ISIS considers *you* an enemy and would have you BBQ'ed in a cage (or something equally as barbaric and cruel) just like that poor pilot, given the opportunity.
Yes a non-starter for sure, because everyone who owns a cell phone today disabled their GPS?
The difference here is that, in the cellphone example, people may disable GPS if they wish without risking being in violation of the kinds of laws/regulations that would have to be put in place to initiate and enforce the automobile-mileage-tracking example.
What a load of shit. Cars are basically tracked today, either with onboard devices (OnStar), or the two cell phones, laptop, tablet, and that fancy wireless device in the car that you use to pay for toll roads on the fly.
Again, what you're missing here is that in all those examples, the choices are voluntary without any criminal penalty for not being trackable.
You really, really don't want that mandatory-GPS-vehicle-tracking camel's nose anywhere near that privacy tent! What a TLA authoritarian wet-dream that kind of tracking capability would be!
This appears to be another step along the path of TSA rape-a-scan/groping, Border Patrol checkpoints up to 100 miles from any international borders, DUI checkpoints, DHS showing up at random train/bus stations, and on and on, all "nudging" people away from traveling unless they feel the reasons are important enough to undergo the indignities and risks. Maybe they're trying to reduce the number of people traveling for relatively unimportant reasons to make tracking/analyzing people who still travel anyway easier?
[Does this imply]....that the FCC now endorses Net Neutrality? It was unclear from reading the above. Will I still have to buy a TV service to view footage available on the internet?
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?"
Incorrect. The only thing government is supposed to protect the people from is government itself.
The only thing that can protect the people from the government is the people themselves. Relying on government to protect oneself from government is how many authoritarian regimes came into existence.
Enforcing the laws, including those against murder, and defending against foreign threats, are both basic functions of government and protect the lives of the people.
Common defense and rule of law. Doesn't get much more basic than that.
In the US, Left/Right is 'more government' vs 'less government'.
Mostly. But there are big exceptions. If you query Americans that self-identify as "liberal" or "conservative", and then query them on their views, the issue that they are most likely to be in disagreement on is abortion. On this issue, it is the liberal that favors less government involvement.
The issue is not one of whether or not the government should or should not be involved.
One of government's primary functions is to protect the lives of the people from others who would wish to kill them for whatever reasons. Thus, this is not a case of government intrusion, but one of establishing exact meanings and limits to a primary function of government.
The issue is at what point does the product of fertilization have the right to life and the protection of the State from having that life terminated by someone taking deliberate actions to cause that life to end.
These are fundamental governmental, cultural, and sociological issues. To say government has no role or say is a non-sequitur.
Considering the Democrats are a center-right party, I am not sure how anybody can call or be called a liberal for donating to their casues or candidates. If he donated to the Greens, then it would be fair to label him a liberal.
There is a major disconnect between European definitions of Left/Right vs US definitions of Left/Right that leads to much argument and misunderstanding.
European version of Left/Right is socialism/communism vs fascism.
In the US, Left/Right is 'more government' vs 'less government'. This actually has little to do with political party in the US, as both Parties have those who desire more government and those who desire less government.
Liberals in the US are a misnomer, as they are nothing like the "classic liberal" that many if not most people think of when "liberal" is mentioned, and are actually the Progressives from the early 1900s who, after having their ideology totally discredited, "rebranded" themselves as "liberals" so they could try again to push the same failed ideology.
The plan proposed is simply another flavor of "affirmative action" for females in a specific field, attempting to force the outcomes without addressing the natural & non-political reasons behind the differences or simply ignoring them for political convenience.
I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly.
Or, they could just continue as they have been doing, passing blatantly unConstitutional laws, creating Federal regulations with the force of Federal law which are created and enacted wholly by unelected bureaucrats (which in itself is unConstitutional), and enforce them as if they were valid laws, and blackmail, destroy with media propaganda and legal struggles, imprison without trial, or kill anyone that refuses to comply.
The primary thing to be looking at is that the courts grant warrants, as they did in the cases you mentioned.
What you are missing is that a warrant for something un-Constitutional is invalid even if issued in accordance with unanimous decisions from the SCOTUS., therefor actions taken to execute said warrant are illegal and are criminal acts carried out under color of law. Dred Scott comes to mind, though hardly the only example of the SCOTUS ruling contrary to letter and/or intent of the Constitution.
Courts are not the final arbiters. People are. What can the government do if most of the population (including a large percentage of workers within said government and members of the military) refuses to comply?
There are already laws on the books regarding citizen rights & responsibilities pertaining to dealing with agents of the government committing criminal acts under color of law. I would refer you there.
That is kind of interesting, everything I have read indicated there were warrants issued through the FISA court, and numerous rulings that what they were doing was constitutional, all published. Could you point me to an article stating that there was ANY unwarranted surveillance?
So you would accept it as Constitutional if the courts rule that police randomly entering & searching your home without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is or is about to be committed is not a violation of the 4th Amendment?
No US court has the power to overrule the US Constitution, secret or otherwise. Any such rulings are by definition unlawful and un-Constitutional. An un-Constitutional law is no law at all, and it is the duty of every US citizen to ignore and/or disobey/violate it if/when it conflicts with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
So, what's to stop an insurance company from working with the ride share companies.../snip
Government bureaucrats & officials, and the innumerable laws, rules, and regulations at local, State and Federal levels at their disposal to interpret however they wish unless/until there's enough public attention and outrage to force the issue.
The same government that prevents Tesla Motors from selling cars directly and also in many areas limits the choices available for domestic home high speed internet services. The same government that completely ignores the US Constitution and shits all over the 4th Amendment with NSA bulk surveillance.
You know, the guys you help elect and vehemently defend because "he's your guy" and you don't want those other guys to get in even though they agree on everything except carefully focus-group tested and selected wedge issues designed to keep the electorate divided.
How many allies died after Enigma was broken? Just because every threat isn't countered, doesn't mean they didn't know it was coming.
There's a huge difference between wartime-code breaking of enemy military communications, and the bulk collection/monitoring/analysis of all domestic civilian communications in peacetime in direct violation of the rights and protections guaranteed in the US Constitution. Especially when that collection is sold to the public as being created precisely to stop such terror attacks.
The seats up for election- outside a special election to fill a premature vacancy, is set in the constitutions of the US and states. They are not subject to manipulations.
Just more evidence the US Constitution was conceived by those religious-nutjob Colonial Right-wing radical extremists to prevent the government having all the powers it needs to fight for Equality, Order, and Social Justice on behalf of the People!/s
Surprise: Freedom-hating authoritarian scumbags make the argument that safety is more important than freedom and privacy, all the while pretending that they value freedom and democratic values. I wish these people would move to North Korea.
Where they lose the argument is that these days privacy is safety; any hole, even a government-approved hole, provides an attack vector for threat actors. While it might be marginally helpful to the spooks to be able to track terrorists more easily, it would be immensely helpful to terrorists to have a generally more insecure infrastructure. Both weaknesses in communications relating to civil infrastructure and personal communications between could be used effectively for planning and targeting terrorist operations.
You assume that the spying by governments in the UK & US is actually about stopping Islamic terrorists or terrorist acts. That has not been born out by the facts surrounding many if not most of the terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists who arrived from nations/regions known for such activity and even when warned by the foreign intelligence service of the nation they left.
They can't catch a couple of not-genius terrorists even monitoring all communications and having been warned, yet they seem to be doing a brisk biz in 'parallel construction' to make drug and CP busts.
It's about protecting those in power and the status-quo that maintains the system that keeps them in power, and the biggest threat to any bloated, corrupt, increasingly-authoritarian and tyrannical government and it's power-and-control-seeking leaders are the citizens.
The US has steadily been sliding towards an ever-more authoritarian surveillance state for decades under both Democrats and Republicans.
If you want to solve the problems, the first thing you need are different people working on the problems. The problems will never be solved by the same people who have created & maintained them for decades.
Want to get both Party's attention? Stop giving money or volunteering time/work to either Party. No more checks. No more handing out flyers or putting up yard signs. No manning call centers, campaign offices, etc. When they call tell them you're done with their lies. When/if they knock on your door, slam the door in their faces. Tell your friends, neighbors, coworkers. Use social media.
You asked why "rich socialists" hate the rich so much, immediately after talking about Soros.
From my OP:
Why is it that the uber-rich on the Left are never mentioned? Most of the richest people in the US Congress are Democrats. Why don't we hear more about George Soros, who collapses national currencies for fun & profit, and the leftist/progressive institutions he funds like Tides Foundation and others who then in turn fund numerous other PACs and other groups? How about Bloomberg? Or if you want to get to the real money in political contributions, look at public & private sector unions.
What is it with rich socialists that they hate the rich so much? Or do they just hate the idea of anyone *else* becoming rich? They seem to view other people increasing their wealth as decreasing how much richer they are, and consider the resulting decrease in wealth disparity the same as having been robbed.
You'll notice that the two things aren't even in the same paragraph!
Methinks you simply wish to detract and criticize because you disagree politically/ideologically, but are struggling to find a valid reason to do so based on what I posted without appearing politically/ideologically biased and/or closed-minded.
If you want to have a reasoned argument and be taken seriously then you shouldn't try to compare people like Soros to socialists.
I never said George Soros was a Socialist.
George Soros funds things that push socialist-style agendas. He does this as one of many things done by him and others (not necessarily in a coordinated manner, but as fellow-travelers whose causes all would benefit from social/economic chaos) with the overall goal of weakening the social stability and unity in the US, and contribute to the ultimate collapse of the US Dollar and the US national economy. This would make it something like the 5th currency he has intentionally and heavily contributed to the collapse of, and profited nicely from as well at the same time.
George Soros believes in George Soros. What he does is for his benefit. The people and causes he funds are useful idiots and ideologues blinded by their narrow views and hatred. They are tools to him, nothing more.
Well, the reason wealthy republican interest groups that sponsor politicians get vilified, is because they are enemies of the people. They buy influence to allow the poisoning of air and water, undermining the health of the population, deny the population health care and other such lovely things. People don't care for enemies of the people. They don't get vilified for who they are. They get vilified for WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, KEEP ON DOING, AND WANT TO DO AGAIN
They've probably also got a secret lair on the moon where they plan to use a [finger-quotes] "LASER" to blackmail the worlds' governments for one BILLION dollars! [pinky to corner of mouth]
Holy crap, dude! Do you actually believe all that, and that the other faction of the One Party is blameless for anything bad that's happened!? Talk bout some truly epic partisan blinders! Please alert people if you ever take those massive things off, moving those things will shift the Earths' center of gravity!
Wealthy interests such as the Scaife Foundation and Koch Industries
Why is it that the uber-rich on the Left are never mentioned? Most of the richest people in the US Congress are Democrats. Why don't we hear more about George Soros, who collapses national currencies for fun & profit, and the leftist/progressive institutions he funds like Tides Foundation and others who then in turn fund numerous other PACs and other groups? How about Bloomberg? Or if you want to get to the real money in political contributions, look at public & private sector unions.
What is it with rich socialists that they hate the rich so much? Or do they just hate the idea of anyone *else* becoming rich? They seem to view other people increasing their wealth as decreasing how much richer they are, and consider the resulting decrease in wealth disparity the same as having been robbed.
Also please note, the number of "bad guys with guns" stopped by a random "good guy with a gun" citizen in all of the past decade and a half of mass shootings is 0. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. None. Not a one. They were all stopped by either police, or themselves via suicide.
The problem with claiming that zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is just that: they were stopped. Thereâ(TM)s no weeks-long media feeding frenzy when a mass shooting doesnâ(TM)t happen. But I can definitely present some examples in just the past couple of years where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.
Clackamas Town Center: An armed individual, obviously attempting to commit a mass shooting, was confronted by a person with a concealed carry license. After seeing a gun being drawn on him, the shooter immediately deviated from his course and killed himself in an adjacent hallway.
Arapahoe High School: A student armed with a shotgun and multiple incendiary devices, shot one person in the face and was attempting to kill more people when an armed school resource officer confronted him. The attacker then killed himself.
Those are just the two most high profile cases in recent history â" a news story that doesnâ(TM)t happen is hard to find, so we never seem to hear about those. Even when they happen, the actual chain of events are still often hard to prove.
It boils down to this: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Police officer, concealed carry holder, school resource officerâ¦it doesnâ(TM)t matter. Any armed opposition is effective.
Also, the notion that "bad people will always have guns because they ignore laws" is not logically valid, and links two seperate concepts while ignoring the inherent assumptions required to link them. Bad people may ignore laws, but that has little to do with their ability to obtain firearms. Their ability to obtain fireams depends on the efficacy of efforts to disrupt their illicit supply chains.
Read the news out of France lately? The attackers had fully automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. Personal firearm selling, buying, ownership, and possession are all extremely heavily restricted and regulated in France. Have you seen the Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic pistols that are being produced by 3D printing these days? Heck, I can fabricate a STEN submachine gun with the common metal shop tools I have access to in a day or two. I have the complete plans and templates. As far as that goes, it's probably easier to just steal a shotgun and/or pistol from a parked police cruiser (might even get an AR or M4 from the trunk).
Heck, gangs in Brazil make their own guns, and so did Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere in WW2.
If more guns makes people safer and reduces crime, why is America not the safest country on the planet with the lowest crime rate? Why is it that instead we see the exact opposite, that Amercia has the highest crime rate of all western nations, where the majority of those other nations have far stricter gun control than the US?
Sorry but no. The theory that more guns = less crime is a pile of manure disproven by simple observation.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Other nations don't count & categorize data points the same way the US does. Violent crime in the US is at an all time low and has been trending steadily downward for 40 years.
So basically, your entire post is factually wrong and smells like emotionally/ideologically-driven propaganda.
I'm also going to reply to BlueStrat up above and say I disagree with the more good people then bad people. I think there are more people who are constrained by social conventions and laws then there are those who are not, but that's not the same thing and I think we would find that out quickly if we toss our social conventions and laws out the window . Increasingly, it's looking like I will find out in my lifetime.
Wait, what?
Where did I say that? Nice strawman there. Took him down with dispatch, too. Bravo. Too bad I didn't say anything remotely like that.
Everybody is constrained by social conventions (like a common set of morals) and laws (except criminals both inside and outside government of course) or else a stable society and nation are not possible.
Do you believe that somehow the government *not* infringing on 2nd Amendment rights will cause a sudden collapse into insanity & chaos and/or cause a widespread abandonment of social conventions and rampant lawlessness?
Are you aware that gun violence and violent crime overall in the US has been on a steady decline over the past 4 decades despite record numbers of gun ownership (largely thanks to the current administration in Washingtons' anti-gun policies and attitudes)?
So does this mean we agree that the "overthrow the gubmint" peeps is stupid and stuff?
At this point, yes.
There are far too many other avenues other than violence that are still open at this point. Violence should be the very last resort.
However, it's very healthy for there to be a credible deterrent in the hands of a free general populace to dissuade ever-present political ambition and greed from infringing upon individual rights and liberty.
It's not necessary that civilians be capable of winning an all-out military conflict. A credible ability for civilians to inflict damages unacceptable to the government/politicians in all but the most serious situations and in which they have a majority of the population backing the government is a pretty good compromise.
History is littered with many examples that demonstrate over and over what almost always has happened when a population or groups/ethnicities/races/etc have been disarmed by their government. One need look no further than the laws enacted in the US South in the early/mid 1900s to prevent blacks from buying/owning/possessing firearms or ammunition at a time when the KKK and other violent racist groups were launching numerous violent and lethal terrorist attacks targeting blacks. Those two things are neither unrelated nor unintentional.
Slashdot Mirror
LOLwut!?!?
Seriously!?!?
The AGW scaremongering is a huge enabler for those who wish for more/expanded government power and higher taxation.
"Never let a crisis go to waste."
Strat
ISIS isn't my enemy.
How you feel about them does not matter.
ISIS considers *you* an enemy and would have you BBQ'ed in a cage (or something equally as barbaric and cruel) just like that poor pilot, given the opportunity.
Strat
How is that fancy laser going to work when the enemy uses a smoke screen? Or a mirror?
You're making it too complicated.
One EMP burst, and all that fancy hardware will be burned-out scrap.
Strat
Yes a non-starter for sure, because everyone who owns a cell phone today disabled their GPS?
The difference here is that, in the cellphone example, people may disable GPS if they wish without risking being in violation of the kinds of laws/regulations that would have to be put in place to initiate and enforce the automobile-mileage-tracking example.
What a load of shit. Cars are basically tracked today, either with onboard devices (OnStar), or the two cell phones, laptop, tablet, and that fancy wireless device in the car that you use to pay for toll roads on the fly.
Again, what you're missing here is that in all those examples, the choices are voluntary without any criminal penalty for not being trackable.
You really, really don't want that mandatory-GPS-vehicle-tracking camel's nose anywhere near that privacy tent! What a TLA authoritarian wet-dream that kind of tracking capability would be!
This appears to be another step along the path of TSA rape-a-scan/groping, Border Patrol checkpoints up to 100 miles from any international borders, DUI checkpoints, DHS showing up at random train/bus stations, and on and on, all "nudging" people away from traveling unless they feel the reasons are important enough to undergo the indignities and risks. Maybe they're trying to reduce the number of people traveling for relatively unimportant reasons to make tracking/analyzing people who still travel anyway easier?
Strat
[Does this imply]....that the FCC now endorses Net Neutrality? It was unclear from reading the above. Will I still have to buy a TV service to view footage available on the internet?
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!?"
- Pink Floyd: 'Another Brick In The Wall'
Strat
Incorrect. The only thing government is supposed to protect the people from is government itself.
The only thing that can protect the people from the government is the people themselves. Relying on government to protect oneself from government is how many authoritarian regimes came into existence.
Enforcing the laws, including those against murder, and defending against foreign threats, are both basic functions of government and protect the lives of the people.
Common defense and rule of law. Doesn't get much more basic than that.
Strat
The issue is not one of whether or not the government should or should not be involved.
One of government's primary functions is to protect the lives of the people from others who would wish to kill them for whatever reasons. Thus, this is not a case of government intrusion, but one of establishing exact meanings and limits to a primary function of government.
The issue is at what point does the product of fertilization have the right to life and the protection of the State from having that life terminated by someone taking deliberate actions to cause that life to end.
These are fundamental governmental, cultural, and sociological issues. To say government has no role or say is a non-sequitur.
Strat
Considering the Democrats are a center-right party, I am not sure how anybody can call or be called a liberal for donating to their casues or candidates. If he donated to the Greens, then it would be fair to label him a liberal.
There is a major disconnect between European definitions of Left/Right vs US definitions of Left/Right that leads to much argument and misunderstanding.
European version of Left/Right is socialism/communism vs fascism.
In the US, Left/Right is 'more government' vs 'less government'. This actually has little to do with political party in the US, as both Parties have those who desire more government and those who desire less government.
Liberals in the US are a misnomer, as they are nothing like the "classic liberal" that many if not most people think of when "liberal" is mentioned, and are actually the Progressives from the early 1900s who, after having their ideology totally discredited, "rebranded" themselves as "liberals" so they could try again to push the same failed ideology.
The plan proposed is simply another flavor of "affirmative action" for females in a specific field, attempting to force the outcomes without addressing the natural & non-political reasons behind the differences or simply ignoring them for political convenience.
Strat
I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly.
Or, they could just continue as they have been doing, passing blatantly unConstitutional laws, creating Federal regulations with the force of Federal law which are created and enacted wholly by unelected bureaucrats (which in itself is unConstitutional), and enforce them as if they were valid laws, and blackmail, destroy with media propaganda and legal struggles, imprison without trial, or kill anyone that refuses to comply.
Thugocracy meets Idiocracy...
I hate sequels.
Strat
The primary thing to be looking at is that the courts grant warrants, as they did in the cases you mentioned.
What you are missing is that a warrant for something un-Constitutional is invalid even if issued in accordance with unanimous decisions from the SCOTUS., therefor actions taken to execute said warrant are illegal and are criminal acts carried out under color of law. Dred Scott comes to mind, though hardly the only example of the SCOTUS ruling contrary to letter and/or intent of the Constitution.
Courts are not the final arbiters. People are. What can the government do if most of the population (including a large percentage of workers within said government and members of the military) refuses to comply?
There are already laws on the books regarding citizen rights & responsibilities pertaining to dealing with agents of the government committing criminal acts under color of law. I would refer you there.
Strat
That is kind of interesting, everything I have read indicated there were warrants issued through the FISA court, and numerous rulings that what they were doing was constitutional, all published. Could you point me to an article stating that there was ANY unwarranted surveillance?
So you would accept it as Constitutional if the courts rule that police randomly entering & searching your home without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is or is about to be committed is not a violation of the 4th Amendment?
No US court has the power to overrule the US Constitution, secret or otherwise. Any such rulings are by definition unlawful and un-Constitutional. An un-Constitutional law is no law at all, and it is the duty of every US citizen to ignore and/or disobey/violate it if/when it conflicts with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
Strat
So, what's to stop an insurance company from working with the ride share companies.../snip
Government bureaucrats & officials, and the innumerable laws, rules, and regulations at local, State and Federal levels at their disposal to interpret however they wish unless/until there's enough public attention and outrage to force the issue.
The same government that prevents Tesla Motors from selling cars directly and also in many areas limits the choices available for domestic home high speed internet services. The same government that completely ignores the US Constitution and shits all over the 4th Amendment with NSA bulk surveillance.
You know, the guys you help elect and vehemently defend because "he's your guy" and you don't want those other guys to get in even though they agree on everything except carefully focus-group tested and selected wedge issues designed to keep the electorate divided.
Strat
How many allies died after Enigma was broken? Just because every threat isn't countered, doesn't mean they didn't know it was coming.
There's a huge difference between wartime-code breaking of enemy military communications, and the bulk collection/monitoring/analysis of all domestic civilian communications in peacetime in direct violation of the rights and protections guaranteed in the US Constitution. Especially when that collection is sold to the public as being created precisely to stop such terror attacks.
Sorry, that doesn't wash.
Strat
The seats up for election- outside a special election to fill a premature vacancy, is set in the constitutions of the US and states. They are not subject to manipulations.
Just more evidence the US Constitution was conceived by those religious-nutjob Colonial Right-wing radical extremists to prevent the government having all the powers it needs to fight for Equality, Order, and Social Justice on behalf of the People! /s
Strat
You assume that the spying by governments in the UK & US is actually about stopping Islamic terrorists or terrorist acts. That has not been born out by the facts surrounding many if not most of the terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists who arrived from nations/regions known for such activity and even when warned by the foreign intelligence service of the nation they left.
They can't catch a couple of not-genius terrorists even monitoring all communications and having been warned, yet they seem to be doing a brisk biz in 'parallel construction' to make drug and CP busts.
It's about protecting those in power and the status-quo that maintains the system that keeps them in power, and the biggest threat to any bloated, corrupt, increasingly-authoritarian and tyrannical government and it's power-and-control-seeking leaders are the citizens.
The US has steadily been sliding towards an ever-more authoritarian surveillance state for decades under both Democrats and Republicans.
If you want to solve the problems, the first thing you need are different people working on the problems. The problems will never be solved by the same people who have created & maintained them for decades.
Want to get both Party's attention? Stop giving money or volunteering time/work to either Party. No more checks. No more handing out flyers or putting up yard signs. No manning call centers, campaign offices, etc. When they call tell them you're done with their lies. When/if they knock on your door, slam the door in their faces. Tell your friends, neighbors, coworkers. Use social media.
#DefundEmAll
Strat
You asked why "rich socialists" hate the rich so much, immediately after talking about Soros.
From my OP:
Why is it that the uber-rich on the Left are never mentioned? Most of the richest people in the US Congress are Democrats. Why don't we hear more about George Soros, who collapses national currencies for fun & profit, and the leftist/progressive institutions he funds like Tides Foundation and others who then in turn fund numerous other PACs and other groups? How about Bloomberg? Or if you want to get to the real money in political contributions, look at public & private sector unions.
What is it with rich socialists that they hate the rich so much? Or do they just hate the idea of anyone *else* becoming rich? They seem to view other people increasing their wealth as decreasing how much richer they are, and consider the resulting decrease in wealth disparity the same as having been robbed.
You'll notice that the two things aren't even in the same paragraph!
Methinks you simply wish to detract and criticize because you disagree politically/ideologically, but are struggling to find a valid reason to do so based on what I posted without appearing politically/ideologically biased and/or closed-minded.
Strat
If you want to have a reasoned argument and be taken seriously then you shouldn't try to compare people like Soros to socialists.
I never said George Soros was a Socialist.
George Soros funds things that push socialist-style agendas. He does this as one of many things done by him and others (not necessarily in a coordinated manner, but as fellow-travelers whose causes all would benefit from social/economic chaos) with the overall goal of weakening the social stability and unity in the US, and contribute to the ultimate collapse of the US Dollar and the US national economy. This would make it something like the 5th currency he has intentionally and heavily contributed to the collapse of, and profited nicely from as well at the same time.
George Soros believes in George Soros. What he does is for his benefit. The people and causes he funds are useful idiots and ideologues blinded by their narrow views and hatred. They are tools to him, nothing more.
Strat
Well, the reason wealthy republican interest groups that sponsor politicians get vilified, is because they are enemies of the people. They buy influence to allow the poisoning of air and water, undermining the health of the population, deny the population health care and other such lovely things.
People don't care for enemies of the people.
They don't get vilified for who they are. They get vilified for WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, KEEP ON DOING, AND WANT TO DO AGAIN
They've probably also got a secret lair on the moon where they plan to use a [finger-quotes] "LASER" to blackmail the worlds' governments for one BILLION dollars! [pinky to corner of mouth]
Holy crap, dude! Do you actually believe all that, and that the other faction of the One Party is blameless for anything bad that's happened!? Talk bout some truly epic partisan blinders! Please alert people if you ever take those massive things off, moving those things will shift the Earths' center of gravity!
Strat
From TFS:
Wealthy interests such as the Scaife Foundation and Koch Industries
Why is it that the uber-rich on the Left are never mentioned? Most of the richest people in the US Congress are Democrats. Why don't we hear more about George Soros, who collapses national currencies for fun & profit, and the leftist/progressive institutions he funds like Tides Foundation and others who then in turn fund numerous other PACs and other groups? How about Bloomberg? Or if you want to get to the real money in political contributions, look at public & private sector unions.
What is it with rich socialists that they hate the rich so much? Or do they just hate the idea of anyone *else* becoming rich? They seem to view other people increasing their wealth as decreasing how much richer they are, and consider the resulting decrease in wealth disparity the same as having been robbed.
Strat
Let me take the last first.
Also please note, the number of "bad guys with guns" stopped by a random "good guy with a gun" citizen in all of the past decade and a half of mass shootings is 0.
Zero.
Zilch.
Zip.
Nada.
None.
Not a one.
They were all stopped by either police, or themselves via suicide.
From http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...
The problem with claiming that zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is just that: they were stopped. Thereâ(TM)s no weeks-long media feeding frenzy when a mass shooting doesnâ(TM)t happen. But I can definitely present some examples in just the past couple of years where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.
Clackamas Town Center: An armed individual, obviously attempting to commit a mass shooting, was confronted by a person with a concealed carry license. After seeing a gun being drawn on him, the shooter immediately deviated from his course and killed himself in an adjacent hallway.
Arapahoe High School: A student armed with a shotgun and multiple incendiary devices, shot one person in the face and was attempting to kill more people when an armed school resource officer confronted him. The attacker then killed himself.
Those are just the two most high profile cases in recent history â" a news story that doesnâ(TM)t happen is hard to find, so we never seem to hear about those. Even when they happen, the actual chain of events are still often hard to prove.
It boils down to this: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Police officer, concealed carry holder, school resource officerâ¦it doesnâ(TM)t matter. Any armed opposition is effective.
Also, the notion that "bad people will always have guns because they ignore laws" is not logically valid, and links two seperate concepts while ignoring the inherent assumptions required to link them. Bad people may ignore laws, but that has little to do with their ability to obtain firearms. Their ability to obtain fireams depends on the efficacy of efforts to disrupt their illicit supply chains.
Read the news out of France lately? The attackers had fully automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. Personal firearm selling, buying, ownership, and possession are all extremely heavily restricted and regulated in France. Have you seen the Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic pistols that are being produced by 3D printing these days? Heck, I can fabricate a STEN submachine gun with the common metal shop tools I have access to in a day or two. I have the complete plans and templates. As far as that goes, it's probably easier to just steal a shotgun and/or pistol from a parked police cruiser (might even get an AR or M4 from the trunk).
Heck, gangs in Brazil make their own guns, and so did Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere in WW2.
If more guns makes people safer and reduces crime, why is America not the safest country on the planet with the lowest crime rate?
Why is it that instead we see the exact opposite, that Amercia has the highest crime rate of all western nations, where the majority of those other nations have far stricter gun control than the US?
Sorry but no. The theory that more guns = less crime is a pile of manure disproven by simple observation.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Other nations don't count & categorize data points the same way the US does. Violent crime in the US is at an all time low and has been trending steadily downward for 40 years.
So basically, your entire post is factually wrong and smells like emotionally/ideologically-driven propaganda.
Strat
Speaking of "About Time", I recommend the movie of that name. It was a bit sad, but I felt worth the ride. Haunting musical score, too.
I recommend the 1960s TV comedy series by that name ("It's About Time").
Oooo! Oooo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
ITAR, Category XI, 7(b).
You're welcome.
Not so fast there, A.C.
ITAR is an export control treaty.
As long as nobody tries to export one (or detailed plans for making one) ITAR does not apply.
Strat
I'm also going to reply to BlueStrat up above and say I disagree with the more good people then bad people. I think there are more people who are constrained by social conventions and laws then there are those who are not, but that's not the same thing and I think we would find that out quickly if we toss our social conventions and laws out the window .
Increasingly, it's looking like I will find out in my lifetime.
Wait, what?
Where did I say that? Nice strawman there. Took him down with dispatch, too. Bravo. Too bad I didn't say anything remotely like that.
Everybody is constrained by social conventions (like a common set of morals) and laws (except criminals both inside and outside government of course) or else a stable society and nation are not possible.
Do you believe that somehow the government *not* infringing on 2nd Amendment rights will cause a sudden collapse into insanity & chaos and/or cause a widespread abandonment of social conventions and rampant lawlessness?
Are you aware that gun violence and violent crime overall in the US has been on a steady decline over the past 4 decades despite record numbers of gun ownership (largely thanks to the current administration in Washingtons' anti-gun policies and attitudes)?
Strat
Those two things are neither unrelated nor unintentional.
Those two things are neither unrelated nor coincidental.
Oops.
So does this mean we agree that the "overthrow the gubmint" peeps is stupid and stuff?
At this point, yes.
There are far too many other avenues other than violence that are still open at this point. Violence should be the very last resort.
However, it's very healthy for there to be a credible deterrent in the hands of a free general populace to dissuade ever-present political ambition and greed from infringing upon individual rights and liberty.
It's not necessary that civilians be capable of winning an all-out military conflict. A credible ability for civilians to inflict damages unacceptable to the government/politicians in all but the most serious situations and in which they have a majority of the population backing the government is a pretty good compromise.
History is littered with many examples that demonstrate over and over what almost always has happened when a population or groups/ethnicities/races/etc have been disarmed by their government. One need look no further than the laws enacted in the US South in the early/mid 1900s to prevent blacks from buying/owning/possessing firearms or ammunition at a time when the KKK and other violent racist groups were launching numerous violent and lethal terrorist attacks targeting blacks. Those two things are neither unrelated nor unintentional.
Strat