In case you're not aware: this probably got modded "funny" because when people DO try this, the authorities fight back, dismantle what has been built, and usually have fun doing their best to punish the people involved. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is a very visible example. You generally don't hear about the smaller ones, but it doesn't end any better.
Just because there is pushback should not stop it. If one setup is taken out, start others. Lots and lots of others, with fallback redundancy to backups in nations unfriendly to the US.
Make them play whack-a-mole. Just keep refining the systems until they are sufficiently distributed and difficult to destroy. At the very least, it will mean the government expends resources and political capital it could have been using elsewhere.
Drive to WalMart and buy one... $300 would get you a 12gauge.. but, honestly it may be possible to get around that even.. a little effort and a ramset could probably be pretty deadly... or a bbgun... or a paintball gun... or you could make a pretty nice spear with a tiny amount of work..
Pish!
Just buy one from the neighbor down the street, as far as rifles and shotguns (and black powder weapons as well, but not as relevant) are concerned. There are no legal requirements in the US to register or report private ownership or sales between private individuals of standard semi-auto rifles and shotguns at either the Federal or State level that I am aware of.
Yeah, like gold isn't under control of the futures market, and of course government and banks would take no control of it if gold were to be used as a basis for money.
But, gold is a real, tangible, physical good. In order to "take control" of it would require confiscating all private gold held by the population. Think about all the gold that's been widely sold over the last ten years and hidden away by "prepper" types and others that see a collapse of the financial system coming. Would make quite a stink for the Feds to start sending out the jackboots to comb through people's houses and property and confiscate it.
All that using gold as a basis for money will do is make money scarce (because gold is scarce) and thus cause poverty, drive up the price of gold due to high demand and very limited supply, and thus make gold traders happy
Gold and silver have been, for over 100 years, remarkably stable in value. Money that isn't tied to gold, not so much. A $20 gold coin from the 1800s still buys the same amount of goods and services today. In the 1800s a $20 gold piece would buy you a fine suit. The same coin will buy a comparably-fine suit today. Two silver US dimes would buy a gallon of gasoline in the early 1900s. The value of the silver in those same two dimes will still buy a gallon of gasoline today.
Taking a currency off the gold standard is simply a way for the government to inflate the currency and effectively steal monetary value from everyone holding and trading in that currency. It's an "invisible" tax on everyone holding/trading that currency. Suddenly, your money doesn't buy as much.
The series of "quantitative easing" actions by the US Fed is simply doubling- tripling- and quadrupling-down and accelerating this robbing of currency holders as the economy heads towards collapse. It will delay the collapse, but will make it worse when it does finally fall apart. TPTB are simply delaying while they shift their assets to protect them while sucking up all the wealth they can out of the economy before the SHTF.
I find it disturbing how closely the current events in the US are mirroring those of the Wiemar Republic, whose collapse paved the way for a guy with a funny mustache to stir up a bit of trouble.
But of course, things like that couldn't happen here. We're "civilized" now. Or is that "hypnotized" or "anesthetized"?
If we pissed on the constitution every time some troll tried to get a reaction, the federal government would have entire agencies dedicated to the destruction of the bill of rights.
We do.
They have.
They exist and are working towards just that.
DHS
TSA
DoJ
Congress
POTUS
SCOTUS
TLAs
They were originally created (except DHS/TSA that were intended from the beginning to shred individual rights) to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
You are hiding behind the 2nd. We have many things in our formative years which are important to us at the time but as we grow and develop we realise that those thing have a time and a place and we forsake them as our knowledge and understanding grows. The 2nd amendment is preventing the US from becoming a safe place to live as you talk of freedom -- what about the freedom of someone who chooses not to carry a firearm to be free of being surrounded by people carrying deadly weapons? Why are they not free to be in a place where people don't have the instant ability to kill them? You need to give your country a chance to grow.
I say what good is being "safe" if one has no freedom? Solitary confinement in a prison is safe, but I'll take my chances out here, thanks all the same.
Human nature has not changed in 10,000 years, as much as you'd like to believe people are all "civilized" now. The nature of people and governments has not changed. The principles I've outlined and the quotes I provide are just as relevant and important now, today, as they were at the nation's founding.
One of the biggest reasons for high levels of violence in the US is that the 2nd Amendment has already been overly-restricted and regulated.
Just as the answer to speech you disagree with is more speech, so too the answer to high levels of criminal violence is allowing more people the ability to be armed to protect themselves and their families and communities while deterring criminals.
Most of the other nations of the world either ban guns or severely restrict them. The US does not prevent citizens from immigrating to another country. They are free to go where the core principles on which that nation is founded suits them.
They are NOT free, however, to take other people's freedoms from them and change the basis on which the nation was founded for some illusion of safety, for an unarmed people will never be safe, particularly from abuses and tyranny from their own government.
The US was formed as an open, free society. Open and free societies have risks because freedom means people can sometimes behave in unexpected and sometimes negative ways. The only way to eliminate risks are to remove the freedoms that could allow a person to act in a manner outside of the government-prescribed "safe" manner. People who exist under such a system are what is know as "serfs" "subjects" and "slaves". An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a slave.
"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." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin 1775
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." - Noah Webster
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms,
Happily, I think most states will eventually see that pot smoking is no worse for you than cigarette smoking and stop making it into a reason to arrest, imprison, and occasionally shoot people. Once that happens, the Federal government will eventually give up on it. It will just take time.
States won't give it up until their ability to charge your money and property with crimes (not you, so you have no legal standing) and seize them for the benefit of the State is halted. States and LEAs use and abuse civil forfeiture horribly. Just Google a few relevant search terms. The unbelievably-shocking, and in many cases bold & arrogant on LE's part, horror stories of injustice abound.
They turn around and use the proceeds to buy, through the Federal "1033" program, older military hardware like grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles, and armored vehicles, paying only for delivery.
According to data provided by the Pentagon Defense Logistics Agency, orders in fiscal year 2012 have jumped by 400 percent over the same period in 2011. Over 17,000 law-enforcement agencies have ordered USD 2.6 billion worth of tools, paying for delivery costs only.
The rise in the orders of weaponry comes as US crime rates have fallen to 40-year lows. And yet, even with the low crime rates and massive militarization of civilian domestic police forces, the government is pushing to restrict and curtail 2nd Amendment rights of citizens even more.
Sounds to me like we're almost to "official" police-state status as a nation in the US.
Considering the havoc that a few over-achieving, narcissistic and predatory businessman have reeked on our economy, maybe a little tempering of the ambition would be a good thing.
Agreed.
Too bad the worst ones who do the most damage hold political office in Washington, D.C., in all three branches of government.
If they know nothing and just want free stuff from the state that's not OK.
How is that different from current native-born UK, and for that matter, US citizens? Hell, even *after* they graduate as well? Believe me, as someone who has tried to hire competent university graduates, even many of the ones who graduate with high marks are shockingly ignorant and incompetent in the fields they hold degrees in.
I don't care if a candidate graduated with an advanced degree with high grade-averages from the most prestigious universities or doesn't even have a GED. If you can *do the work* is what matters, and I've found that a H.S. grad is often more competent and knowledgeable than someone with a Masters or PhD. I swear, I think today's colleges and universities are actually making people dumber than if they'd not attended a college or university at all!
You people apparently have no interest in fixing your country. The quotes refer to a different time, a different era. You country is broken and innocent people are suffering because of it. Become civilised.
The quotes are just as relevant today as they were then. The quotes are not dependent on the technology level of the people. The quotes teach a lesson about human nature, which hasn't changed much in 10,000 years. They are also about man's relationship with government, and like man himself, the nature (not type) of governments has also not changed, because governments are made up of those same humans that have not changed their basic nature and behaviors in 10K years.
Those quotes teach lessons about the nature of man and his relationship with government that would have been true 5,000 years ago (adjusted for time-shift, e.g. swords/guns) and will be just as relevant 5,000 years from now.
They are like Sun Tzu's "Art of War" in that the principles set forth hold true over time because they deal with human nature and behavior which, again, has changed very little in 10,000 years. Freedom is freedom and tyranny is tyranny across the ages, citizens will struggle to be free and governments will always seek ever-more power over them, whether the citizens and government employ flintlocks and horse-drawn wagons, phasers and starships, or M16s and fighter jets.
The point is reducing the ability of such people to do bad things. Guns provide a uniquely concealable, portable way to kill a lot of people over a large area in a very short time.
And they can be made by anyone with access to modest machining resources. Spent ammo can be reloaded. You can freaking PRINT a gun now. What in the world makes you think that someone like an insane mass-murderer would not or could not make a gun?
Bombs aren't generally very portable...
One of the most common home-made bombs is the pipe-bomb. Extremely portable and concealable.
and usually we don't have suicide bombers in the US.
Try to ban guns and I guarantee that will change for the worse.
tell me that guns aren't a much much bigger problem.
Ok.
Guns aren't a much bigger problem.
The bigger problem is the decline in a general and common sense of right and wrong and moral behavior in US society, fostered by ~80 years of false Liberal/Progressive "moral equivalency" which the population has been indoctrinated with from grade-school up that teaches/encourages sociopathic thinking such as this shooter's and others like him that lead to such tragedies
It's always the unintended consequences of Liberal/Progressive laws, beliefs, actions, and policies that Liberal/Progressives wish to avoid having the light shown upon.
A keyboard isn't a computer. Shame on you for not doing that.
And I tell you what, you attack soneon with the keyboard in a mall or school, lets see how many people you can kill.
I can use the computer to hack into a chemical plant, oil refinery, or similar facility near a school or mall and cause a massive explosion or lethal chemical release that would kill everyone in the entire school and mall simultaneously, along with most of the town.
I could use a computer to hack into and crash the stock market and cause widespread poverty and starvation.
I could use a computer to upload a video that causes a bunch of religious zealots to go on a killing spree.
Hmmph. I'd say guns...even thousands of fully-automatic assault rifles in civilian hands...are far less capable of mass killings than computers.
So...when are you planning on turning yours into the government, since you obviously have been clinging to your weapon of mass destruction up until now?
But the 2nd doesn't apply... it's a "Gun Free Zone". Isn't this what you wanted?
You are the most despicable piece of crap ever to post on/. How the fuck dare you try to turn this around, blame the anti gun lobby, and have the audacity to post something as disgusting and evil as claiming that someone on the opposite side of this issue "wanted" this to happen. You and your ilk are the cause of this atrocity. You have blood on your hands. I hope there's a hell for you to burn in, you disgusting, disgraceful, sick, twisted shit fuck.
He dares because the blame DOES lay with the anti-gun people, "gun-free zones" ARE free-fire zones for nutcases such as this shooter, and by the history of their radical actions, such a scenario as a false-flag op by the anti-gun nuts is a real possibility.
Fuck you. Fuck you to high heaven.
Don't you have some jackboots to spit-shine with that nasty tongue?
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
C'mon...tell me *I'm* the "most despicable piece of crap to post on/."! Pretty-please? Coming from someone such as yourself, I'd wear it like a badge of honor...hell, I might even be tempted to "make ya famous" and put your quote in my sig!
Actually no gangs would not be bringing in guns from Mexico, the Mexican gangs are using guns smuggled in from the United States.
Most of the guns Mexican drug cartels use are full military weapons that come from either the Mexican military or other countries in South and Central America.
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don't bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department's Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.
Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States -- especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.
A gun ban in the US would give the cartels yet another highly-lucrative smuggling market to go along with drugs and human trafficking. Instead of a gang-banger with a 9mm, think rocket-propelled grenade launchers, rockets, and heavy machineguns.
It simply shows closed-mindedness, intolerance for differing opinions, and an inability to argue your position.
Then again, it IS really, really hard to argue for gun bans when there are examples like Chicago and Washington, D.C. to show how dramatically and LETHALLY wrong-headed such bans are.
Apparently by their actions, silencing opposing views and quashing any rational debate is the only thing the anti-gun people are left with.
Which one is more efficient and cheaper? Which one will save more lives? Paying one or two guards who can't be everywhere and will always do nothing but call the police or actually taking the guns out of people's hands and making the place safer for everyone?
How do you propose to take "the guns out of people's hands and making the place safer for everyone?" anyway?
Do you think everybody will just turn them in peaceably? Do you think the gangbangers will comply? How could this even be accomplished with any reasonable degree of success? Many if not most guns in the US are long guns like rifles and shotguns. Most of those are not registered/licensed in any way and there are no records of ownership.
Do you plan on going in and rounding up whole neighborhoods and holding everyone in detention facilities while all the houses, properties, businesses, and everything is thoroughly searched? Do you set up checkpoints around every neighborhood afterwards to prevent guns from being brought back in?
I'll hand over my guns if forced to.
They'll get the bullets first, however.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
I, too, Mr. Abbey.
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
I'll trust those quoted above over you or the government, thanks.
I've tried to post this a couple of times now. Slashdot is being weird. The comment seems to go through, but never shows up in the thread. ---
This got modded "Funny", and I can understand why someone might think that, and in a way, it is funny...in a sad sort of way...that something like a total-surveillance database on the government has become necessary.
I'm totally serious however. I want to be able to track every government department, agency, office, etc and every official, bureaucrat, agent, and employee and who they meet and associate with, who they call/email, how long they talked and to whom, what and how much their departments have requisitioned, who their friends and associates are, what they do and where they live, their web history, what vehicles they own or use and their license plate data, how much money they have and where, and more. Much, much more.
I say that if they want the Panopticon, we show them how it is done and precisely what it's like to live under such total surveillance.
This got modded "Funny", and I can understand why someone might think that, and in a way, it is funny...in a sad sort of way...that something like a total-surveillance database on the government has become necessary.
I'm totally serious however. I want to be able to track every government department, agency, office, etc and every official, bureaucrat, agent, and employee and who they meet and associate with, who they call/email, how long they talked and to whom, what and how much their departments have requisitioned, who their friends and associates are, what they do and where they live, their web history, what vehicles they own or use and their license plate data, how much money they have and where, and more. Much, much more.
I say that if they want the Panopticon, we show them how it is done and precisely what it's like to live under such total surveillance.
So... lower corporate tax rates to the point where it's not worth the bother of jumping through these hoops.
But...but...that could lead to US economic and industrial growth with more and better-paying jobs and result in far fewer people dependent on government!
That would decimate the Liberal/Progressive-Democrat power- and voter-base that is dependent on maintaining the Marxist class-warfare memes! They say they are for reducing poverty, but wherever and whenever they've had the opportunities and control to do so, somehow, the poor end up still poor and joined by more poor (see: Detroit).
They can't actually go and solve the problems...they would lose their voter-base.
Start a distributed "People's Database" built on some of the same general principles as 'Freenet and TOR meets WikiLeaks and encrypted I2P'. Locate any vulnerable storage/control (although such system weaknesses should be minimized or eliminated) in a country that ignores US chest-thumping and threats.
Collect every bit of data possible about government agencies, personnel, and activities. Use FOIA requests to get things like traffic-cam and security-cam data to aid in tracking individual movements. Build dossiers on every government employee, bureaucrat, and official, their movements/travel, any communications that can be acquired, dossiers on their families, associates/friends, financial/purchase/CC data, web histories, biometric data, anything and everything.
Let's pitch-in to help them with that whole "transparency" thing.
They seem like they could really, really use the help.
Start a distributed "People's Database" built on some of the same general principles as 'Freenet and TOR meets WikiLeaks and encrypted I2P'. Locate any vulnerable storage/control (although such system weaknesses should be minimized or eliminated) in a country that ignores US chest-thumping and threats.
Collect every bit of data possible about government agencies, personnel, and activities. Use FOIA requests to get things like traffic-cam and security-cam data to aid in tracking individual movements. Build dossiers on every government employee, bureaucrat, and official, their movements/travel, any communications that can be acquired, dossiers on their families, associates/friends, financial/purchase/CC data, web histories, biometric data, anything and everything.
Let's pitch-in to help them with that whole "transparency" thing.
They seem like they could really, really use the help.
I'm amazed that the Australian government is apparently fine with being made the US' bitch, by virtue of the US treating an Australian citizen this way. Same for the Australian people. I mean, I wouldn't expect Australians to start burning down the US Embassy or anything, but I would certainly expect protests. Maybe they simply haven't made the foreign news services?
Amusing little America bashing theory you've got there. Only one tiny little problem with it. The U.S. isn't involved with Mr. Assange's current difficulties except in his mind, your mind, and the minds of countless other conspiritards.
Fun factoid: You're a dumbass.
*American government* bashing. Different from the American people.
Get it right.
"Dumbass."
The "U.S. isn't involved with Mr. Assange's current difficulties" just like the US wasn't involved with the Contras in S. America and wasn't involved with that failed revolution in Cuba in the early '60s, and didn't have the CIA trying to discredit and/or assassinate Castro.
The US wants desperately to make examples of both Assange AND Manning. They seek to intimidate both any future leakers and those who would DARE publish what is leaked. I'd bet gold bars to bitcoins that the US is dragging it's feet in trying Manning until they can get Assange, so they can either make them co-defendants and/or use any statements or testimony from one against the other.
The US is no longer a capitalism-based representative republic. It has become a Fascio-Capitalist regime which is transforming the US into a totally corrupt "State-run Capitalism" type system. Laws are there to constrain people, not government, under such systems.
The minute he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, he'll be arrested and bundled onto the next plane to Sweden.
Where he'll stay just long enough for Swedish authorities to cover their collective asses before he's turned over to the US for lyn^W^W^W*W*Wtrial.
I'm amazed that the Australian government is apparently fine with being made the US' bitch, by virtue of the US treating an Australian citizen this way. Same for the Australian people. I mean, I wouldn't expect Australians to start burning down the US Embassy or anything, but I would certainly expect protests. Maybe they simply haven't made the foreign news services?
Fun historical factoid: Did you know that at one time the US government actually bothered to at least pretend to uphold and be bound by the Rule of Law?
"to many in the US government who have been working hard at crippling the free and open nature of the internet and the ability to communicate anonymously, and for many of the same reasons they would want TOR effectively de-fanged." Who? Who is going after TOR? I can't think of any Congressman off the top of my head. The President hasn't spoken on the subject. It's technically legal to use in the US. "And for all the people I see and hear cheering on the expansions of government, and then hear them bitch and moan whenever the government gets all jack-booty, it makes me think that maybe the colonists should have just paid the damned tea taxes and the stamp taxes, swore fealty to King George, and kept their damned mouths shut." Based on this and your "Modern Progressivism & Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory" signature I'm thinking this is nothing more than a cheap shot attempt at Liberals. Clearly America doesn't agree with your line of thinking. So basically your post is full of unproven "information" and petty political cheap shots because "hurr CONSERVATIVISM!!!@@!@#@#@#". Shut up.
"You've proven we don't give a shit about and don't deserve what they suffered and died and risked themselves and their families to give us."
Thanks for providing the handy example. Now my OP is even more relevant.
Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
Slashdot Mirror
In case you're not aware: this probably got modded "funny" because when people DO try this, the authorities fight back, dismantle what has been built, and usually have fun doing their best to punish the people involved. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is a very visible example. You generally don't hear about the smaller ones, but it doesn't end any better.
Just because there is pushback should not stop it. If one setup is taken out, start others. Lots and lots of others, with fallback redundancy to backups in nations unfriendly to the US.
Make them play whack-a-mole. Just keep refining the systems until they are sufficiently distributed and difficult to destroy. At the very least, it will mean the government expends resources and political capital it could have been using elsewhere.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Molon labe.
Strat
Have no felonies and over 18 years old?
Drive to WalMart and buy one... $300 would get you a 12gauge.. but, honestly it may be possible to get around that even.. a little effort and a ramset could probably be pretty deadly... or a bbgun... or a paintball gun... or you could make a pretty nice spear with a tiny amount of work..
Pish!
Just buy one from the neighbor down the street, as far as rifles and shotguns (and black powder weapons as well, but not as relevant) are concerned. There are no legal requirements in the US to register or report private ownership or sales between private individuals of standard semi-auto rifles and shotguns at either the Federal or State level that I am aware of.
No neighbor with the firearm you want?
Try here, the "craigslist" of guns: http://www.armslist.com/
Strat
Yeah, like gold isn't under control of the futures market, and of course government and banks would take no control of it if gold were to be used as a basis for money.
But, gold is a real, tangible, physical good. In order to "take control" of it would require confiscating all private gold held by the population. Think about all the gold that's been widely sold over the last ten years and hidden away by "prepper" types and others that see a collapse of the financial system coming. Would make quite a stink for the Feds to start sending out the jackboots to comb through people's houses and property and confiscate it.
All that using gold as a basis for money will do is make money scarce (because gold is scarce) and thus cause poverty, drive up the price of gold due to high demand and very limited supply, and thus make gold traders happy
Gold and silver have been, for over 100 years, remarkably stable in value. Money that isn't tied to gold, not so much. A $20 gold coin from the 1800s still buys the same amount of goods and services today. In the 1800s a $20 gold piece would buy you a fine suit. The same coin will buy a comparably-fine suit today. Two silver US dimes would buy a gallon of gasoline in the early 1900s. The value of the silver in those same two dimes will still buy a gallon of gasoline today.
Taking a currency off the gold standard is simply a way for the government to inflate the currency and effectively steal monetary value from everyone holding and trading in that currency. It's an "invisible" tax on everyone holding/trading that currency. Suddenly, your money doesn't buy as much.
The series of "quantitative easing" actions by the US Fed is simply doubling- tripling- and quadrupling-down and accelerating this robbing of currency holders as the economy heads towards collapse. It will delay the collapse, but will make it worse when it does finally fall apart. TPTB are simply delaying while they shift their assets to protect them while sucking up all the wealth they can out of the economy before the SHTF.
I find it disturbing how closely the current events in the US are mirroring those of the Wiemar Republic, whose collapse paved the way for a guy with a funny mustache to stir up a bit of trouble.
But of course, things like that couldn't happen here. We're "civilized" now. Or is that "hypnotized" or "anesthetized"?
Strat
If we pissed on the constitution every time some troll tried to get a reaction, the federal government would have entire agencies dedicated to the destruction of the bill of rights.
We do.
They have.
They exist and are working towards just that.
DHS
TSA
DoJ
Congress
POTUS
SCOTUS
TLAs
They were originally created (except DHS/TSA that were intended from the beginning to shred individual rights) to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
That has not been true in real life for decades.
Strat
You are hiding behind the 2nd. We have many things in our formative years which are important to us at the time but as we grow and develop we realise that those thing have a time and a place and we forsake them as our knowledge and understanding grows. The 2nd amendment is preventing the US from becoming a safe place to live as you talk of freedom -- what about the freedom of someone who chooses not to carry a firearm to be free of being surrounded by people carrying deadly weapons? Why are they not free to be in a place where people don't have the instant ability to kill them? You need to give your country a chance to grow.
I say what good is being "safe" if one has no freedom? Solitary confinement in a prison is safe, but I'll take my chances out here, thanks all the same.
Human nature has not changed in 10,000 years, as much as you'd like to believe people are all "civilized" now. The nature of people and governments has not changed. The principles I've outlined and the quotes I provide are just as relevant and important now, today, as they were at the nation's founding.
One of the biggest reasons for high levels of violence in the US is that the 2nd Amendment has already been overly-restricted and regulated.
Just as the answer to speech you disagree with is more speech, so too the answer to high levels of criminal violence is allowing more people the ability to be armed to protect themselves and their families and communities while deterring criminals.
Most of the other nations of the world either ban guns or severely restrict them. The US does not prevent citizens from immigrating to another country. They are free to go where the core principles on which that nation is founded suits them.
They are NOT free, however, to take other people's freedoms from them and change the basis on which the nation was founded for some illusion of safety, for an unarmed people will never be safe, particularly from abuses and tyranny from their own government.
The US was formed as an open, free society. Open and free societies have risks because freedom means people can sometimes behave in unexpected and sometimes negative ways. The only way to eliminate risks are to remove the freedoms that could allow a person to act in a manner outside of the government-prescribed "safe" manner. People who exist under such a system are what is know as "serfs" "subjects" and "slaves". An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a slave.
"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." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, 1774-1776
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin 1775
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." - Noah Webster
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms,
Happily, I think most states will eventually see that pot smoking is no worse for you than cigarette smoking and stop making it into a reason to arrest, imprison, and occasionally shoot people. Once that happens, the Federal government will eventually give up on it. It will just take time.
States won't give it up until their ability to charge your money and property with crimes (not you, so you have no legal standing) and seize them for the benefit of the State is halted. States and LEAs use and abuse civil forfeiture horribly. Just Google a few relevant search terms. The unbelievably-shocking, and in many cases bold & arrogant on LE's part, horror stories of injustice abound.
They turn around and use the proceeds to buy, through the Federal "1033" program, older military hardware like grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles, and armored vehicles, paying only for delivery.
According to data provided by the Pentagon Defense Logistics Agency, orders in fiscal year 2012 have jumped by 400 percent over the same period in 2011. Over 17,000 law-enforcement agencies have ordered USD 2.6 billion worth of tools, paying for delivery costs only.
The rise in the orders of weaponry comes as US crime rates have fallen to 40-year lows. And yet, even with the low crime rates and massive militarization of civilian domestic police forces, the government is pushing to restrict and curtail 2nd Amendment rights of citizens even more.
Sounds to me like we're almost to "official" police-state status as a nation in the US.
Strat
Considering the havoc that a few over-achieving, narcissistic and predatory businessman have reeked on our economy, maybe a little tempering of the ambition would be a good thing.
Agreed.
Too bad the worst ones who do the most damage hold political office in Washington, D.C., in all three branches of government.
Strat
If they know nothing and just want free stuff from the state that's not OK.
How is that different from current native-born UK, and for that matter, US citizens? Hell, even *after* they graduate as well? Believe me, as someone who has tried to hire competent university graduates, even many of the ones who graduate with high marks are shockingly ignorant and incompetent in the fields they hold degrees in.
I don't care if a candidate graduated with an advanced degree with high grade-averages from the most prestigious universities or doesn't even have a GED. If you can *do the work* is what matters, and I've found that a H.S. grad is often more competent and knowledgeable than someone with a Masters or PhD. I swear, I think today's colleges and universities are actually making people dumber than if they'd not attended a college or university at all!
Strat
You people apparently have no interest in fixing your country. The quotes refer to a different time, a different era. You country is broken and innocent people are suffering because of it. Become civilised.
The quotes are just as relevant today as they were then. The quotes are not dependent on the technology level of the people. The quotes teach a lesson about human nature, which hasn't changed much in 10,000 years. They are also about man's relationship with government, and like man himself, the nature (not type) of governments has also not changed, because governments are made up of those same humans that have not changed their basic nature and behaviors in 10K years.
Those quotes teach lessons about the nature of man and his relationship with government that would have been true 5,000 years ago (adjusted for time-shift, e.g. swords/guns) and will be just as relevant 5,000 years from now.
They are like Sun Tzu's "Art of War" in that the principles set forth hold true over time because they deal with human nature and behavior which, again, has changed very little in 10,000 years. Freedom is freedom and tyranny is tyranny across the ages, citizens will struggle to be free and governments will always seek ever-more power over them, whether the citizens and government employ flintlocks and horse-drawn wagons, phasers and starships, or M16s and fighter jets.
Strat
The point is reducing the ability of such people to do bad things. Guns provide a uniquely concealable, portable way to kill a lot of people over a large area in a very short time.
And they can be made by anyone with access to modest machining resources. Spent ammo can be reloaded. You can freaking PRINT a gun now. What in the world makes you think that someone like an insane mass-murderer would not or could not make a gun?
Bombs aren't generally very portable...
One of the most common home-made bombs is the pipe-bomb. Extremely portable and concealable.
and usually we don't have suicide bombers in the US.
Try to ban guns and I guarantee that will change for the worse.
tell me that guns aren't a much much bigger problem.
Ok.
Guns aren't a much bigger problem.
The bigger problem is the decline in a general and common sense of right and wrong and moral behavior in US society, fostered by ~80 years of false Liberal/Progressive "moral equivalency" which the population has been indoctrinated with from grade-school up that teaches/encourages sociopathic thinking such as this shooter's and others like him that lead to such tragedies
It's always the unintended consequences of Liberal/Progressive laws, beliefs, actions, and policies that Liberal/Progressives wish to avoid having the light shown upon.
Sorta like cockroaches that way.
Strat
A keyboard isn't a computer. Shame on you for not doing that.
And I tell you what, you attack soneon with the keyboard in a mall or school, lets see how many people you can kill.
I can use the computer to hack into a chemical plant, oil refinery, or similar facility near a school or mall and cause a massive explosion or lethal chemical release that would kill everyone in the entire school and mall simultaneously, along with most of the town.
I could use a computer to hack into and crash the stock market and cause widespread poverty and starvation.
I could use a computer to upload a video that causes a bunch of religious zealots to go on a killing spree.
Hmmph. I'd say guns...even thousands of fully-automatic assault rifles in civilian hands...are far less capable of mass killings than computers.
So...when are you planning on turning yours into the government, since you obviously have been clinging to your weapon of mass destruction up until now?
Strat
He dares because the blame DOES lay with the anti-gun people, "gun-free zones" ARE free-fire zones for nutcases such as this shooter, and by the history of their radical actions, such a scenario as a false-flag op by the anti-gun nuts is a real possibility.
Fuck you. Fuck you to high heaven.
Don't you have some jackboots to spit-shine with that nasty tongue?
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
C'mon...tell me *I'm* the "most despicable piece of crap to post on /."! Pretty-please? Coming from someone such as yourself, I'd wear it like a badge of honor...hell, I might even be tempted to "make ya famous" and put your quote in my sig!
Go ahead...make my millennium! BWAAHAHAHAHA!
Sheesh! What a maroon!
Strat
Actually no gangs would not be bringing in guns from Mexico, the Mexican gangs are using guns smuggled in from the United States.
Most of the guns Mexican drug cartels use are full military weapons that come from either the Mexican military or other countries in South and Central America.
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don't bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department's Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.
Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States -- especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.
A gun ban in the US would give the cartels yet another highly-lucrative smuggling market to go along with drugs and human trafficking. Instead of a gang-banger with a 9mm, think rocket-propelled grenade launchers, rockets, and heavy machineguns.
Strat
Or do you believe guns will magically disappear into Unicorn mountain to reappear as rainbows?
It's "Candy Mountain" Charlie! Candy Mountain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGYh8AacgY
Strat
"Flamebait"=/="I disagree".
It simply shows closed-mindedness, intolerance for differing opinions, and an inability to argue your position.
Then again, it IS really, really hard to argue for gun bans when there are examples like Chicago and Washington, D.C. to show how dramatically and LETHALLY wrong-headed such bans are.
Apparently by their actions, silencing opposing views and quashing any rational debate is the only thing the anti-gun people are left with.
Strat
Which one is more efficient and cheaper? Which one will save more lives? Paying one or two guards who can't be everywhere and will always do nothing but call the police or actually taking the guns out of people's hands and making the place safer for everyone?
How do you propose to take "the guns out of people's hands and making the place safer for everyone?" anyway?
Do you think everybody will just turn them in peaceably? Do you think the gangbangers will comply? How could this even be accomplished with any reasonable degree of success? Many if not most guns in the US are long guns like rifles and shotguns. Most of those are not registered/licensed in any way and there are no records of ownership.
Do you plan on going in and rounding up whole neighborhoods and holding everyone in detention facilities while all the houses, properties, businesses, and everything is thoroughly searched? Do you set up checkpoints around every neighborhood afterwards to prevent guns from being brought back in?
I'll hand over my guns if forced to.
They'll get the bullets first, however.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
I, too, Mr. Abbey.
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
I'll trust those quoted above over you or the government, thanks.
Strat
I've tried to post this a couple of times now. Slashdot is being weird. The comment seems to go through, but never shows up in the thread.
---
This got modded "Funny", and I can understand why someone might think that, and in a way, it is funny...in a sad sort of way...that something like a total-surveillance database on the government has become necessary.
I'm totally serious however. I want to be able to track every government department, agency, office, etc and every official, bureaucrat, agent, and employee and who they meet and associate with, who they call/email, how long they talked and to whom, what and how much their departments have requisitioned, who their friends and associates are, what they do and where they live, their web history, what vehicles they own or use and their license plate data, how much money they have and where, and more. Much, much more.
I say that if they want the Panopticon, we show them how it is done and precisely what it's like to live under such total surveillance.
Strat
This got modded "Funny", and I can understand why someone might think that, and in a way, it is funny...in a sad sort of way...that something like a total-surveillance database on the government has become necessary.
I'm totally serious however. I want to be able to track every government department, agency, office, etc and every official, bureaucrat, agent, and employee and who they meet and associate with, who they call/email, how long they talked and to whom, what and how much their departments have requisitioned, who their friends and associates are, what they do and where they live, their web history, what vehicles they own or use and their license plate data, how much money they have and where, and more. Much, much more.
I say that if they want the Panopticon, we show them how it is done and precisely what it's like to live under such total surveillance.
Strat
So... lower corporate tax rates to the point where it's not worth the bother of jumping through these hoops.
But...but...that could lead to US economic and industrial growth with more and better-paying jobs and result in far fewer people dependent on government!
That would decimate the Liberal/Progressive-Democrat power- and voter-base that is dependent on maintaining the Marxist class-warfare memes! They say they are for reducing poverty, but wherever and whenever they've had the opportunities and control to do so, somehow, the poor end up still poor and joined by more poor (see: Detroit).
They can't actually go and solve the problems...they would lose their voter-base.
Strat
Maybe a better questions is why aren't we fighting fire with fire?
You don't have to be a government to start putting together a database and dossiers.
See my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3314653&cid=42282485
We're on a site full of nerds and geeks, right?
Start a distributed "People's Database" built on some of the same general principles as 'Freenet and TOR meets WikiLeaks and encrypted I2P'. Locate any vulnerable storage/control (although such system weaknesses should be minimized or eliminated) in a country that ignores US chest-thumping and threats.
Collect every bit of data possible about government agencies, personnel, and activities. Use FOIA requests to get things like traffic-cam and security-cam data to aid in tracking individual movements. Build dossiers on every government employee, bureaucrat, and official, their movements/travel, any communications that can be acquired, dossiers on their families, associates/friends, financial/purchase/CC data, web histories, biometric data, anything and everything.
Let's pitch-in to help them with that whole "transparency" thing.
They seem like they could really, really use the help.
Strat
...Is good for the gander, right?
We're on a site full of nerds and geeks, right?
Start a distributed "People's Database" built on some of the same general principles as 'Freenet and TOR meets WikiLeaks and encrypted I2P'. Locate any vulnerable storage/control (although such system weaknesses should be minimized or eliminated) in a country that ignores US chest-thumping and threats.
Collect every bit of data possible about government agencies, personnel, and activities. Use FOIA requests to get things like traffic-cam and security-cam data to aid in tracking individual movements. Build dossiers on every government employee, bureaucrat, and official, their movements/travel, any communications that can be acquired, dossiers on their families, associates/friends, financial/purchase/CC data, web histories, biometric data, anything and everything.
Let's pitch-in to help them with that whole "transparency" thing.
They seem like they could really, really use the help.
Strat
*American government* bashing. Different from the American people.
Get it right.
"Dumbass."
The "U.S. isn't involved with Mr. Assange's current difficulties" just like the US wasn't involved with the Contras in S. America and wasn't involved with that failed revolution in Cuba in the early '60s, and didn't have the CIA trying to discredit and/or assassinate Castro.
The US wants desperately to make examples of both Assange AND Manning. They seek to intimidate both any future leakers and those who would DARE publish what is leaked. I'd bet gold bars to bitcoins that the US is dragging it's feet in trying Manning until they can get Assange, so they can either make them co-defendants and/or use any statements or testimony from one against the other.
The US is no longer a capitalism-based representative republic. It has become a Fascio-Capitalist regime which is transforming the US into a totally corrupt "State-run Capitalism" type system. Laws are there to constrain people, not government, under such systems.
Strat
The minute he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, he'll be arrested and bundled onto the next plane to Sweden.
Where he'll stay just long enough for Swedish authorities to cover their collective asses before he's turned over to the US for lyn^W^W^W*W*Wtrial.
I'm amazed that the Australian government is apparently fine with being made the US' bitch, by virtue of the US treating an Australian citizen this way. Same for the Australian people. I mean, I wouldn't expect Australians to start burning down the US Embassy or anything, but I would certainly expect protests. Maybe they simply haven't made the foreign news services?
Fun historical factoid: Did you know that at one time the US government actually bothered to at least pretend to uphold and be bound by the Rule of Law?
Strat
Any other options available?
Well, if search-privacy is a priority, then: https://www.ixquick.com/
Strat
"to many in the US government who have been working hard at crippling the free and open nature of the internet and the ability to communicate anonymously, and for many of the same reasons they would want TOR effectively de-fanged." Who? Who is going after TOR? I can't think of any Congressman off the top of my head. The President hasn't spoken on the subject. It's technically legal to use in the US. "And for all the people I see and hear cheering on the expansions of government, and then hear them bitch and moan whenever the government gets all jack-booty, it makes me think that maybe the colonists should have just paid the damned tea taxes and the stamp taxes, swore fealty to King George, and kept their damned mouths shut." Based on this and your "Modern Progressivism & Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory" signature I'm thinking this is nothing more than a cheap shot attempt at Liberals. Clearly America doesn't agree with your line of thinking. So basically your post is full of unproven "information" and petty political cheap shots because "hurr CONSERVATIVISM!!!@@!@#@#@#". Shut up.
"You've proven we don't give a shit about and don't deserve what they suffered and died and risked themselves and their families to give us."
Thanks for providing the handy example. Now my OP is even more relevant.
Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
Strat