To be a warning it would have to have been written by a time traveller. It was actually written by a novelist, from his imagination. Just like "Planet of the Apes" was.
You're gullible if you confuse fiction with reality.
Seriously?
Books written about things like going to the moon and orbital satellites before the '60s were fiction as well.
Mein Kampf was fiction too, before before the Kristallnacht in 1938..
Apparently not, or you wouldn't post such ignorance. "1984" was a warning. One you seem to want to ignore. Hoping for a privileged Party assignment after the takeover, are we? Bad news: the useful idiots are always among the first to be purged.
US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.
Keep on drinking the survivalist Koolaid.
That's the spirit, Citizen!
Just keep repeating to yourself; "Ignorance is Strength!"..."Freedom is Slavery!". Disagreement with the Party is badthink!
Big Brother loves you! He couldn't exist without those like you! You've earned the privilege of a clean boot for your face! Rejoice!
And the "Rambo" crack just shows how weak your arguments are, and how closed-minded you are on the topic. If that's all you have, please stop wasting everyone's time with your inane and asinine ad hominems.
The 2-A isn't about hunting, sports, or even protection from common criminals. It's for protection against government tyranny. The other stuff is just a bonus.
Without the 2-A, Americans would be left to face down government tanks like in the famous video from Tienanmen Square of the lone man facing down a tank. Which, btw, didn't work out too well for the unarmed Chinese protesters, including that brave soul in the video facing down the tank.
You can't obstruct US justice when you aren't in the US.
And he is avoiding a legally unfavourable country. Many legit companies refuse to host in the US because doing so would break say EU privacy laws. E.g. A doctor in France couldn't store patient records in the US.
One reason why Amazon opened in Australia was because of the resistance of Australian businesses to offload their data overseas, especially the US.
Perhaps I should have added a "/sarc" tag to my OP.
I was pointing out through sarcasm precisely that kind of overreach, intrusiveness, and corruption you describe when it comes to the US and it's actions and policies, both domestic & foreign, regarding the 'net and commercial "imaginary property" and data privacy/security.
There's an enormous difference between resistance against a culturally different invading force, and an uprising against the homeland government.
Why, you're absolutely correct! There is an enormous difference.
Just not in the way nor the direction you're thinking of.
US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.
Make no mistake. A full-out US uprising/rebellion/revolution would be a long and very, very bloody affair. Think WW2 Stalingrad, Kharkov, etc. Any military attempting to suppress a widespread rebellion in the US that has the approval of a significant portion of the population would make Afghanistan or Vietnam look like a walk in the park. It would be a war of attrition, and the numbers are on the citizens' side. Ever see a swarm of army ants overwhelm a much larger, and more-powerful-by-far victim?
Pravda(!) has already warned Americans against allowing their 2-A rights to be weakened.
Heck, in the event of a rebellion, US citizens would likely receive arms/supplies/support from other nations. There are many nations who are not exactly happy with our current corrupt government, either, and would welcome a return to a US under the control of it's citizens, rather than the completely dishonest, untrustworthy, treasonous, tyrannical criminals we have had in control over the last number of decades.
Some people will argue that because guns are a high value commodity on the black market, they are a lucrative target for theft.
Isn't it curious that many, if not most, of those same people argue that prohibition simply fuels a black market, like the "War On (some) Drugs" and alcohol prohibition?
If guns were less-tightly regulated, taxed, licensed, registered, etc, criminals wouldn't find law-abiding gun-owner's homes and their guns such an attractive target, due to the lack of high payoff along with the risk of being shot.
Not saying that convicted violent felons or those legally judged to be incapable of responsible gun ownership (it shouldn't be because you were given Prozac for 6 months, 15 years ago, after your wife and kids died in a fire) should be able to own guns.
Why is it any different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago? I remember that US citizens weren't such pansies back then. Guns weren't something that terrified so many people. Bad things, shootings, happened occasionally then as well. But, people didn't get so frothing-at-the-mouth about the guns. They got upset at the person/people who committed the act, and at law enforcement and government, if they screwed up.
I can guarantee you one thing. More people in this world are killed by governments than by regular civilians shooting each other.
Government is one thing. It is raw force. That's it. That's all it is. You can draft all the pretty laws, acts, constitutions, charters, whatever you'd like. None of that, in the end, can stop raw force. Only a threat of force from the citizens themselves, if it goes too far and becomes too tyrannical/authoritarian, can keep it in check.
You want to find out what a boot stamping on a human face, forever, feels like? Remove the only check to raw force. "Checks and balances" isn't only about the three branches of the US government. There's a fourth check, an armed citizenry. Remove that check as a significant deterrent, and balance is gone. When balance is gone, so is individual liberty and freedom.
The internet police will be knocking on his door soon enough.
Not to mention taking deliberate steps to avoid prosecution by hosting exclusively outside the US, in addition to obstructing justice by having mirrored servers in different countries, making it nearly impossible for the US DoJ/ICE to take down.
It's about using tax-payer money to build a network that is cut up into regional mini-monopolies where each monopoly can extract substantial prices for basic network use and even more exhorbitant prices for overages. All of which goes to line executive and shareholder pockets while tax-payer pays the cost of building the infrastructure in the first place. This is called corruption, folks!
Ain't government intervention great?
You really expected something ELSE?
Why?
You can't "bundle" $100,000 worth of "campaign contributions".
Yet the Slashdot herd wants the government to "fix" this? (And impose "gun control" while they mock the failed "War on Drugs", but I digress...)
When the government set it up in the first damn place?
It's also about protecting cable TV and the DVD/Blu-Ray movie market. Many ISPs are also media and cable TV companies as well.
A lot of people are dropping cable TV and/or reducing/eliminating buying movies on disc in favor of getting their entertainment all from the 'net.
This is a trend they want to mitigate for obvious reasons.
The FCC underwent "regulatory capture" decades ago. Don't expect any help from the government unless they find themselves under a lot of public heat, threatening re-elections/campaign contributions.
How about we respect the constitution, and use NO scanners? I prefer that, but I guess that's just me.
Just you (and me too), apparently.
The government says that only racist, right-wing, small-government, libertarian terrorists cite the constitution.
It's only Patriotic(TM) to call for more government, not less. Otherwise, you get put on one of Big Sis's lists.
The CTC at West Point is already preparing our soldiers to deal with those dangerous "freedom-terrorists". Freedom is slavery, and allows the Bad Guys(TM) to win.
I'd like to know if this guy sees any threat from groups on the left, like the Weather Underground, the NBPP, STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement--based in Oakland, CA from 1994-2002. Organized by like-minded communist/socialist revolutionaries such as Van Jones), ALF, etc etc.
Come on! Not even 100 words in the summary, the name of this (by now) VERY well known dude appears exactly 3 times, and you can't even spell that right? Or at least make the same name appears each instance?
What does/. pay these editors for??? I mean, it's not like they are needed to select what stories to run on the frontpage (see firehose).
C'mon, give/. editors a break Their job is tough and unforgiving.
Why, in the process of preparing this very story, the editor stumbled, ripped their underwear, and severely stubbed their vagina!
How well do YOU spell with a stubbed vagina?:P
(Just joking. No offense meant towards you, Alwin.)
Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.
Unless Holder and Obama et al decide to abuse Executive Privilege as in the Fast & Furious fiasco, to prevent Congress and the Judicial from obtaining any evidence and/or documentation.
Or, just simply stonewall. Seems to work for the TSA-related stuff they've been stonewalling on.
They seem to be channeling Andrew Jackson.
"John Marshall (Congress/Courts) has made his (it's/their) decision, now let him enforce it!"
When the government ceases to even pretend to be bound by the Rule of Law or any limitations on it's powers, that kinda narrows down the range of possible responses the People can take to correct it. It's not coincidental that the 2nd Amendment is under heavy attack. Soap, ballot, and jury boxes have proven ineffective.
Completely unrelated, but did you see the new IDF remotely-controlled sniper-weapon mount system? Something like that could be controlled from a smartphone app.
Wrong names. They weren't attempting to protect the Rule of Law nor innocent civilians from a government gone bad.
They think they were.
Doesn't matter what they may have thought. They aren't a large group of US citizens personally defending themselves from armed aggression from either a foreign or domestic threat.. Breivik isn't even a US citizen, so I don't know why you're tossing him into a US-centric topic.
You're stuck in the past. Also blacks aren't slaves any more and indians aren't the object of government sanctioned genocide either.
No, you're blind to the past and refuse to learn from it. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human nature on a large political/social scale. Only the technology changes over the centuries, not basic human nature. Those that refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it's failures.
Whether it's AR-15s now, or swords back in feudal Japan, the first step taken to assume total control over the people of a nation is to disarm them and eliminate their ability to resist with force.
By the way, the term is "Native American", not "indian". Not that using the correct term would have added anything to a non-sequitur.
It's very clear from an unbiased reading of the Federalist Paper
You're not unbiased, and they are things of the distant past.
Yes, I'm biased in favor of individual rights, freedoms, and liberties, and against a powerful, authoritarian government. Oops, I guess that means those "founder-guys" were "biased" too, right?
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." - Thomas Jefferson
Another version of the last part of the above quote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." T. J.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms⦠disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes⦠Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry
""What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson" - Thomas Jefferson
On the other side of the issue, it appears that the safety of the public is NOT the object of the pro gun-control crowd.
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady: Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum - The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
The primary purpose of protecting the right to own firearms is to allow the civilian populace of the United States to maintain the necessary power to resist and possibly violently overthrow an oppressive, out-of-control government.
There is a name for people who try to do that. Here's 3 hints: Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Anders Behring Breivik.
Wrong names. They weren't attempting to protect the Rule of Law nor innocent civilians from a government gone bad.
Here. Try these names, instead. Much more accurate to the purpose & intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the reasons for it's existence.
The ONLY reason for the people in general to be disarmed is to make them subjects and slaves to an authoritarian government. There are NO valid reasons for the people to be disarmed and/or prevented from possessing arms of comparable sophistication and lethality to the standard infantry battle rifle of the current time.
It's very clear from an unbiased reading of the Federalist Papers and letters between the founders and the authors of the U.S. Constitution, that an American citizen was intended to be allowed, even encouraged, to possess modern small arms comparable to the average individual army infantry foot soldier and law enforcement officer.
Programs will monitor everything Johnny reads, watches, says, or hell, someday even thinks, and they will at their earliest ability set flags for those who watch so they can nip rebellion in the blood.
From: "Welcome To The Machine" - Pink Floyd --- Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been. You've been in the pipeline, filling in time, provided with toys and Scouting for Boys. You bought a guitar to punish your ma, And you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool, So welcome to the machine. Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream. ---
Or they would come by your home in the night, shoot you and never find the "real" killer.
They don't need such subterfuge if they want you dead.
They simply "receive an anonymous tip", and when they kick in your door, you "made a threatening or furtive movement" or you "appeared to possess a weapon" (your TV remote, maybe).
They might even send flowers to the services.
Personally, I feel that domestic police should be more on an even-firepower-field with civilians, maybe even at a disadvantage, like being forced to go back to.38-special revolvers with only FMJ ammo, no armored vehicles, be restricted to bolt-action rifles, and forbidden to use body-armor. They have more than enough advantage over criminals in numbers, training, and organization/communications (they can always call up more police for backup).
Don't like it as a cop, not having overwhelming firepower superiority over any citizen? Don't be a cop. You're in the wrong field if you object to being equal. The authors of the US Constitution plainly intended any citizen to be on a one-to-one, individual-firepower parity with a soldier or police officer.
Yes, I think civilians should be able to legally buy, sell, own, and carry select-fire weapons like the M4 and M16, as well as Stens, Uzis, Thompson Model 1928s, etc etc. No, that doesn't mean explosives-based weapons like grenades, mortars, rockets, etc. It's unnecessary, as with sufficient firepower as outlined above, those can be obtained if the situation becomes that dire.
Then don't look up in the sky in a few months when the Police (Local, State and Federal?) will have Drones covering all public thorough fairs.
I think the word you're looking for is "thoroughfares".
What, you mean those aren't glorified target-drones for geek experimenters to try out various methods of bringing them down and/or taking them over?
Wow, will our drone-flying overlords ever be surprised! Hope they bought *lots* of replacements! Maybe they'll be able to recycle some of the debris.
As a bonus, the target drones...err, surveillance drones...will also help people perfect methods & techniques for civilians to take out other aircraft with threat-potentials to the civilian population like police/military helicopters as well, should they go all "jackboot-y" and "shoot-y" on us.
I'm not saying it can't be broken...but I don't believe my local Barny Fife is going to have the tools or know how to crack my phone, and so far, I've steered clear of anything that might interest the FBI.
Stay out of Michigan, then. Not just because it's become practically a 3rd-world hellhole with packs of wild dogs and bears wandering around in Detroit as nature reclaims it like it did the Mayan and Inca cities/temples, but because of the MSP.
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and videos off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections. 'Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,' a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities."
A Google search will provide other sources as well. Wasn't able to find anything about the practice being halted with a quick search.
Hopefully, the ACLU will put up enough of a fuss to have the practice nixed without a warrant signed by a judge. But, I'm not counting on it.
I wonder if you could open up a phone (not an iPhone, obviously), add a voltage multiplier circuit, and wire it to the data pin on the connector so that it fries their "slurper" device if connected? I imagine at the very least, one could disconnect the data pin so that the "slurper" can't make a connection, and at least force them to have to come up with a reason to seize the phone and take it to a lab, rather than force a quick roadside "data dump" that they can later deny and/or alter their story about the facts surrounding the incident.
Thank you for your patience. That is quite a gracious reply to someone who devolved into caps-yelling, and a humbling one.
I look at it this way; We are all Americans (yes, I know, but/. *is* a US-centric blog), and nobody wants to starve children or enslave anyone despite rhetoric on both sides, at least among we citizens. Hatreds and divisions of all stripes are fanned by those in power precisely to prevent rational discourse, be it partisan/political, racial, religious, or economic class.
It's when the emotions and hatreds are so high that "winning" becomes more important than being right.
I can tell that you care deeply and feel strongly about these issues and others. That's fine and as it should be if one believes strongly in something outside of and larger than themselves. However, one should always be wary of letting emotion overrule logic and rationality and blind those who think & act from emotion to propaganda and lies.
That's what dictators and tyrannical regimes of every stripe have always used to divide a people and take their freedom. I strongly suggest that everyone could do with learning some detailed history, both of the world, and the US. That's one of the pillars forming my opinions. I look to history for examples, as there is vanishingly-little in politics that hasn't occurred or been tried before, usually many times in many different regions, and by many different peoples and cultures.
We may disagree about the best methods, but our motivations are basically the same; To make a better US and world for everyone. Even for those with whom we strongly disagree.
My apologies, BlueStrat. I lost my temper, and declined into a useless form of discussion. I find the thought that Gore would have given us the same world as Bush (or a worse one) so ludicrous that it is difficult for me to treat it as a seriously, sincerely, and considered point of view.
My views are serious and sincerely-held. I find it equally frustrating, as I see arguments such as yours that, though well-reasoned to a point, don't go far enough in the analysis-chain. You stop short of pursuing a thread to it's origin.
Like this:
I will point something out *again*. In the 2000 election, Gore had 8 years of experience in the executive office, as VP under Bill Clinton. During his time in executive office, the US created a budget *surplus*
That surplus was the result of the winding-down of the Cold War combined with the lagging increases in wealth and job creation from the Reagan economic/tax/regulatory policies (Clinton's economy benefited from Reagan as Obama's suffered from Bush), and from a (R)-controlled Congress both restraining Clinton's spending, and forcing Clinton to stay generally moderate, economically.
The budget surplus really had very little to do with Clinton administration policies or actions. It was much more a matter of right place, right time for Clinton's economy, rather than anything Clinton did or didn't do. Well, he was smart enough not to screw things up when he saw things were working out to his benefit without his taking any risky stands on the Left's pet economic issues.
I get frustrated because I feel like I'm trying to argue with somebody about what a Pointillist painting portrays from ten steps back, when that person refuses to take more than two steps back and gets mad and tells me I'm an idiot and I need to shut up, when I argue it's more than just dots.
One has to be willing to look deeper and farther back than most people are willing to in pursuing the real reasons and motives behind things and people, especially in politics. Trouble is, most people stop pursuing the records and history once they get to an answer that satisfies their personal views, even though it doesn't stop there.
How do you know that Gore would have behaved any differently than Bush? Obama was the gleaming example of Hope and Change, and here he's almost indistinguishable in policy from Bush. It appears that in order to even appear on the ballot, a candidate must swear allegiance to some outside cause, despite the party he chooses to ride to the position.
One can't know of course, one can only speculate. But it seems reasonable to look to Gore's legislative and executive track records as both Congressman and VP, as well as to what lobbys proved to be most influential with him, for a fair guess.
Had Gore turned out to have the same foreign and domestic policy as Bush, it would have been extremely inconsistent with his past actions.
Why would it be different with Gore than with Obama? Remember, Obama accused Bush of being irresponsible for wanting to raise the US debt ceiling.
âoe"he fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.â
Plus, there's a litany of other promises Obama made to abolish or radically change Bush/Reagan-era policies and laws that Obama, once in office, reversed course on.
I have no reason to believe that Gore would be any better, and some reason to believe he might have been much worse.
We must read things quite a bit differently, because what I come away with from that is that a media entity aligned with conservative interests reacted capriciously and childishly when things didn't go their way.
If The Blaze is so capricious and childish, then why is it that Reason TV is going broke because it has no audience while The Blaze TV is growing and expanding at a rapid rate?
And what exactly was it in their "reaction" that you found capricious and childish? That they reported they were turned down on purely ideological grounds, but apparently that "ideology" doesn't preclude an environmentalist icon choosing to take millions in oil money over other options not tied to Mideast oil interests?
Is it the reporting of "inconvenient" facts like that you find capricious and childish?
Don't all those mental, ethical, and moral gymnastics required to validate and defend your views make you tired and cranky all the time? You poor thing! You must be a wreck by now!
"Al Jazeera, its audience, and progressives all support terrorism!" --BlueStrat's fuckwit implication of the day.
Back to The Blaze with you, please.
I never said nor implied that. Nice strawman you've made there, why do you beat it so?
Well, this IS Slashdot...I probably shouldn't ask a "fuckwit" (to use his own ad hominem appellation) AC questions about "beating" *anything*.:-/
I let their own words and actions speak for them in the quote and link cited. I suggest that if you're unhappy about what they said and/or did because you somehow think what they said and/or did implies they support terrorism, you should take it up with them.
I understand also that "shooting the messenger" is the standard response for partisan political hacks that want to distract people from an "inconvenient" fact, question, or occurrence.
Slashdot Mirror
To be a warning it would have to have been written by a time traveller. It was actually written by a novelist, from his imagination. Just like "Planet of the Apes" was.
You're gullible if you confuse fiction with reality.
Seriously?
Books written about things like going to the moon and orbital satellites before the '60s were fiction as well.
Mein Kampf was fiction too, before before the Kristallnacht in 1938..
Hello? McFly?
Strat
You do realise Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction.
Erm...have you looked around lately? 0.o
Apparently not, or you wouldn't post such ignorance. "1984" was a warning. One you seem to want to ignore. Hoping for a privileged Party assignment after the takeover, are we? Bad news: the useful idiots are always among the first to be purged.
Strat
That's the spirit, Citizen!
Just keep repeating to yourself; "Ignorance is Strength!"..."Freedom is Slavery!". Disagreement with the Party is badthink!
Big Brother loves you! He couldn't exist without those like you! You've earned the privilege of a clean boot for your face! Rejoice!
Strat
I put you on the list of not responsible enough to have a gun. I bet Rambo is your favorite film
You should sit down and talk with these guys.
From Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
From a Tienanmen Square activist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miEmIfhfxuc
And the "Rambo" crack just shows how weak your arguments are, and how closed-minded you are on the topic. If that's all you have, please stop wasting everyone's time with your inane and asinine ad hominems.
The 2-A isn't about hunting, sports, or even protection from common criminals. It's for protection against government tyranny. The other stuff is just a bonus.
Without the 2-A, Americans would be left to face down government tanks like in the famous video from Tienanmen Square of the lone man facing down a tank. Which, btw, didn't work out too well for the unarmed Chinese protesters, including that brave soul in the video facing down the tank.
Strat
You can't obstruct US justice when you aren't in the US.
And he is avoiding a legally unfavourable country. Many legit companies refuse to host in the US because doing so would break say EU privacy laws.
E.g. A doctor in France couldn't store patient records in the US.
One reason why Amazon opened in Australia was because of the resistance of Australian businesses to offload their data overseas, especially the US.
Perhaps I should have added a "/sarc" tag to my OP.
I was pointing out through sarcasm precisely that kind of overreach, intrusiveness, and corruption you describe when it comes to the US and it's actions and policies, both domestic & foreign, regarding the 'net and commercial "imaginary property" and data privacy/security.
Strat
There's an enormous difference between resistance against a culturally different invading force, and an uprising against the homeland government.
Why, you're absolutely correct! There is an enormous difference.
Just not in the way nor the direction you're thinking of.
US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.
Make no mistake. A full-out US uprising/rebellion/revolution would be a long and very, very bloody affair. Think WW2 Stalingrad, Kharkov, etc. Any military attempting to suppress a widespread rebellion in the US that has the approval of a significant portion of the population would make Afghanistan or Vietnam look like a walk in the park. It would be a war of attrition, and the numbers are on the citizens' side. Ever see a swarm of army ants overwhelm a much larger, and more-powerful-by-far victim?
Pravda(!) has already warned Americans against allowing their 2-A rights to be weakened.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
Heck, in the event of a rebellion, US citizens would likely receive arms/supplies/support from other nations. There are many nations who are not exactly happy with our current corrupt government, either, and would welcome a return to a US under the control of it's citizens, rather than the completely dishonest, untrustworthy, treasonous, tyrannical criminals we have had in control over the last number of decades.
Strat
Some people will argue that because guns are a high value commodity on the black market, they are a lucrative target for theft.
Isn't it curious that many, if not most, of those same people argue that prohibition simply fuels a black market, like the "War On (some) Drugs" and alcohol prohibition?
If guns were less-tightly regulated, taxed, licensed, registered, etc, criminals wouldn't find law-abiding gun-owner's homes and their guns such an attractive target, due to the lack of high payoff along with the risk of being shot.
Not saying that convicted violent felons or those legally judged to be incapable of responsible gun ownership (it shouldn't be because you were given Prozac for 6 months, 15 years ago, after your wife and kids died in a fire) should be able to own guns.
Why is it any different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago? I remember that US citizens weren't such pansies back then. Guns weren't something that terrified so many people. Bad things, shootings, happened occasionally then as well. But, people didn't get so frothing-at-the-mouth about the guns. They got upset at the person/people who committed the act, and at law enforcement and government, if they screwed up.
I can guarantee you one thing. More people in this world are killed by governments than by regular civilians shooting each other.
Government is one thing. It is raw force . That's it. That's all it is. You can draft all the pretty laws, acts, constitutions, charters, whatever you'd like. None of that, in the end, can stop raw force. Only a threat of force from the citizens themselves, if it goes too far and becomes too tyrannical/authoritarian, can keep it in check.
You want to find out what a boot stamping on a human face, forever, feels like? Remove the only check to raw force. "Checks and balances" isn't only about the three branches of the US government. There's a fourth check, an armed citizenry. Remove that check as a significant deterrent, and balance is gone. When balance is gone, so is individual liberty and freedom.
Strat
The common ground/interests aren't necessarily always copyright-related, but also "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", where enemy==customers.
Strat
Willlful ignorance is a crime...
The internet police will be knocking on his door soon enough.
Not to mention taking deliberate steps to avoid prosecution by hosting exclusively outside the US, in addition to obstructing justice by having mirrored servers in different countries, making it nearly impossible for the US DoJ/ICE to take down.
He's a "digital terrorist"!
Cue the drone strikes and SEAL raids.
Strat
It's also about protecting cable TV and the DVD/Blu-Ray movie market. Many ISPs are also media and cable TV companies as well.
A lot of people are dropping cable TV and/or reducing/eliminating buying movies on disc in favor of getting their entertainment all from the 'net.
This is a trend they want to mitigate for obvious reasons.
The FCC underwent "regulatory capture" decades ago. Don't expect any help from the government unless they find themselves under a lot of public heat, threatening re-elections/campaign contributions.
Strat
How about we respect the constitution, and use NO scanners? I prefer that, but I guess that's just me.
Just you (and me too), apparently.
The government says that only racist, right-wing, small-government, libertarian terrorists cite the constitution.
It's only Patriotic(TM) to call for more government, not less. Otherwise, you get put on one of Big Sis's lists.
The CTC at West Point is already preparing our soldiers to deal with those dangerous "freedom-terrorists". Freedom is slavery, and allows the Bad Guys(TM) to win.
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/challengers-from-the-sidelines-understanding-americas-violent-far-right
I'd like to know if this guy sees any threat from groups on the left, like the Weather Underground, the NBPP, STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement--based in Oakland, CA from 1994-2002. Organized by like-minded communist/socialist revolutionaries such as Van Jones), ALF, etc etc.
Strat
"Doctom says .."
Come on! Not even 100 words in the summary, the name of this (by now) VERY well known dude appears exactly 3 times, and you can't even spell that right? Or at least make the same name appears each instance?
What does /. pay these editors for??? I mean, it's not like they are needed to select what stories to run on the frontpage (see firehose).
C'mon, give /. editors a break Their job is tough and unforgiving.
Why, in the process of preparing this very story, the editor stumbled, ripped their underwear, and severely stubbed their vagina!
How well do YOU spell with a stubbed vagina? :P
(Just joking. No offense meant towards you, Alwin.)
Strat
Needs more bitcoins.
Nah. Needs garlic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttYdJRtmZJU
Strat
Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.
Unless Holder and Obama et al decide to abuse Executive Privilege as in the Fast & Furious fiasco, to prevent Congress and the Judicial from obtaining any evidence and/or documentation.
Or, just simply stonewall. Seems to work for the TSA-related stuff they've been stonewalling on.
They seem to be channeling Andrew Jackson.
"John Marshall (Congress/Courts) has made his (it's/their) decision, now let him enforce it!"
When the government ceases to even pretend to be bound by the Rule of Law or any limitations on it's powers, that kinda narrows down the range of possible responses the People can take to correct it. It's not coincidental that the 2nd Amendment is under heavy attack. Soap, ballot, and jury boxes have proven ineffective.
Completely unrelated, but did you see the new IDF remotely-controlled sniper-weapon mount system? Something like that could be controlled from a smartphone app.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:835b7d06-e3e0-428d-930b-9ea88e088c29
Doesn't seem like it would be too hard for hardware hackers to duplicate that functionality with mostly OTS robotics-hobbyist parts and components.
Just sayin'
Strat
Doesn't matter what they may have thought. They aren't a large group of US citizens personally defending themselves from armed aggression from either a foreign or domestic threat.. Breivik isn't even a US citizen, so I don't know why you're tossing him into a US-centric topic.
No, you're blind to the past and refuse to learn from it. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to human nature on a large political/social scale. Only the technology changes over the centuries, not basic human nature. Those that refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it's failures.
Whether it's AR-15s now, or swords back in feudal Japan, the first step taken to assume total control over the people of a nation is to disarm them and eliminate their ability to resist with force.
By the way, the term is "Native American", not "indian". Not that using the correct term would have added anything to a non-sequitur.
Yes, I'm biased in favor of individual rights, freedoms, and liberties, and against a powerful, authoritarian government. Oops, I guess that means those "founder-guys" were "biased" too, right?
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." - Thomas Jefferson
Another version of the last part of the above quote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." T. J.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms⦠disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes⦠Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry
""What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson" - Thomas Jefferson
On the other side of the issue, it appears that the safety of the public is NOT the object of the pro gun-control crowd.
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady: Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum - The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
Strat
Wrong names. They weren't attempting to protect the Rule of Law nor innocent civilians from a government gone bad.
Here. Try these names, instead. Much more accurate to the purpose & intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the reasons for it's existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution
The ONLY reason for the people in general to be disarmed is to make them subjects and slaves to an authoritarian government. There are NO valid reasons for the people to be disarmed and/or prevented from possessing arms of comparable sophistication and lethality to the standard infantry battle rifle of the current time.
It's very clear from an unbiased reading of the Federalist Papers and letters between the founders and the authors of the U.S. Constitution, that an American citizen was intended to be allowed, even encouraged, to possess modern small arms comparable to the average individual army infantry foot soldier and law enforcement officer.
Strat
Programs will monitor everything Johnny reads, watches, says, or hell, someday even thinks, and they will at their earliest ability set flags for those who watch so they can nip rebellion in the blood.
From: "Welcome To The Machine" - Pink Floyd
---
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time,
provided with toys and Scouting for Boys.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
And you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool,
So welcome to the machine.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It's alright we told you what to dream.
---
Strat
Or they would come by your home in the night, shoot you and never find the "real" killer.
They don't need such subterfuge if they want you dead.
They simply "receive an anonymous tip", and when they kick in your door, you "made a threatening or furtive movement" or you "appeared to possess a weapon" (your TV remote, maybe).
They might even send flowers to the services.
Personally, I feel that domestic police should be more on an even-firepower-field with civilians, maybe even at a disadvantage, like being forced to go back to .38-special revolvers with only FMJ ammo, no armored vehicles, be restricted to bolt-action rifles, and forbidden to use body-armor. They have more than enough advantage over criminals in numbers, training, and organization/communications (they can always call up more police for backup).
Don't like it as a cop, not having overwhelming firepower superiority over any citizen? Don't be a cop. You're in the wrong field if you object to being equal. The authors of the US Constitution plainly intended any citizen to be on a one-to-one, individual-firepower parity with a soldier or police officer.
Yes, I think civilians should be able to legally buy, sell, own, and carry select-fire weapons like the M4 and M16, as well as Stens, Uzis, Thompson Model 1928s, etc etc. No, that doesn't mean explosives-based weapons like grenades, mortars, rockets, etc. It's unnecessary, as with sufficient firepower as outlined above, those can be obtained if the situation becomes that dire.
Strat
Then don't look up in the sky in a few months when the Police (Local, State and Federal?) will have Drones covering all public thorough fairs.
I think the word you're looking for is "thoroughfares".
What, you mean those aren't glorified target-drones for geek experimenters to try out various methods of bringing them down and/or taking them over?
Wow, will our drone-flying overlords ever be surprised! Hope they bought *lots* of replacements! Maybe they'll be able to recycle some of the debris.
As a bonus, the target drones...err, surveillance drones...will also help people perfect methods & techniques for civilians to take out other aircraft with threat-potentials to the civilian population like police/military helicopters as well, should they go all "jackboot-y" and "shoot-y" on us.
Strat
I'm not saying it can't be broken...but I don't believe my local Barny Fife is going to have the tools or know how to crack my phone, and so far, I've steered clear of anything that might interest the FBI.
Stay out of Michigan, then. Not just because it's become practically a 3rd-world hellhole with packs of wild dogs and bears wandering around in Detroit as nature reclaims it like it did the Mayan and Inca cities/temples, but because of the MSP.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/04/19/2231240/michigan-police-could-search-cell-phones-during-traffic-stops
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and videos off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections. 'Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,' a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities."
A Google search will provide other sources as well. Wasn't able to find anything about the practice being halted with a quick search.
Hopefully, the ACLU will put up enough of a fuss to have the practice nixed without a warrant signed by a judge. But, I'm not counting on it.
I wonder if you could open up a phone (not an iPhone, obviously), add a voltage multiplier circuit, and wire it to the data pin on the connector so that it fries their "slurper" device if connected? I imagine at the very least, one could disconnect the data pin so that the "slurper" can't make a connection, and at least force them to have to come up with a reason to seize the phone and take it to a lab, rather than force a quick roadside "data dump" that they can later deny and/or alter their story about the facts surrounding the incident.
Strat
Thank you for your patience. That is quite a gracious reply to someone who devolved into caps-yelling, and a humbling one.
I look at it this way; We are all Americans (yes, I know, but /. *is* a US-centric blog), and nobody wants to starve children or enslave anyone despite rhetoric on both sides, at least among we citizens. Hatreds and divisions of all stripes are fanned by those in power precisely to prevent rational discourse, be it partisan/political, racial, religious, or economic class.
It's when the emotions and hatreds are so high that "winning" becomes more important than being right.
I can tell that you care deeply and feel strongly about these issues and others. That's fine and as it should be if one believes strongly in something outside of and larger than themselves. However, one should always be wary of letting emotion overrule logic and rationality and blind those who think & act from emotion to propaganda and lies.
That's what dictators and tyrannical regimes of every stripe have always used to divide a people and take their freedom. I strongly suggest that everyone could do with learning some detailed history, both of the world, and the US. That's one of the pillars forming my opinions. I look to history for examples, as there is vanishingly-little in politics that hasn't occurred or been tried before, usually many times in many different regions, and by many different peoples and cultures.
We may disagree about the best methods, but our motivations are basically the same; To make a better US and world for everyone. Even for those with whom we strongly disagree.
Strat
My apologies, BlueStrat. I lost my temper, and declined into a useless form of discussion. I find the thought that Gore would have given us the same world as Bush (or a worse one) so ludicrous that it is difficult for me to treat it as a seriously, sincerely, and considered point of view.
My views are serious and sincerely-held. I find it equally frustrating, as I see arguments such as yours that, though well-reasoned to a point, don't go far enough in the analysis-chain. You stop short of pursuing a thread to it's origin.
Like this:
I will point something out *again*. In the 2000 election, Gore had 8 years of experience in the executive office, as VP under Bill Clinton. During his time in executive office, the US created a budget *surplus*
That surplus was the result of the winding-down of the Cold War combined with the lagging increases in wealth and job creation from the Reagan economic/tax/regulatory policies (Clinton's economy benefited from Reagan as Obama's suffered from Bush), and from a (R)-controlled Congress both restraining Clinton's spending, and forcing Clinton to stay generally moderate, economically.
The budget surplus really had very little to do with Clinton administration policies or actions. It was much more a matter of right place, right time for Clinton's economy, rather than anything Clinton did or didn't do. Well, he was smart enough not to screw things up when he saw things were working out to his benefit without his taking any risky stands on the Left's pet economic issues.
I get frustrated because I feel like I'm trying to argue with somebody about what a Pointillist painting portrays from ten steps back, when that person refuses to take more than two steps back and gets mad and tells me I'm an idiot and I need to shut up, when I argue it's more than just dots.
One has to be willing to look deeper and farther back than most people are willing to in pursuing the real reasons and motives behind things and people, especially in politics. Trouble is, most people stop pursuing the records and history once they get to an answer that satisfies their personal views, even though it doesn't stop there.
Strat
Why would it be different with Gore than with Obama? Remember, Obama accused Bush of being irresponsible for wanting to raise the US debt ceiling.
âoe"he fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.â
Plus, there's a litany of other promises Obama made to abolish or radically change Bush/Reagan-era policies and laws that Obama, once in office, reversed course on.
I have no reason to believe that Gore would be any better, and some reason to believe he might have been much worse.
Strat
We must read things quite a bit differently, because what I come away with from that is that a media entity aligned with conservative interests reacted capriciously and childishly when things didn't go their way.
If The Blaze is so capricious and childish, then why is it that Reason TV is going broke because it has no audience while The Blaze TV is growing and expanding at a rapid rate?
And what exactly was it in their "reaction" that you found capricious and childish? That they reported they were turned down on purely ideological grounds, but apparently that "ideology" doesn't preclude an environmentalist icon choosing to take millions in oil money over other options not tied to Mideast oil interests?
Is it the reporting of "inconvenient" facts like that you find capricious and childish?
Don't all those mental, ethical, and moral gymnastics required to validate and defend your views make you tired and cranky all the time? You poor thing! You must be a wreck by now!
Strat
"Al Jazeera, its audience, and progressives all support terrorism!" --BlueStrat's fuckwit implication of the day.
Back to The Blaze with you, please.
I never said nor implied that. Nice strawman you've made there, why do you beat it so?
Well, this IS Slashdot...I probably shouldn't ask a "fuckwit" (to use his own ad hominem appellation) AC questions about "beating" *anything*. :-/
I let their own words and actions speak for them in the quote and link cited. I suggest that if you're unhappy about what they said and/or did because you somehow think what they said and/or did implies they support terrorism, you should take it up with them.
I understand also that "shooting the messenger" is the standard response for partisan political hacks that want to distract people from an "inconvenient" fact, question, or occurrence.
Strat