In other words, you are conceding that you are ultimately dependent on goodwill of people who choose not to follow orders
Perhaps. Me the individual may be dependent on that goodwill. The United States as a country is more dependent upon the desire of her population to remain free.
The kind of resources it takes to start that kind of operation are immense, it's also something that's hard to keep secret too. That's why they get away with it in countries like the Philippines where law enforcement just doesn't have the same kind of resources we do. There's also a huge home brew gun manufacturing cottage industry in places in the middle east and southeastern asia, but that doesn't mean it's going to go on here.
You have all the answers don't you?
It's not a problem we can stop but bringing down that number is something we *can* do.
Good luck with that. I can think of no better issue to give the GOP to beat the Democrats over the head with.
How do you propose to enforce this? Require everyone to show papers when asked?
Well whether or not it's enforceable is another matter. It's enforceable at the point of sale but this doesn't really accomplish much other than to make the felon go buy his gun from the back of someones van as opposed to your local gun shop.
Given this, what does it help to forbid felons from carrying guns - either they are still criminals and will carry a gun anyway
In which case they've just broken another law and will be charged with breaking that law if caught.
or they've gone clean and are being punished forever for no reason?
If they've gone clean then they should apply for a reinstatement of their civil rights. This would be required in most states to be eligible to vote or serve on a jury again -- rights equally as important as the right to keep and bear arms.
Why would such an arbitrary label disqualify one from carrying weapons, if carrying weapons is such an important freedom?
That arbitrary label also disqualifies one from voting in most US States. The Constitution doesn't say that you can never lose life or liberty -- it says that you can't lose them without due process of law. A convicted criminal has received that due process of law and is subject to the loss of liberties as proscribed by law.
It took me almost an hour to explain that the blue E is not Windows and another hour to explain that she does NOT need the blue E. I installed both Firefox (w/Adblock, Flashblock, etc) and Opera for her and showed her she doesn't need the blue E. Then, I told her not to use Internet Explorer again.
Wouldn't it have just been easier to change the Firefox icon to the IE icon and been done with it?;)
Not that I've ever done anything like that of course.....
The Feds deciding to SWAT the entire neighborhood out of existence, I won't even get a single round off before the 500 mile nuclear fireball that hits Portland wipes out the West Hills and Beaverton.
One would hope that our military wouldn't go along with dropping a nuclear weapon on Portland......
Bush has pretty much established the right of the executive to declare anyone it feels like to be an enemy combatant
And SCOTUS has subsequently reducedthatpower. Some would say that they've gone too far in the other direction. The Boumediene ruling in particular -- apparently foreign nationals captured on foreign battlefields have the right of the writ of habeas corpus. Personally I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent.
He did. In the aftermath of 9-11, Iraq *was* a random country to pick off the map. It was the only Arab country without an Al Qaeda presence. That makes it worse than just some random country. Invading Iraq after 9-11 was not like us invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. It was more like us invading China after Pearl Harbor.
Feel free to ignore the US policy that existed before 9/11 if you feel that it furthers your argument. For better or worse it was US policy (passed overwhelmingly in the House, unanimously in the Senate and signed by Clinton) to change the regime in Iraq. Given this and the decade Saddam spent flouting the agreement that ended the first Gulf War, I don't really see how you can claim it was some random country picked off the map.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to frighten otherwise rational people into doing stuff that is utterly braindead and self-destructive. So that 2/3rd majority blanket you are hiding behind does not exist.
I'm not "hiding" behind anything. The 2/3rd majority is only one part of our system. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned the States (decentralization of power) and the Federal judiciary (check and balance) as well.
Its the mass media, with a broad reach. Nothing on the internet, free as it is, has anything comparable. Internet tends to self-select (you are not going to find Joe Sixpack on slashdot). Cable TV addles everyone.
What's your point? The populace needs to do a better job of being informed? You won't get an argument from me. My point was that other sources of news and information exist -- you just have to be willing to look for them. What do you want to do about Fox and CNN? Pass a law that regulates how they have to cover the news? Regulate cable TV and make it more like PBS (disclaimer: I love PBS and don't have cable -- I do actually agree with you here) so people get less 'addled'?
Which the feds have circumvented easily with the total information awareness program. It was even commented on slashdot fairly recently. I am sure that "f*ck you" will feel pretty good pretty soon.
We shall see. The history of our country is a history of competing political interests trying to push their own agenda at the expense of any civil liberty that gets in their way. Whether it's Democrats with guns or Republicans with the separation of church and state. Personally I don't trust any of them but I do have some trust in the underlying system. It's served us well so far. I'm not ready to write it's obituary just yet.
And yet you have far more in the way of random road blocks (to check for drunk drivers, uh-huh) and requirements to carry identification (like whilst driving).
The requirement to carry your drivers license while driving doesn't strike me as particularly onerous. That is actually the point of the drivers license, is it not? In any case you generally won't get into too much trouble if you don't have it -- they can assume that you are an unlicensed driver but more often than not they will just look you up on the computer. When they make a requirement that you carry your drivers license around all the time is when I'll get concerned.
The road blocks is a better point to raise, IMHO. I've spoken out against them before. It would seem to be more effective to use those police resources to patrol around looking for the guy who is swerving all over the place than to use them hassling everybody who drives through a particular stretch of roadway.
Then again, I'm convinced that the whole DWI issue is blown out of proportion and used to distract the populace from other issues. I rather like the viewpoint that the NMA has about it.
As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence.
Well I would dispute that notion (it would matter if the Feds decided to SWAT a whole bunch of people out of existence) but that wasn't the underlying point I was trying to make. My underlying point was that the people of the UK sheepishly agreed to surrender a right that they had held for hundreds of years. That's a pretty dangerous precedent to set, IMHO, and why should we believe that any of the other rights will be respected if that one wasn't?
As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.
The difference between someone captured on the battlefield and someone captured within the United States should be plain to everybody. Do you also think that we lost the right to trial by jury because we didn't afford it to the POWs we captured in the Civil War/Spanish-American War/WW1/WW2/Korea or Vietnam?
Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security
I opposed the Iraq War but you should at least acknowledge that it was the stated policy of our country since the 90s to change the regime in Iraq. It's not like Bush picked a random country off to map to invade and bullied Congress into letting him do it.
or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.
Well, I oppose that too, but it's interesting that you are bringing up pork in a discussion about civil liberties. Which civil liberties do I lose if Congress decides to fight STDs? My right to keep and bear chlamydia?;)
The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment.
The media has it's own agenda -- selling copy. I would dispute that you can make a blanket statement that 'the media' is part of 'the establishment'. 'The media' is a pretty broad term. Slashdot is part of the media. Is Slashdot part of the establishment? How about 2600? They part of the establishment?
We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.
I disagree. The fact that several states stood up and told Washington to fuck off with regards to Real ID tells me that we are far ahead of the Brits.
And that certainly helped you during the 8 years with W didn't it.
It did if you were paying attention. SCOTUS reined in a lot of his policies. Some of the states stood up and flipped Washington off over Real ID. Just because the system doesn't work overnight doesn't mean the system doesn't work.
...or to hold slaves, or voting without those pesky women or whatever? Rights change when people agree on change, and hopefully we won't agree to take away the wrong rights but there's really no stopping ourselves
Your honestly comparing holding slaves to our other rights? Holding a slave deprives another human being of his liberty. My ownership of a firearm or exercise of free speech does nothing of the kind.
YMMV but I feel safer because there's a lot lower risk I'll be killed in a drive-by stabbing or accidentally be hit by a stray knife during a knifeout then when there's guns and bullets involved.
You don't have the right to take away my rights to make yourself feel safer. I'd feel safer if we could put a muzzle on those KKK idiots but that doesn't give me the right to infringe on free speech.
And yes, having and using guns does add to the penalties so much most petty criminals don't use them
Huh? I don't know where you live but most "petty" criminals around here do carry guns. Almost every single drug bust in our area includes gun charges.
As for the big revolution, I think most gun nuts are likely to go out in a Waco-style massacre if it ever came that doesn't do anyone any good
Who is calling for the big revolution? If it ever reached that point it's a fair assumption that things have deteriorated to the point that it wouldn't just be the "gun nuts" who are resisting the Government.
Despite all good intentions I think amny will simply want peace at all costs.
I want peace, but not if I have to surrender my civil liberties to get it. I hear that Singapore is pretty peaceful -- do you really want to live there?
Yes, but that's a property of the US Constitution, and not the fact that you have guns.
Did I say it was? All I said about guns was that the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law and the UK allowed their Parliament to take away a right that they had held for hundreds of years. My whole argument was that if they can do that with the right to keep and bear arms they can do it with any of the other rights.
My demonstration of the US system was simply to point out how much tougher it would be to take away rights over here.
we get the inevitable "If only you had guns". The fact that similar things happen in the US, despite your guns, suggest that the point is irrelevant.
The point is only irrelevant if you think the Government taking away a right you've had forever is irrelevant. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
That must really make them eager to bust people, be over zealous and find the most minute thing to detain people on.
What are you basing that one? My observation of people working those types of jobs is that they don't want to bust people. Busting someone == paperwork.
As an alternative do you prefer the idea that everyone may openly and freely carry weapons with no caveats?
Yes, although with the caveat of not allowing them for convicted felons or mental cases. Law-abiding citizens carrying firearms harms no one.
Or that no police officer regardless of training or position be allowed to carry a firearm?
That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? I would argue that the police need more training though. The police actually shoot more innocent people than the civilian population does. The NYPD did a study a few years ago that concluded that >85% of shots fired by their officers missed what they were aiming at. Clearly they need more range time;)
and at this rate it won't be long before people turn on them completely.
I read an interesting article that placed the blame (in the US) for the people turning on the police squarely on the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs was the primary catalyst for the militarization of police forces (they went from being armed with revolvers to having SWAT teams with fully automatic weapons and armored vehicles) and introduced an entire generation of Americans to the concept of being arrested for doing something that harms no one.
It's fiction, but if you've ever watched 'The Wire' you can actually see how this plays out on our streets. I don't know what the solution is -- it would take years to wind down the War on Drugs and probably another generation before people stopped viewing the police as the enemy.
Maybe because keeping and bearing arms was seen more like a stupid idea than a dear time-honored right?
That whooshing sound is the point flying right over your head. If sensibilities can evolve towards considering that right to be a "stupid idea" and taking it away then they can evolve towards considering other rights to be a stupid idea.
I think we should take away free speech because organizations like the KKK use it for bad things. Phrase it like that and watch the sheep line up to surrender their rights.
You might need that to do certain things, and do them by the book, but it seems to me that you can get away with what you like so long as you cover it up for a bit and then grant retrospective immunity to everyone involved. And if you think your government, with all it's DHA, TSA and other such stuff isn't keeping a record of everywhere you go, well... I disagree!
Keeping a record of everywhere I go doesn't violate my rights. I question why the government needs such a record but if you think this started with TSA you are sadly mistaken.
Surely the last government proved to you that the US executive can and will do whatever they like?
Actually, SCOTUS shot down several policies of the US executive so I think my underlying point still stands. The worst problem of the last eight years wasn't Bush (every single President since Washington has tried to expand executive power) but the manner in which the Congress rubber-stamped his policies for the first six years.
Also, who cares whether the calls were made to/from overseas places?
Historically the Government has had broader powers at the border and some of your rights may not apply when crossing that border. That doesn't mean I support all of those powers (if the call is between two Americans I don't think they have any right to be listening) but claiming that this is something new shows that you haven't really researched the topic as throughly as you should.
"Shouldna bin talkin' to them furr-ners anyway"?
Yes, any American that might see the historical basis for this kind of policy is automatically the stereotypical xenophobe and can be dismissed as such.
The US public is too complacent to revolt, and too "patriotic".
Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?
Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.
It's like you need a hook to somehow wedge this into your libertarian bullshit.
I'm not a libertarian. Until recently I counted myself as a card carrying Democrat. Now I'm not sure what I am. I do tend to agree with the libertarians on civil liberties but I disagree with them on many other issues.
I am actually open to listening to the arguments of the pro-gun ownership crowd, which has lead me to believe that gun ownership is simply NOT a national issue. Gun ownership in Alabama is a far different issue than Gun ownership in say, Maryland or California. Gun ownership in say, Atlanta is going to be far different than say Macon.
The exact text from that platform paper, "We believe that
the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Translation: Your Constitutional rights change when you cross lines on the map. If gun rights change in different regions then why not free speech laws? What's offensive in South Carolina might be considered perfectly normal in San Francisco. Why not separation of church and state? NYC may not want that monument of the 10 commandments in Central Park but what about that Alabama town that does?
You can't grow guns out of the ground. It takes careful machining, precision engineering and hours of manlabor to build that gun. What you forget about the part of supply and demand is the "Supply" part. Sure there's a demand for guns, but who's going to *make* them?
Take a look at the experience of the Philippines sometime. Illegal gun manufacturing is the primary source of guns for criminals over there. They may not be built as precise as the latest offering from Smith & Wesson but they get the job done. Meanwhile the civilians are unarmed. In any case you've already undercut your own argument by pointing out that you are in favor of 'regional' gun laws. So if you accept the fact that gun production will still be going on in the United States and that sales will be legal somewhere you ought to realize the folly of trying to regulate the ownership thereof.
I *was* pro gun, then I grew up and realized while these things are neat, they're also tools that are uniquely designed for MURDER.
Operative word being "tools". Tools don't have a mind of their own. This idea that the availability of guns is going to cause violence strains creditability. There are a million other things that urban areas should be doing to reduce crime (starting with reducing poverty) that would be more effective than taking away guns.
Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.
If you want to change the 2nd amendment through the amendment process then all the power to you. But the gun control lobby doesn't want to do that because they know they could never pull it off. Instead they seek to erode it and kill the right via death by a thousand cuts. If they can do that with the 2nd amendment then they can do it with any of the other ones.
The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here.
I don't know what to tell you. You admit that your feelings are based on a "gut feeling" and then dispute the statistics that I provided because they are "too old". It seems to me that you aren't willing to even consider the other point of view. For the record I used to be in favor of gun control until I realized the folly of disarming people who follow the law and the hypocrisy of my position of shouting at the top of my lungs about civil liberties while simultaneously supporting gun control. I'm familiar with the arguments of the gun control position and I'm not convinced that they hold water.
this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason.
Statistics are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer to debate the merits of the particular position without resorting to statistics because they are invariably created by those with an agenda and easily dismissed by the other side. As far as the merits of gun control I would point to the stunning "success" of the War on Drugs as an example of the impossibility of beating the law of supply and demand.
To each their own. From a political standpoint gun control in this country is a losing issue. If the Democrats opt to go there then they'll be handing the GOP an issue to beat them over the head with and will be signing the political death warrants of every single Democrat from a rural district or pro 2nd amendment state. I'm not even convinced they would have the votes to pass it -- as most of the aforementioned Democrats would probably vote against it.
Still doesn't make it a nonsequitor argument. I really don't care about the implication on the 2nd Amendment until I know whether or not this is actually a good idea.
I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?
I'm willing to admit I was just guessing based on gut feeling, what about you? Cite your source please.
Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:
* Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds
* 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person
* When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.
* 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed
* 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.
Outside of Albany, New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, Utica, Ithaca and Long Island, New York is kind of red.
Fixed that for you. It may surprise you to learn that Upstate NY is almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans with a slight edge to the Democrats the last time I checked.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, you are conceding that you are ultimately dependent on goodwill of people who choose not to follow orders
Perhaps. Me the individual may be dependent on that goodwill. The United States as a country is more dependent upon the desire of her population to remain free.
The kind of resources it takes to start that kind of operation are immense, it's also something that's hard to keep secret too. That's why they get away with it in countries like the Philippines where law enforcement just doesn't have the same kind of resources we do. There's also a huge home brew gun manufacturing cottage industry in places in the middle east and southeastern asia, but that doesn't mean it's going to go on here.
You have all the answers don't you?
It's not a problem we can stop but bringing down that number is something we *can* do.
Good luck with that. I can think of no better issue to give the GOP to beat the Democrats over the head with.
How do you propose to enforce this? Require everyone to show papers when asked?
Well whether or not it's enforceable is another matter. It's enforceable at the point of sale but this doesn't really accomplish much other than to make the felon go buy his gun from the back of someones van as opposed to your local gun shop.
Given this, what does it help to forbid felons from carrying guns - either they are still criminals and will carry a gun anyway
In which case they've just broken another law and will be charged with breaking that law if caught.
or they've gone clean and are being punished forever for no reason?
If they've gone clean then they should apply for a reinstatement of their civil rights. This would be required in most states to be eligible to vote or serve on a jury again -- rights equally as important as the right to keep and bear arms.
Why would such an arbitrary label disqualify one from carrying weapons, if carrying weapons is such an important freedom?
That arbitrary label also disqualifies one from voting in most US States. The Constitution doesn't say that you can never lose life or liberty -- it says that you can't lose them without due process of law. A convicted criminal has received that due process of law and is subject to the loss of liberties as proscribed by law.
It took me almost an hour to explain that the blue E is not Windows and another hour to explain that she does NOT need the blue E. I installed both Firefox (w/Adblock, Flashblock, etc) and Opera for her and showed her she doesn't need the blue E. Then, I told her not to use Internet Explorer again.
Wouldn't it have just been easier to change the Firefox icon to the IE icon and been done with it? ;)
Not that I've ever done anything like that of course.....
The Feds deciding to SWAT the entire neighborhood out of existence, I won't even get a single round off before the 500 mile nuclear fireball that hits Portland wipes out the West Hills and Beaverton.
One would hope that our military wouldn't go along with dropping a nuclear weapon on Portland......
Bush has pretty much established the right of the executive to declare anyone it feels like to be an enemy combatant
And SCOTUS has subsequently reduced that power. Some would say that they've gone too far in the other direction. The Boumediene ruling in particular -- apparently foreign nationals captured on foreign battlefields have the right of the writ of habeas corpus. Personally I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent.
He did. In the aftermath of 9-11, Iraq *was* a random country to pick off the map. It was the only Arab country without an Al Qaeda presence. That makes it worse than just some random country. Invading Iraq after 9-11 was not like us invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. It was more like us invading China after Pearl Harbor.
Feel free to ignore the US policy that existed before 9/11 if you feel that it furthers your argument. For better or worse it was US policy (passed overwhelmingly in the House, unanimously in the Senate and signed by Clinton) to change the regime in Iraq. Given this and the decade Saddam spent flouting the agreement that ended the first Gulf War, I don't really see how you can claim it was some random country picked off the map.
The point is that it is perfectly possible to frighten otherwise rational people into doing stuff that is utterly braindead and self-destructive. So that 2/3rd majority blanket you are hiding behind does not exist.
I'm not "hiding" behind anything. The 2/3rd majority is only one part of our system. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned the States (decentralization of power) and the Federal judiciary (check and balance) as well.
Its the mass media, with a broad reach. Nothing on the internet, free as it is, has anything comparable. Internet tends to self-select (you are not going to find Joe Sixpack on slashdot). Cable TV addles everyone.
What's your point? The populace needs to do a better job of being informed? You won't get an argument from me. My point was that other sources of news and information exist -- you just have to be willing to look for them. What do you want to do about Fox and CNN? Pass a law that regulates how they have to cover the news? Regulate cable TV and make it more like PBS (disclaimer: I love PBS and don't have cable -- I do actually agree with you here) so people get less 'addled'?
Which the feds have circumvented easily with the total information awareness program. It was even commented on slashdot fairly recently. I am sure that "f*ck you" will feel pretty good pretty soon.
We shall see. The history of our country is a history of competing political interests trying to push their own agenda at the expense of any civil liberty that gets in their way. Whether it's Democrats with guns or Republicans with the separation of church and state. Personally I don't trust any of them but I do have some trust in the underlying system. It's served us well so far. I'm not ready to write it's obituary just yet.
And yet you have far more in the way of random road blocks (to check for drunk drivers, uh-huh) and requirements to carry identification (like whilst driving).
The requirement to carry your drivers license while driving doesn't strike me as particularly onerous. That is actually the point of the drivers license, is it not? In any case you generally won't get into too much trouble if you don't have it -- they can assume that you are an unlicensed driver but more often than not they will just look you up on the computer. When they make a requirement that you carry your drivers license around all the time is when I'll get concerned.
The road blocks is a better point to raise, IMHO. I've spoken out against them before. It would seem to be more effective to use those police resources to patrol around looking for the guy who is swerving all over the place than to use them hassling everybody who drives through a particular stretch of roadway.
Then again, I'm convinced that the whole DWI issue is blown out of proportion and used to distract the populace from other issues. I rather like the viewpoint that the NMA has about it.
As an American, I find that a little misleading. The second amendment is not going to do a jot for you if the feds decide its time to SWAT you out of existence.
Well I would dispute that notion (it would matter if the Feds decided to SWAT a whole bunch of people out of existence) but that wasn't the underlying point I was trying to make. My underlying point was that the people of the UK sheepishly agreed to surrender a right that they had held for hundreds of years. That's a pretty dangerous precedent to set, IMHO, and why should we believe that any of the other rights will be respected if that one wasn't?
As to the right to trial by jury, there are plenty of people our government is holding, who do not even "exist", let alone are ever tried, or tried by jury.
The difference between someone captured on the battlefield and someone captured within the United States should be plain to everybody. Do you also think that we lost the right to trial by jury because we didn't afford it to the POWs we captured in the Civil War/Spanish-American War/WW1/WW2/Korea or Vietnam?
Even allow the President to declare war on a neutral country in the name of national security
I opposed the Iraq War but you should at least acknowledge that it was the stated policy of our country since the 90s to change the regime in Iraq. It's not like Bush picked a random country off to map to invade and bullied Congress into letting him do it.
or pay billions to fight STDs in the name of economic stimulus.
Well, I oppose that too, but it's interesting that you are bringing up pork in a discussion about civil liberties. Which civil liberties do I lose if Congress decides to fight STDs? My right to keep and bear chlamydia? ;)
The reason is that our media is a part of the establishment.
The media has it's own agenda -- selling copy. I would dispute that you can make a blanket statement that 'the media' is part of 'the establishment'. 'The media' is a pretty broad term. Slashdot is part of the media. Is Slashdot part of the establishment? How about 2600? They part of the establishment?
We are pretty much as scr*w*d as the Brits are. Except that most them know it. We still are living in our fantasy land.
I disagree. The fact that several states stood up and told Washington to fuck off with regards to Real ID tells me that we are far ahead of the Brits.
And that certainly helped you during the 8 years with W didn't it.
It did if you were paying attention. SCOTUS reined in a lot of his policies. Some of the states stood up and flipped Washington off over Real ID. Just because the system doesn't work overnight doesn't mean the system doesn't work.
...or to hold slaves, or voting without those pesky women or whatever? Rights change when people agree on change, and hopefully we won't agree to take away the wrong rights but there's really no stopping ourselves
Your honestly comparing holding slaves to our other rights? Holding a slave deprives another human being of his liberty. My ownership of a firearm or exercise of free speech does nothing of the kind.
YMMV but I feel safer because there's a lot lower risk I'll be killed in a drive-by stabbing or accidentally be hit by a stray knife during a knifeout then when there's guns and bullets involved.
You don't have the right to take away my rights to make yourself feel safer. I'd feel safer if we could put a muzzle on those KKK idiots but that doesn't give me the right to infringe on free speech.
And yes, having and using guns does add to the penalties so much most petty criminals don't use them
Huh? I don't know where you live but most "petty" criminals around here do carry guns. Almost every single drug bust in our area includes gun charges.
As for the big revolution, I think most gun nuts are likely to go out in a Waco-style massacre if it ever came that doesn't do anyone any good
Who is calling for the big revolution? If it ever reached that point it's a fair assumption that things have deteriorated to the point that it wouldn't just be the "gun nuts" who are resisting the Government.
Despite all good intentions I think amny will simply want peace at all costs.
I want peace, but not if I have to surrender my civil liberties to get it. I hear that Singapore is pretty peaceful -- do you really want to live there?
I mean... I know this is microsoft... And I know this is slashdot... But, can you at least read the summary, where it's stated:
Ok. So we just need to find the API that tells the OS that your software is an "anti-virus" program and hook into it for everything we write ;)
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
i_am_an_antivirus_program();
other stuff goes here;
}
Problem solved ;)
Yes, but that's a property of the US Constitution, and not the fact that you have guns.
Did I say it was? All I said about guns was that the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law and the UK allowed their Parliament to take away a right that they had held for hundreds of years. My whole argument was that if they can do that with the right to keep and bear arms they can do it with any of the other rights.
My demonstration of the US system was simply to point out how much tougher it would be to take away rights over here.
we get the inevitable "If only you had guns". The fact that similar things happen in the US, despite your guns, suggest that the point is irrelevant.
The point is only irrelevant if you think the Government taking away a right you've had forever is irrelevant. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
That must really make them eager to bust people, be over zealous and find the most minute thing to detain people on.
What are you basing that one? My observation of people working those types of jobs is that they don't want to bust people. Busting someone == paperwork.
As an alternative do you prefer the idea that everyone may openly and freely carry weapons with no caveats?
Yes, although with the caveat of not allowing them for convicted felons or mental cases. Law-abiding citizens carrying firearms harms no one.
Or that no police officer regardless of training or position be allowed to carry a firearm?
That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? I would argue that the police need more training though. The police actually shoot more innocent people than the civilian population does. The NYPD did a study a few years ago that concluded that >85% of shots fired by their officers missed what they were aiming at. Clearly they need more range time ;)
and at this rate it won't be long before people turn on them completely.
I read an interesting article that placed the blame (in the US) for the people turning on the police squarely on the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs was the primary catalyst for the militarization of police forces (they went from being armed with revolvers to having SWAT teams with fully automatic weapons and armored vehicles) and introduced an entire generation of Americans to the concept of being arrested for doing something that harms no one.
It's fiction, but if you've ever watched 'The Wire' you can actually see how this plays out on our streets. I don't know what the solution is -- it would take years to wind down the War on Drugs and probably another generation before people stopped viewing the police as the enemy.
Maybe because keeping and bearing arms was seen more like a stupid idea than a dear time-honored right?
That whooshing sound is the point flying right over your head. If sensibilities can evolve towards considering that right to be a "stupid idea" and taking it away then they can evolve towards considering other rights to be a stupid idea.
I think we should take away free speech because organizations like the KKK use it for bad things. Phrase it like that and watch the sheep line up to surrender their rights.
You might need that to do certain things, and do them by the book, but it seems to me that you can get away with what you like so long as you cover it up for a bit and then grant retrospective immunity to everyone involved. And if you think your government, with all it's DHA, TSA and other such stuff isn't keeping a record of everywhere you go, well... I disagree!
Keeping a record of everywhere I go doesn't violate my rights. I question why the government needs such a record but if you think this started with TSA you are sadly mistaken.
Surely the last government proved to you that the US executive can and will do whatever they like?
Actually, SCOTUS shot down several policies of the US executive so I think my underlying point still stands. The worst problem of the last eight years wasn't Bush (every single President since Washington has tried to expand executive power) but the manner in which the Congress rubber-stamped his policies for the first six years.
Also, who cares whether the calls were made to/from overseas places?
Historically the Government has had broader powers at the border and some of your rights may not apply when crossing that border. That doesn't mean I support all of those powers (if the call is between two Americans I don't think they have any right to be listening) but claiming that this is something new shows that you haven't really researched the topic as throughly as you should.
"Shouldna bin talkin' to them furr-ners anyway"?
Yes, any American that might see the historical basis for this kind of policy is automatically the stereotypical xenophobe and can be dismissed as such.
warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls
Fixed that for you.
The US public is too complacent to revolt, and too "patriotic".
Eh, you may have a point there, but the 2nd amendment raises an interesting issue. Historically the right to keep and bear arms came from the Common Law. In the UK you've allowed parliamentary supremacy to take away this time honored right. If they can do it to that right then why can't they take away your right to a trial by jury, your right against self-incrimination, or any of the other rights that you hold so dear?
Say what you will about the United States but at least it takes more than a majority vote in the House of Representatives to start taking away our rights. You'd also need a majority vote in the US Senate, the signature of the President (or 2/3'rds vote in the aforementioned chambers), the acquiescence of the 50 States and the Federal judiciary.
but you could tell he was French by how quickly he was willing to surrender.
I rather liked the Picard from Yesterday's Enterprise. "That'll be the day"
It's like you need a hook to somehow wedge this into your libertarian bullshit.
I'm not a libertarian. Until recently I counted myself as a card carrying Democrat. Now I'm not sure what I am. I do tend to agree with the libertarians on civil liberties but I disagree with them on many other issues.
I am actually open to listening to the arguments of the pro-gun ownership crowd, which has lead me to believe that gun ownership is simply NOT a national issue. Gun ownership in Alabama is a far different issue than Gun ownership in say, Maryland or California. Gun ownership in say, Atlanta is going to be far different than say Macon.
The exact text from that platform paper, "We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
Translation: Your Constitutional rights change when you cross lines on the map. If gun rights change in different regions then why not free speech laws? What's offensive in South Carolina might be considered perfectly normal in San Francisco. Why not separation of church and state? NYC may not want that monument of the 10 commandments in Central Park but what about that Alabama town that does?
You can't grow guns out of the ground. It takes careful machining, precision engineering and hours of manlabor to build that gun. What you forget about the part of supply and demand is the "Supply" part. Sure there's a demand for guns, but who's going to *make* them?
Take a look at the experience of the Philippines sometime. Illegal gun manufacturing is the primary source of guns for criminals over there. They may not be built as precise as the latest offering from Smith & Wesson but they get the job done. Meanwhile the civilians are unarmed. In any case you've already undercut your own argument by pointing out that you are in favor of 'regional' gun laws. So if you accept the fact that gun production will still be going on in the United States and that sales will be legal somewhere you ought to realize the folly of trying to regulate the ownership thereof.
I *was* pro gun, then I grew up and realized while these things are neat, they're also tools that are uniquely designed for MURDER.
Operative word being "tools". Tools don't have a mind of their own. This idea that the availability of guns is going to cause violence strains creditability. There are a million other things that urban areas should be doing to reduce crime (starting with reducing poverty) that would be more effective than taking away guns.
It's fantastically easy to go through any of numerous proxies available on the internet.
And the portion of the population that is knowledgeable enough to do that is small enough that Viacom really doesn't give a rats ass about them.
More importantly there was no Wesley or Riker!
What was wrong with Riker? It's not like he ever lost the Enterprise to the Ferengi, made out with a little boy, got kidnapped, accused of murder, or lost the Enterprise to an obsolete Klingon rust bucket. Oh, never mind ;)
You'd think from increased insurance premiums alone Picard would have had ample reason to find a new Number One ;)
Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.
If you want to change the 2nd amendment through the amendment process then all the power to you. But the gun control lobby doesn't want to do that because they know they could never pull it off. Instead they seek to erode it and kill the right via death by a thousand cuts. If they can do that with the 2nd amendment then they can do it with any of the other ones.
The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here.
I don't know what to tell you. You admit that your feelings are based on a "gut feeling" and then dispute the statistics that I provided because they are "too old". It seems to me that you aren't willing to even consider the other point of view. For the record I used to be in favor of gun control until I realized the folly of disarming people who follow the law and the hypocrisy of my position of shouting at the top of my lungs about civil liberties while simultaneously supporting gun control. I'm familiar with the arguments of the gun control position and I'm not convinced that they hold water.
this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason.
Statistics are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer to debate the merits of the particular position without resorting to statistics because they are invariably created by those with an agenda and easily dismissed by the other side. As far as the merits of gun control I would point to the stunning "success" of the War on Drugs as an example of the impossibility of beating the law of supply and demand.
To each their own. From a political standpoint gun control in this country is a losing issue. If the Democrats opt to go there then they'll be handing the GOP an issue to beat them over the head with and will be signing the political death warrants of every single Democrat from a rural district or pro 2nd amendment state. I'm not even convinced they would have the votes to pass it -- as most of the aforementioned Democrats would probably vote against it.
Still doesn't make it a nonsequitor argument. I really don't care about the implication on the 2nd Amendment until I know whether or not this is actually a good idea.
I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?
I'm willing to admit I was just guessing based on gut feeling, what about you? Cite your source please.
Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:
* Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds
* 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person
* When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.
* 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed
* 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.
Outside of Albany, New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, Utica, Ithaca and Long Island, New York is kind of red.
Fixed that for you. It may surprise you to learn that Upstate NY is almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans with a slight edge to the Democrats the last time I checked.