Come on, you know that Buddhists and Presbyterians and Quakers and Sikhs have, in just the last year, slaughtered just as many villages full of people and taken just as many sex slaves as various flavors of orthodox Muslims have. Or not, actually.
You're missing the point. Don't split hairs about which tool or technology is somehow responsible for what a mass murderer chooses to do. This is just like lawyers looking to make a fast buck by suing the manufacture of the rifle that the Sandy Hook killer stole from it's owner (his mom) after he killed her in her bed. Yeah, that's the rifle manufacturer's fault. That same loon was maintaining extensive spreadsheets recording the details of previous mass killers' handiwork. Why not sue Microsoft for allowing Excel to be used in the planning of a mass murder?
All of the idiot lefties who think it's appropriate to go after firearms because of what crazy person does are just giving moral comfort to the people who will want to go after software authors, hosting services, or something that feels a little closer to home for nerds that don't happen to own firearms. This urge to blame everyone and everything except the actual person (or militant medieval theocratic totalitarian movement) responsible isn't just misguided. It's power-hungry nanny state types exploiting someone else's deadly act to bolster their own power aspirations without having to admit to their paralyzed-by-political-correctness low information supporters that some people, and some cultures, aren't as good as others.
Yet the government doesn't want people on the street to see the cameras
In exactly the same way that law enforcement agencies don't want you to see unmarked cars, or under cover cops. Because if they're obvious, they lose why they're useful.
The better discussion would be about what's done with the imagery and any resulting (say, facial recognition/tracking) database that's created from that imagery. But it's not an invasion of privacy to have your image taken on a public street. We've all been recorded in high resolution in the background of a million selfies, on people's dash cams, on retail stores' security cameras, on ATM cameras, and more. If the FBI is mounting one of these with a long focal length lens on a utility pole outside my window, looking IN, in a way that someone walking by on the street wouldn't be able to see - that's another discussion.
The difference is that militant Islam is backed up by hundreds of millions of enthusiastic supporters who either actively back the actions of groups like ISIS, or - in keeping with their culture - look away when they commit atrocities, lest them come across as rude towards their brothers and sisters. That's the difference between them and, say, fans of a local soccer team. Do you have any sense of scale?
we're talking about what would happen if everyone was armed
Who is? Very few people actually make that choice, even in places where there aren't obstacles preventing it. A club like Pulse could still have a "no customers with guns" rule, but allow staff to carry if they meet the management's standards for training and the right mindset. The notion that there are two choices: only criminals having weapons, or "everyone" is carrying - absurd, and you know it.
Crazed individual discovered to be violently nuts, with a pattern of violent behaviour and due to lack of mental health services, gets not treatment and works themselves into a killing rage over any cause what so ever.
No, he wasn't "discovered to be violently nuts" - he was understood to be obsessed with jihad, because that provided a framework for him to act out against a world he disliked, because his family culture taught him to dislike it. The problem wasn't the lack of help, it was the paralyzing political correctness that prevented friends, family, and multiple FBI investigators from calling it like they saw it. If you think his problem was mental illness, then you are - on which we agree - identifying most vocally religious people as mentally ill, and certainly the millions who make up groups like AQ and ISIS, finance, and support them... they are definitely ill. When people with some typical angsty personal axe to grind happen to also be passionately enthusiastic about militant jihad as a sport, then they follow that recipe. Because millions of people are telling them that's a grand thing to do.
It says "well regulated militia", clearly stating that regulation is both necessary and allowed.
Right. And THEN it says that the existence of such doesn't mean that the government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The people's personal rights to keep and bear arms is a given, and they're putting a restriction ON THE GOVERNMENT to prevent infringement upon that right, and explicitly anticipating people like you would might say, "Well, since we have an army, there's no need for a farmer to own a rifle." They knew what a trap that would be, and so - just like their explicit protections guaranteed by the 1st, wrote the 2nd, so that you wouldn't have to fret about the matter.
Really, that's what you see happening? A completely fictional scenario where a hundred drunk people are all blazing away? I'll bet you don't even know a single person with a carry permit.
So let's see. You're characterizing my thoughts as: "Everyone blaze away in the dark no matter what you can or can't see!"
Could you point out where I said that, or anything like that?
Of course, witnesses say that once people understood he was shooting, everyone hit the floor, and those in line of site could very clearly see the killer standing in a door frame calmly taking shots, reloading, talking on his phone, with nobody else up and around, at all. Someone with a clear shot could have taken one during any of several interludes when he was reloading. I know you'd like to imagine that everyone with a gun would start spraying lead, but that's not how things go. The person painting a ludicrous, fantasy scenario here is you.
Except guns in the hands of non-criminals STOP VIOLENCE ALL THE TIME. I've done it myself. And why are you assuming that the staff of the club would all be drunk and in drug-induced haze?
No it doesn't. These situations are chaos. Most people do not know what's going on, just that there are people with guns running about and people are dying.
Except that's not at all what happened here. There was ONE guy, standing stationary in one place, calmly shooting people, stopping, reloading, and shooting some more. Nobody was (or could) rush out, nobody was rushing at him, he was just standing there. If he'd been shot by someone in the club, he'd be down. The cops were still HOURS from coming inside because they were worried about explosives. If the bad guy goes down, do you really think that the person who shot him is then going to start running around like an idiot waving their gun around? Do you even listen to yourself?
No, it didn't help. Because the bad guy went into a closed space full of soft, unarmed targets, and then got to casually kill people and repeatedly reload his gun in order to do more of it, and hang out unmolested for three hours until the SWAT guys stormed the place. The armed guard wasn't fortunate enough to have the opportunity (as someone inside the club would have had) to get a shot at the guy while he was standing around reloading.
1) Being vague on purpose. Despite "almost never" being factually incorrect, would you like to be one of the people who was NOT saved when self defense works? Why?
2) Citing stats that include suicide. More than half, in fact, of your (inflated) number are suicides. Suicides have been greatly on the increase, though most of those have involved methods other than firearm use.
3) "On average, approximately zero" - please, really? There are long lists, for your perusal, of detailed news and police accounts of personal use of firearms preventing and stopping violent crimes. This happens (conservatively) tens of thousands of times a year. Most of the time, the gun isn't even fired - because brandishing it is enough to end the violent encounter or prevent one. Your obsession with death is strange, though.
4) The level of effort... blah blah blah. Right. Most people engaged in self defense are using a handgun or a shotgun.
5) Chris Kyle was whacked by someone delusional, under very specific circumstances. I personally know more than one Joe Average who has successfully relied on a firearm to defend themselves from a violent person. No fancy training, just range time and good familiarity/comfort with the tool in hand. I have personally used one in those (quite scary at the time) circumstances. Your need to wish all of that away is really odd.
Except... when a good guy kills that bad guy who has just started shooting up a night club, the shooting stops. That's the whole point. Police don't appear magically, instantly out of thin air. If they could, they would have shot this guy while he stood casually reloading over and over again. If any one of the 300 people in that club had landed one good shot on that guy, it would have ended things. More people showing up on the scene wouldn't have confusion over who to shoot, because there wouldn't be any more shooting going on. You get that part, right?
Why should I comment on my interpretation of a phrase that you're making up from whole cloth? The amendment doesn't say any such thing. It says the exact opposite. How about you go and read some of the contemporary writings by the people who authored the amendment you are deliberately mis-quoting?
Regardless of how well regulated the local militia was or wasn't, the point of that amendment is to protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms despite the need for a standing military. That's the whole point of that amendment, and the people who wrote it made that very clear in many other contemporary writings, speeches, debates, etc.
None of which matters, though, as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. That amendment says that despite the need for a standing military at some scale, that doesn't mean the government can infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms. That's the whole point of the amendment - to prevent those who would run a military (from the local militia types up to a federal army) from becoming the same sort of overbearing, tyrannical force that they saw in the Crown's military presence prior to the revolution. The founders considered the individual's right to keep and bear arms to be every bit as important as the individual's right to free speech and assembly - and the first two amendments prohibit the government from interfering with either of those rights.
So regardless of the history of the militia, the amendment isn't about establishing some requirement about being in one in order to keep and bear arms. It's about protecting the right to keep and bear arms even if there is a local (or bigger) militia that might want to reserve that power for itself. The founders had had enough of that behavior from the British.
Seems like the "well regulated militia" part of that right would go a long way to preventing lone mentally ill people obtaining guns and murdering large numbers of people.
Time to lobby for full implementation of the 2nd Amendment.
You are (deliberately, it must be - because there's so much information out there, including abundant correspondence and other writings by the people who wrote the 2nd amendment explaining all of this) getting the amendment exactly backwards.
The people who formed the new country, and who wrote the charter (constitution and its amendments) governing its structure had very recently lived under a Crown that did things like station troops in their houses, deny them the ownership of weapons, etc. They didn't like that. Most of those who wrote the constitution didn't even like the idea of having a standing military of ANY kind, even the local militias that were drawn upon to fight the revolution. But after much discussion, they realized that a standing military of some sort was inevitable and likely necessary. At the very least, in the form of locally organized militias. But they wanted to be very clear, just in case someone like you came along and pretended not to understand things like an individual's right to defend themselves, that just because there was likely to be a standing, well-organized military at some scale... that the people running that military didn't have the power to say that they and only they would have a monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms. Otherwise, the local militia leader (or mayor, or governor, or president, etc) might decide to disarm everybody not in the militia/army "for their own good" or whatever other reason they might trot out.
So the amendment - though many thought this was so obvious that it didn't even need saying - is there to protect your right to keep and bear arms even though there will be a standing military to fight battles as needed. Because the founders completely understood the importance of individuals being able to exercise that right if they so choose. The 2nd Amendment says, to put its language in slightly more modern form: "The government cannot use the need for a well-organized military as an excuse to infringe on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms."
Of course you know all of that, and you're just trying to pretend you can't understand the amendment's plain language, because by pretending to deliberately get it backwards, you can push for the agenda you prefer (government control over more liberties). The problem is that the amendment's language is plain, and the ample supporting writings surrounding it all completely reinforce that understanding.
So if you want "full implementation" of the 2nd amendment, you're actually asking to strike down the many laws that run counter to its plainly stated protections. Regardless, you're also totally pretending to misunderstand how the constitution works. Just like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd doesn't say what you're allowed to do, it says that the government may not interfere with it.
So, are you Dr. Who or something? Do you not sense the passage of time? Do you not understand that things Christians did centuries ago are the things that Muslims are still passionately doing today, and posting to YouTube for all to enjoy? Never mind. If you haven't already grasped that, you're not going to be thinking about anything related in a clear way.
I'll take legally mandated fairness over a small handful of people telling the majority what to think via their media empires.
You've got it backwards. The "fairness doctrine" is government control of political speech (a direct violation of the first amendment) that exactly IS a "small handful of people" deciding who can say what. It's an agency of the federal government run by one of the president's political appointees deciding what is or isn't "fair" about someone expressing their opinion. Or, you could have what we have now: countless media outlets, millions of blogs and feeds, and endless innovation giving more and more platforms to anyone who wants to produce videos or string two words together in support or criticism of any person, party, idea or cause. But YOU would rather that a government bureaucrat notice that your YouTube musings aren't balanced enough in favor of Donald Trump, and so you must either support him as much as you support your preferred candidate, or be silenced by the government?
History tells us that doesn't end well.
No, history tells us EXACTLY why the founders of this nation made the first amendment so succinct. Because they didn't want people like you giving up someone else's liberty so you don't have to feel like someone else's thoughts are out there making your nanny state Safe Space a place where you might have to actually think for yourself and express yourself.
There's never been a time when people could more easily be heard and hear expression from every part of the ideological spectrum. The people who want the "fairness doctrine" back are transparently yearning for the power to silence those they don't like. It's as simple as that. Lefty totalitarians stamping their feet because even though they run the majority of the traditional broadcast and print outlets, they're offended that anyone might have a different opinion.
if republicans were so concerned about biased political reporting from media outlets, they could always restore the fairness doctrine
Republicans don't mind media outlets and news sources having an editorial slant. They just like to point out that when people claim that, for example, the New York Times isn't backing the Democrats, they're wrong.
No, they're not going to be looking to bring back what the liberals want: counter-constitutional government censorship of political expression. That's the left's game, they love that crap.
Nice way of trying to dodge the substance of the matter, about which he's correct. And you know it, which is why you're attempting to sling the "you're fighting a straw man" defense even though of course that's not what's happening. No, we do NOT want places like China, or Iran having any influence international communication standards or things like root DNS.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, you know that Buddhists and Presbyterians and Quakers and Sikhs have, in just the last year, slaughtered just as many villages full of people and taken just as many sex slaves as various flavors of orthodox Muslims have. Or not, actually.
You're missing the point. Don't split hairs about which tool or technology is somehow responsible for what a mass murderer chooses to do. This is just like lawyers looking to make a fast buck by suing the manufacture of the rifle that the Sandy Hook killer stole from it's owner (his mom) after he killed her in her bed. Yeah, that's the rifle manufacturer's fault. That same loon was maintaining extensive spreadsheets recording the details of previous mass killers' handiwork. Why not sue Microsoft for allowing Excel to be used in the planning of a mass murder?
All of the idiot lefties who think it's appropriate to go after firearms because of what crazy person does are just giving moral comfort to the people who will want to go after software authors, hosting services, or something that feels a little closer to home for nerds that don't happen to own firearms. This urge to blame everyone and everything except the actual person (or militant medieval theocratic totalitarian movement) responsible isn't just misguided. It's power-hungry nanny state types exploiting someone else's deadly act to bolster their own power aspirations without having to admit to their paralyzed-by-political-correctness low information supporters that some people, and some cultures, aren't as good as others.
It's not either-or. You don't use marked cars and guys in uniform when you're trying to bust up an organized crime ring, right?
Yet the government doesn't want people on the street to see the cameras
In exactly the same way that law enforcement agencies don't want you to see unmarked cars, or under cover cops. Because if they're obvious, they lose why they're useful.
The better discussion would be about what's done with the imagery and any resulting (say, facial recognition/tracking) database that's created from that imagery. But it's not an invasion of privacy to have your image taken on a public street. We've all been recorded in high resolution in the background of a million selfies, on people's dash cams, on retail stores' security cameras, on ATM cameras, and more. If the FBI is mounting one of these with a long focal length lens on a utility pole outside my window, looking IN, in a way that someone walking by on the street wouldn't be able to see - that's another discussion.
The difference is that militant Islam is backed up by hundreds of millions of enthusiastic supporters who either actively back the actions of groups like ISIS, or - in keeping with their culture - look away when they commit atrocities, lest them come across as rude towards their brothers and sisters. That's the difference between them and, say, fans of a local soccer team. Do you have any sense of scale?
we're talking about what would happen if everyone was armed
Who is? Very few people actually make that choice, even in places where there aren't obstacles preventing it. A club like Pulse could still have a "no customers with guns" rule, but allow staff to carry if they meet the management's standards for training and the right mindset. The notion that there are two choices: only criminals having weapons, or "everyone" is carrying - absurd, and you know it.
Crazed individual discovered to be violently nuts, with a pattern of violent behaviour and due to lack of mental health services, gets not treatment and works themselves into a killing rage over any cause what so ever.
No, he wasn't "discovered to be violently nuts" - he was understood to be obsessed with jihad, because that provided a framework for him to act out against a world he disliked, because his family culture taught him to dislike it. The problem wasn't the lack of help, it was the paralyzing political correctness that prevented friends, family, and multiple FBI investigators from calling it like they saw it. If you think his problem was mental illness, then you are - on which we agree - identifying most vocally religious people as mentally ill, and certainly the millions who make up groups like AQ and ISIS, finance, and support them ... they are definitely ill. When people with some typical angsty personal axe to grind happen to also be passionately enthusiastic about militant jihad as a sport, then they follow that recipe. Because millions of people are telling them that's a grand thing to do.
It says "well regulated militia", clearly stating that regulation is both necessary and allowed.
Right. And THEN it says that the existence of such doesn't mean that the government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The people's personal rights to keep and bear arms is a given, and they're putting a restriction ON THE GOVERNMENT to prevent infringement upon that right, and explicitly anticipating people like you would might say, "Well, since we have an army, there's no need for a farmer to own a rifle." They knew what a trap that would be, and so - just like their explicit protections guaranteed by the 1st, wrote the 2nd, so that you wouldn't have to fret about the matter.
Really, that's what you see happening? A completely fictional scenario where a hundred drunk people are all blazing away? I'll bet you don't even know a single person with a carry permit.
So let's see. You're characterizing my thoughts as: "Everyone blaze away in the dark no matter what you can or can't see!"
Could you point out where I said that, or anything like that?
Of course, witnesses say that once people understood he was shooting, everyone hit the floor, and those in line of site could very clearly see the killer standing in a door frame calmly taking shots, reloading, talking on his phone, with nobody else up and around, at all. Someone with a clear shot could have taken one during any of several interludes when he was reloading. I know you'd like to imagine that everyone with a gun would start spraying lead, but that's not how things go. The person painting a ludicrous, fantasy scenario here is you.
Except guns in the hands of non-criminals STOP VIOLENCE ALL THE TIME. I've done it myself. And why are you assuming that the staff of the club would all be drunk and in drug-induced haze?
No it doesn't. These situations are chaos. Most people do not know what's going on, just that there are people with guns running about and people are dying.
Except that's not at all what happened here. There was ONE guy, standing stationary in one place, calmly shooting people, stopping, reloading, and shooting some more. Nobody was (or could) rush out, nobody was rushing at him, he was just standing there. If he'd been shot by someone in the club, he'd be down. The cops were still HOURS from coming inside because they were worried about explosives. If the bad guy goes down, do you really think that the person who shot him is then going to start running around like an idiot waving their gun around? Do you even listen to yourself?
No, it didn't help. Because the bad guy went into a closed space full of soft, unarmed targets, and then got to casually kill people and repeatedly reload his gun in order to do more of it, and hang out unmolested for three hours until the SWAT guys stormed the place. The armed guard wasn't fortunate enough to have the opportunity (as someone inside the club would have had) to get a shot at the guy while he was standing around reloading.
1) Being vague on purpose. Despite "almost never" being factually incorrect, would you like to be one of the people who was NOT saved when self defense works? Why?
... blah blah blah. Right. Most people engaged in self defense are using a handgun or a shotgun.
2) Citing stats that include suicide. More than half, in fact, of your (inflated) number are suicides. Suicides have been greatly on the increase, though most of those have involved methods other than firearm use.
3) "On average, approximately zero" - please, really? There are long lists, for your perusal, of detailed news and police accounts of personal use of firearms preventing and stopping violent crimes. This happens (conservatively) tens of thousands of times a year. Most of the time, the gun isn't even fired - because brandishing it is enough to end the violent encounter or prevent one. Your obsession with death is strange, though.
4) The level of effort
5) Chris Kyle was whacked by someone delusional, under very specific circumstances. I personally know more than one Joe Average who has successfully relied on a firearm to defend themselves from a violent person. No fancy training, just range time and good familiarity/comfort with the tool in hand. I have personally used one in those (quite scary at the time) circumstances. Your need to wish all of that away is really odd.
Except ... when a good guy kills that bad guy who has just started shooting up a night club, the shooting stops. That's the whole point. Police don't appear magically, instantly out of thin air. If they could, they would have shot this guy while he stood casually reloading over and over again. If any one of the 300 people in that club had landed one good shot on that guy, it would have ended things. More people showing up on the scene wouldn't have confusion over who to shoot, because there wouldn't be any more shooting going on. You get that part, right?
Why should I comment on my interpretation of a phrase that you're making up from whole cloth? The amendment doesn't say any such thing. It says the exact opposite. How about you go and read some of the contemporary writings by the people who authored the amendment you are deliberately mis-quoting?
Regardless of how well regulated the local militia was or wasn't, the point of that amendment is to protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms despite the need for a standing military. That's the whole point of that amendment, and the people who wrote it made that very clear in many other contemporary writings, speeches, debates, etc.
None of which matters, though, as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. That amendment says that despite the need for a standing military at some scale, that doesn't mean the government can infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms. That's the whole point of the amendment - to prevent those who would run a military (from the local militia types up to a federal army) from becoming the same sort of overbearing, tyrannical force that they saw in the Crown's military presence prior to the revolution. The founders considered the individual's right to keep and bear arms to be every bit as important as the individual's right to free speech and assembly - and the first two amendments prohibit the government from interfering with either of those rights.
So regardless of the history of the militia, the amendment isn't about establishing some requirement about being in one in order to keep and bear arms. It's about protecting the right to keep and bear arms even if there is a local (or bigger) militia that might want to reserve that power for itself. The founders had had enough of that behavior from the British.
Seems like the "well regulated militia" part of that right would go a long way to preventing lone mentally ill people obtaining guns and murdering large numbers of people.
Time to lobby for full implementation of the 2nd Amendment.
You are (deliberately, it must be - because there's so much information out there, including abundant correspondence and other writings by the people who wrote the 2nd amendment explaining all of this) getting the amendment exactly backwards.
... that the people running that military didn't have the power to say that they and only they would have a monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms. Otherwise, the local militia leader (or mayor, or governor, or president, etc) might decide to disarm everybody not in the militia/army "for their own good" or whatever other reason they might trot out.
The people who formed the new country, and who wrote the charter (constitution and its amendments) governing its structure had very recently lived under a Crown that did things like station troops in their houses, deny them the ownership of weapons, etc. They didn't like that. Most of those who wrote the constitution didn't even like the idea of having a standing military of ANY kind, even the local militias that were drawn upon to fight the revolution. But after much discussion, they realized that a standing military of some sort was inevitable and likely necessary. At the very least, in the form of locally organized militias. But they wanted to be very clear, just in case someone like you came along and pretended not to understand things like an individual's right to defend themselves, that just because there was likely to be a standing, well-organized military at some scale
So the amendment - though many thought this was so obvious that it didn't even need saying - is there to protect your right to keep and bear arms even though there will be a standing military to fight battles as needed. Because the founders completely understood the importance of individuals being able to exercise that right if they so choose. The 2nd Amendment says, to put its language in slightly more modern form: "The government cannot use the need for a well-organized military as an excuse to infringe on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms."
Of course you know all of that, and you're just trying to pretend you can't understand the amendment's plain language, because by pretending to deliberately get it backwards, you can push for the agenda you prefer (government control over more liberties). The problem is that the amendment's language is plain, and the ample supporting writings surrounding it all completely reinforce that understanding.
So if you want "full implementation" of the 2nd amendment, you're actually asking to strike down the many laws that run counter to its plainly stated protections. Regardless, you're also totally pretending to misunderstand how the constitution works. Just like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd doesn't say what you're allowed to do, it says that the government may not interfere with it.
So, are you Dr. Who or something? Do you not sense the passage of time? Do you not understand that things Christians did centuries ago are the things that Muslims are still passionately doing today, and posting to YouTube for all to enjoy? Never mind. If you haven't already grasped that, you're not going to be thinking about anything related in a clear way.
I'll take legally mandated fairness over a small handful of people telling the majority what to think via their media empires.
You've got it backwards. The "fairness doctrine" is government control of political speech (a direct violation of the first amendment) that exactly IS a "small handful of people" deciding who can say what. It's an agency of the federal government run by one of the president's political appointees deciding what is or isn't "fair" about someone expressing their opinion. Or, you could have what we have now: countless media outlets, millions of blogs and feeds, and endless innovation giving more and more platforms to anyone who wants to produce videos or string two words together in support or criticism of any person, party, idea or cause. But YOU would rather that a government bureaucrat notice that your YouTube musings aren't balanced enough in favor of Donald Trump, and so you must either support him as much as you support your preferred candidate, or be silenced by the government?
History tells us that doesn't end well.
No, history tells us EXACTLY why the founders of this nation made the first amendment so succinct. Because they didn't want people like you giving up someone else's liberty so you don't have to feel like someone else's thoughts are out there making your nanny state Safe Space a place where you might have to actually think for yourself and express yourself.
There's never been a time when people could more easily be heard and hear expression from every part of the ideological spectrum. The people who want the "fairness doctrine" back are transparently yearning for the power to silence those they don't like. It's as simple as that. Lefty totalitarians stamping their feet because even though they run the majority of the traditional broadcast and print outlets, they're offended that anyone might have a different opinion.
if republicans were so concerned about biased political reporting from media outlets, they could always restore the fairness doctrine
Republicans don't mind media outlets and news sources having an editorial slant. They just like to point out that when people claim that, for example, the New York Times isn't backing the Democrats, they're wrong.
No, they're not going to be looking to bring back what the liberals want: counter-constitutional government censorship of political expression. That's the left's game, they love that crap.
Wow, you just go out of your way to pretend you can't read words in front of your eyes, don't you? That must be exhausting.
Nice strawman. You build that yourself?
Nice way of trying to dodge the substance of the matter, about which he's correct. And you know it, which is why you're attempting to sling the "you're fighting a straw man" defense even though of course that's not what's happening. No, we do NOT want places like China, or Iran having any influence international communication standards or things like root DNS.