate speech"=thought control.
The Bush/Gore ruling
...was correct in my opinion. I read every brief and court ruling and I believe it was done right.
Software patents
Not sure on this one, entirely....
Vi vs Emacs
I couldn't care less. But, I've always used Vi....:)
I posted this below, but I think it bears repeating...take the MSF class (if you're in the US). It's good. Oh, and if you can afford it, take some flight training. I'd say that flight training has given me more ability to operate a vehicle than anything else I've ever done...speed control of a vehicle in a fluid medium (air), situational awareness, constantly thinking about navigation, constantly thinking about emergency procedures, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what I meant. Ok, so I should have written "then it's not tied to THAT specific piece of hardware."
Don't you have better things to do than be so fricking literal? Guess not.
How about just take the data and archive it in a different format? Then it's not tied to a specific piece of hardware.
I'd believe that. Elmo won't play fetch, but he'll sit on command...well...sometimes it takes two or three commands (and my ex used to say that he just got tired of standing there listening to me).
Oh, I don't know. My cat Charlie will play fetch with one of his toys. And both Elmo and Charlie respond to their names. Elmo won't play fetch though (and I have to admit that he's quite a bit more intelligent than Charlie is).
Yes, we have DF gear in our CAP planes too.
That's close, but not completely right. I'm a CAP pilot, and here's how it really works:
Elt goes off, sat goes over. Three passes and the AFRCC can pinpoint it to a geographical area. In the meantime, they're checking with the FAA.
After it's pinpointed (or maybe somewhat before, to get the ball rolling earlier), the AFRCC contacts the appropriate Wing representative (one Wing per state). That rep. gets a Mission Commander involved and the MC starts looking for aircrews. Once an aircrew is available (what ever time it is, and YES, we do get called in the middle of the night), that crew gets briefed, creates a search plan and launches. Only after it is been pinpointed further does a ground crew go out, mainly because the geographical area for finding the ELT is just too large to do otherwise. I have *never* had any luck finding an ELT on the ground without an aircrew getting it down a little more precise than the AFRCC can get it. On the other hand, I've tracked down an activated ELT in a FLYING airplane from the air (he finally landed).
Sometimes crews just aren't available, and that's a fact of life, but to make it sound like people just don't care and ignore calls because they're sleeping is completely wrong. There isn't a crewmember that I know what won't get up in the middle of the night and fly a mission, because even though 99% of the time it's an accidental activation, you don't know when that call will be the real one.
That's fine for transmitting, but what about rx signals being covered by the inteference?
I use a shelf from the kitchen cabinets that I removed a few years ago.
It's a good size, my laptop sits on it nicely, it allows airflow that is just as good as having the laptop sitting on a desk, and, best of all, it was FREE.
Just go get a piece of wood that's a good shape for you, paint it, and you're done...
Guess you don't know how to search the 'net after all...
Just found this one:
According to a 1998 study by the National Center for Health Statistics, in a comparison of 11 industrial nations, except for the United States with a rate of 13.7 per 100,000, France had the highest firearms death rate at 6.3 per 100,000.
Expanding on your statement, this means that France would have, what, 5.2M people? But...that's not right, France has 59M people last time I checked...
Looks like your "sources" are a bit off...your massive gap just closed a little bit, didn't it?
Still, I will agree that the US is more violent. I think it has more to do with the society than with inanimate objects. The assertion that guns cause violence is akin to an assertion that flies cause shit. I contend that things would be much worse if the people were not able to defend themselves. Look it up for yourself...all you have to do is check out the skyrocketing crime rate in the UK, for example.
And you are? Care to tell who your sources are?
Since you seem to be able to search the net, then perhaps you ought to search a little bit more.
For example, in every state where concealed carry has been implemented, crime has dropped.
And dont give me that speculation crap...
What "speculation crap"? What the fuck are you talking about?
I contend that you don't know the majority of gun owners or NRA members.
:)
Almost every gun owner I know, myself included, is an NRA member, but I'll have to readily admit that I don't know the majority of gun owners.
I think about 1/2 of the population in the US owns guns. If my numbers are correct, then that would mean that, based on your thought, only the other 1/2 of the country is concerned about civil rights. I don't think that is the case, especially considering that gun ownership crosses many demographic lines.
How likely is it that the US government would ever put the gun-owning population into a position where they would even contemplate armed resistance/revolution?
My friend Matt brought this exact thought up last night. The answer is "very remote", but that doesn't negate the need for them. In fact, I think it is the very presence of them in the general population that prevents this. So, contrary to the assertion that guns will never protect any subset of the US citizenry from the government, I contend it has and does, and without having to actually fire a shot!
It is the presence of them that helps to keep things in check (note that I don't think it's the only thing, only part of the puzzle). But, this is not the only place where this effect is felt. It has been shown that the presence of an armed populace is also a deterrent to violent crime (and other types as well), so this is right in line with what I do and would expect.
If it's plausible, how successful would such a resistance/revolution be?
I think it would be *very* successful, if the population kept it's focus and did not give up before the fight was won. Consider these numbers: 2.5M US troops (I think, at most) armed with advanced technology vs. ~130M US citizens, armed with light weapons. No, those aren't the actual numbers, I think they would be much smaller on the US troops side, but that is a worst case. I think the citizens would win...
My thoughts are
1) re: gun owners don't care about civil rights: My experience does not coincide with your assertion, but...maybe my experience is different from yours. Haven't seen any studies on this, so for me it's in the relm of experience/opinion.
2) the rest of the situations you bring up are good points. I think that the answer may lie in how little the vast majority of the population is actually affected by this. For example, how much of the non-gun owning population is actually making a big deal of it? The vast majority of the population, in general, seems quite unconcerned about this, and gun owners fall into those numbers just as other groups do.
Re: the "right to vote": I followed the Fla. thing intently, reading every published court submission that I could get my hands on. Contrary to a lot of people, I think the court system actually called this one right, legally speaking. But, that's a debate that will never be settled and it's time to move on.
Who is asking you to give up? Giving up weapons does not equate to giving up the fight.
...So now I'm part of the Slash-borg
Sure...you could fight then, but how, exactly, would you expect to actually win? Pray they just give in? Get real.
OK. So why do you need the firearms if you are relying on the solidarity of the arms and legs of the government?
Ok, maybe this is just too basic for some people, but...perhaps because you can't count on that for *everyone*? The "solidarity" I speak of is obviously not universal. Com'on, you can do better than this...
You seem to be implying that if one gives up the "right" to possess firearms, one has given up the fight. Only in your mind, brother.
Whatever. If the time comes, what are you going to do, cry on them?
Rhetoric has nothing to do with it. I was merely anticipating a counter argument from you.
Ok, if that's what you say...
blah..blah...blah..throwing a tantrum...blah...blah...blah
Throwing a tantrum? How is this a "tantrum", exactly?
And you're different in what way?
so far you havent convinced me that firearms possession by the general populace will actually help one defend against the government.
And again I ask, when/if the time comes what WILL you do? Just give up, or pray that they do?
Because I acknowledge that this is, in certain circumstances a valid reason to possess a weapon. But that wasnt the pro-gun argument I was trying to address. Not everyone lives in an area populated by bears or snakes. And granting such people the ability to acquire weapons does not mean that possessing weapons needs to be a basic right.
Let me clarify here (seriously)...do you think that the only reason one should be able to own weapons is to defend themselves against animals? What about people that are bent on harming others? And, since the world we live in is ripe with such people, and in many cases the most (or ONLY) effective counter is to use the same or greater level of firepower, how does this not become part of a basic right so that one can preserve one's self?
Sure. But where do the firearms come into the picture for the second one? Again, its only in your mind that resistance needs weapons. Weapons which wouldnt do you any good anyway.
How, again, do you propose that you counter? What real "resistance" is there in your situation?
I contend, and history has shown, that a disarmed populace is defenseless and can offer no effective resistance.
Weapons which still make you rely on the goodwill of the members of the armed forces.
I don't contend that one has to RELY on this, only that the scenario is not the hopeless one that you have presented. Still, in the US (as I said in another post), the military is, estimated, 2 to 3% of the population. I contend that they can't win anyway (think 2.5M, with advanced firepower, against approx. 135M with light arms), and this is the most militarily advanced nation in the world.
BTW - where were you with your weapons when Bush took away the right of US citizens to have a fair trial?
Different subject, different thread. The two are not related. Still, since you brought it up, all avenues to rectify this situation have not been exhausted. Use of force in a situation such as this is not the FIRST resort.
Why should I care if your country self destructs?
I don't suggest that you should. But, what about your own country? Are YOU truely free? How do you propose to counter a tryannical government above you? Oh, wait...you can't can you?
Well put...
The most powerful military machine in the world, the US, has, what, at most 2.5M military members?
The general US populace has, at the last count I saw, 273M people, 1/2 of which are armed. So, take 130-odd Million people armed with light weapons, against (and even this is a leap) the entire US military.
I don't think that even the US military will win. First, nukes are out because the environmental ramifications are too great, and it will negatively affect the very people that are trying to be in control. Ditto for widespread germ/chem warefare. So, you're left with, basically, conventional warfare.
In this situation, the US military will *not* win all battles. Yes, the cost to the populace will be high, but their determination will prevail, and when it does they gain the tools that were once used against them. At some point, given that the populace does not give up, the tide will turn.
Now, this assumes that the entre military will fight against the populace. But, that won't happen. Further, this assumes that the military continues to have access to the reserves (fuel, ammo, etc.) that they have to have to win. Unfortunately for them, who produces those items? The populace.
In short, the populace is in control, despite how it seems on the surface. They *can* win, but only if they don't conceed the battle before it even gets started, like the original poster has done. The proof, as you have said is shown in history. Now, what was that about the reasons behind gun control? People cannot remain free if they do not have the tools to do so...
To whoever modded *me* down as offtopic, and the parent down as "insightful", try again.
And I'm posting it *again*, because it's a valid response to the posting above if you don't like what I've written, REPLY TO IT.
Of course, you're living on the other side of reality.
Here in the real world, people have an inherent human right to defend themselves. Despite what any government might say and do, no government has the right to impede this.
As far as your assertion that "other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits", that is just ludicrous. Personally, there has been more than one situation where I came *very close* to *needing* a firearm to defend myself, both from robbery (and, quite easily, very much worse) to simple defense from an antagonistic stray animal. Both of these situations are not just not unjustifiable needs for firearms, they are a personal responsibility one has for one's self. Of course, to say that "well you didn't need it" is to miss the point. The only reason I didn't is because of sheer LUCK. One cannot expect a response from the police in a split second (not that that's what happened anyway), nor can one expect an animal to suddenly decide not to attack. It takes an intervening event to change those situations and, personally, I'm not willing to delegate my safety to such chance.
And if you really believe that "guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things", then you're not a very astute student of history. Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple purpose of control, displayed under the guise of safety. The reality is that law-abiding, good men and women do not and will not misuse their tools, whether it is a simple hunting rifle or a fully automatic machine gun, and therefore the only reason to restrict them is for different means. Note that despite "gun control" laws, the criminals always seem to be able to get them. Now, why is that? How can one come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the populace in general, when only the honest people are disarmed?
For all of the talk of "human rights" in these postings, people are missing the most very basic of human rights: the right to self preservation. Without it, no other rights really exist. Then, of course, there's basic liberty. "Gun control" for the general populace is contrary to both of those basic rights.
Somebody please mod the parent down as a complete troll.
Ok, first off, I was *in* the military for 10 years. This means, of course, that I'm well aware of the military capabilities of governments.
However, had your "we can't win, the odds are overwhelming" attitude been taken in the revolutionary war (and, make no mistake, the odds seemed the same to them), then the US wouldn't exist now, for example.
Yes, governments have a vast array of firepower. But, this firepower is wielded not by some faceless entity, but by brothers, fathers, mothers and sisters of the populace. The tools that an armed populace has are much more than firearms. Yet, to simply lay down one set of tools in the face of what seems to be an absurd attempt doesn't quite seem to be the right attitude for a free man.
Further, I never suggested that a revolution would happen. You inserted that into the conversation yourself, as if you thought you knew what I was thinking. Nice rhetorical ploy, try again.
Still, you may wish to live your life as part of the chattel controlled by government, but, personally, my pledge to defend the Constitution (yes, I'm an American) remains a valid pledge for me, even though I'm no longer in the service. If this means that I give my life for principle, then so be it (I think the phrase was "live free or die"). I will not, if it is within my ability, allow the tools that it takes to do so be restrained by people like you.
If more people were concerned about their freedom, and the freedom of others, then our world would be a better place. Isn't freedom what people here on Slashdot are constantly pushing for? Why then, do the most basic of freedoms somehow get pushed into the back of the list?
Conspicuously absent from your reply is a comment about the right to self-preservation. Since you think that "they are prone to taking silence as meaning that they won the argument", why did you not comment on this?
If self-preservation is valid, then so is the right of the populace to at least *attempt* to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. The two go hand in hand.
And, in response to your "right-wing nuts" comment, I choose to live free to the best of my ability. Give me one good reason why I should freely relinquish myself to a subservient status, as you apparently choose to do.
Oh, and to whoever who modded *me* off-topic, all you did was point out that you're biased asshole. I didn't start this thread, someone else did, yet you decided to mod me down. Next time, at least mod the parents down too as they are the one's who started the "off-topic" part. If you don't like what I've written, respond to it. Modding down a view you don't like doesn't count. And, by the way, I can post more than you can mod.
Of course, you're living on the other side of reality.
Here in the real world, people have an inherent human right to defend themselves. Despite what any government might say and do, no government has the right to impede this.
As far as your assertion that "other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits", that is just ludicrous. Personally, there has been more than one situation where I came *very close* to *needing* a firearm to defend myself, both from robbery (and, quite easily, very much worse) to simple defense from an antagonistic stray animal. Both of these situations are not just not unjustifiable needs for firearms, they are a personal responsibility one has for one's self. Of course, to say that "well you didn't need it" is to miss the point. The only reason I didn't is because of sheer LUCK. One cannot expect a response from the police in a split second (not that that's what happened anyway), nor can one expect an animal to suddenly decide not to attack. It takes an intervening event to change those situations and, personally, I'm not willing to delegate my safety to such chance.
And if you really believe that "guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things", then you're not a very astute student of history. Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple purpose of control, displayed under the guise of safety. The reality is that law-abiding, good men and women do not and will not misuse their tools, whether it is a simple hunting rifle or a fully automatic machine gun, and therefore the only reason to restrict them is for different means. Note that despite "gun control" laws, the criminals always seem to be able to get them. Now, why is that? How can one come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the populace in general, when only the honest people are disarmed?
For all of the talk of "human rights" in these postings, people are missing the most very basic of human rights: the right to self preservation. Without it, no other rights really exist. Then, of course, there's basic liberty. "Gun control" for the general populace is contrary to both of those basic rights.
Somebody please mod the parent down as a complete troll.
They're not equivilant to me at all. Abortion laws are about the protection of what is believed to be human life. This bill, which I have not taken a stand on, seems to be about granting/limiting knowledge, compilation of knowledge, etc.
Leave it to a slashdotter to equate bills about the base right to continuation of life with the freedom to do something when you *already* exist.
In anticipation of ones that will claim that the former is about a person's right to do whatever they want with their own body, let me point out that in the former there is believed by many (myself included) to be not one person, but *two*. The concepts are not equal.
This is "insightful"? How does this bill relate to the concerns of an average person, who, these days, is just trying to make ends meet, and what in the world does studying the Bible or using AOL have to do with it? There are a lot of people in this country who maybe don't even understand (can't? possibly.) the issue, and therefore not only won't be concerned about it, but can't be expected to be. It's just not an issue that is anywhere in their sphere of existence.
And, funny, having read significant portions of the Bible, more than once, I don't see anywhere in there where it says anything about copyrights, intellectual property, etc. (Can't say I'm an AOL user though...)
I'm not sure where I stand on the subject. Regardless, your comment is simply casting stones.
Now if someone can just come up with a rhetoric filter for Slashdot...
Wouldn't *that* be nice!
I'm not the original poster, but I am an American, and I personally couldn't care less.
Fingerprint and photograph me all you want...what I look like is public, and my fingerprints are on everything I touch. Who cares?
I lived there for about 7 years (off of Duke St.). Now I don't. One of the primary reasons I left is because of the stupid drivers. Them, and the metro busses...
...this is probably more indicative of how instant messaging has been able to complement and/or replace email in recent times.
How much http traffic is for email, and how much isn't?
I was addressing the "purely constitutional" aspect of them deriving from one and the same foundation/clause - an irrelevant point if you argue that the constitution is flawed.
...was correct in my opinion. I read every brief and court ruling and I believe it was done right.
:)
That was a JOKE, by the way. Man, get a sense of humor!
I'll pretend you didn't mention abortion
No need to. Abortion is the termination of an individual human life. One cell, two cells, a billion cells, it doesn't matter to me. I believe it's an individual human life.
you'll pretend I didn't mention Gay marriage
An oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Flag burning
I don't get worked up over the destruction of an inanimate object.
The war in Iraq
Something I think we should have done, for multiple reasons. With almost 10 years in the military, I support this action and the troops that are over there doing it.
States rights
The States retained all rights that were not given to the Federal government to exercise. The Fed. gov. currently oversteps its bounds in this area.
Criminal possession of information
My view on this depends on what that information is.
Marijiuana Legalization
I'm fine with "medical" marijiuana.
Hate speech
"Hate speech"=thought control.
The Bush/Gore ruling
Software patents
Not sure on this one, entirely....
Vi vs Emacs
I couldn't care less. But, I've always used Vi....
I posted this below, but I think it bears repeating...take the MSF class (if you're in the US). It's good. Oh, and if you can afford it, take some flight training. I'd say that flight training has given me more ability to operate a vehicle than anything else I've ever done...speed control of a vehicle in a fluid medium (air), situational awareness, constantly thinking about navigation, constantly thinking about emergency procedures, etc.