Presumably the assumption is that "common folks" will stand united in their cause, in complete agreement about how the country should be run afterwards.
1) The potential for armed resistance hopefully acts as a moderating influence on the government so that armed resistance is unnecessary.
2) Successful armed resistance does not necessarily require the actual overthrow of the government. Check out the Magna Carta and the Eureka Stockade for examples of how this can work.
I'm firmly convinced that if the United States ever has another Civil War, it will be the direct result of a Supreme Court decision.
If you have enough support to win a civil war, you have enough to effectively nullify this law in the jury box. Educate people you know about jury nullification, too many people don't understand what it is and how important juries are to the maintenance of a free society.
Just because people wrote a document a long time ago doesn't make what they wrote magically wise.
No, but it does make it the law. If it is decided by the people that the law is flawed and should be changed, there are basically three ways to do that:
1) Ignore the law.
2) Reinterpret the law.
3) Change the law by due process.
While all these methods may work in the short term, only one of them doesn't corrode the rule of law and undermine the viability of society. Changing the constitution ought not to be done lightly. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed." the US Declaration of Independence.
The forms of government referred to would rightly be considered to include the Constitution for countries that have a written constitution as it defines the power of the government. It should be changed only by due process and with long and careful deliberation.
The insurgency tactics being used in Iraq require access to things like plastic explosives and knowledge of bomb making. Those aren't available under your 2nd amendment rights, and if you tried to get them Homeland Security would come a-knocking.
You actually seem to be serious. The knowledge of how to make bombs has been around for a long time. Where I grew up, you could do a course in rural explosives for a few dollars. Any electronics text would show you all you need for detonators. Start stockpiling explosives and blowing things up and you'll probably get trouble, but you don't need to. The skills are widely known and the materials are impossible to restrict. There's no need for civilians to make bombs "just in case".
If the Iraqi insurgents were using the sort of guns available to American citizens they'd have lost a long time ago.
Yeah, if only we could restrict them to Barret 82A1's and SOCOM II's and other M1A variants. Of course, if they had these, the chance is very high that they could at some stage capture other weapons also, but let's ignore that.
I would just like to state that a mugging is not an acceptable reason to shoot someone.
The use or threat of violence with intent to rob absolutely justifies an armed violent response. I have no obligation to hand over my possessions to criminals. I have no reasonable assurance of continued safety if they succeed in overpowering me. In the case of determined attack, the first to escalate to lethal violence will win. I do not initiate violence, but if I am attacked, I intend to win. The law happens to agree with me in this case, though perhaps not where you live.
The type of person who willingly submits to violent criminals need not be listened to when making public policy. They have proven themselves to be lightweights not suitable to direct the course of their own lives, much less society.
However, in each individual mugging, you personally are better off acquiescing.
Not if you are properly armed:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Armed Resistance to Crime:
The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.[6] Cook[7] offers his unsupported personal opinion concerning robbery victims that resisting with a gun is only prudent if the robber does not have a gun. The primary data source on which Cook relies flatly contradicts this opinion. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.
Uh. I was under the impression that Americans believe in God and Bible.
Christianity became extinct because Jesus let himself be nailed to a cross? Because christened did not resist Romans and allowed themselves to be fed to lions?
Now, the American faith seems to be that it is up to every American to take arms and decide themselves whether another life is worth living.
1. I'm not Jesus. My death won't save an attacker. An attackers sin may well kill me.
2. Luke 22:36 Jesus said to buy a sword if you didn't have one. John 18:36 He said the evidence that his kingdom is not of this world is that his followers did not fight for his cause. We may therefore conclude that the swords they were to buy were for personal defense. Hint: turn the other cheek when someone strikes it != let someone kill you. A slap on the cheek is not a lethal assault.
3. Jesus said he did not come to change the law and that law had provision for self defense.
4. All that is moot. The first amendment does not allow the binding of the whole population to the religious interpretations of others.
Besides which, even the name "assault weapon" seems kinda silly. I mean, it's a weapon. What else are you going to do with it?
My other comment on "assault weapon"
In short: an "assault weapon" is an object that has been used to commit assault. (My attempt at a more logical definition than I find currently used)
Since self defence is not usually defined as assault, a rifle used in self defence is not an assault weapon, although still a weapon.
Stupid attempts at definitions for the purpose of banning guns aside, for the purpose of understanding what type of instrument a rifle is, the term has no meaning. However, while reading some other replies to your post, the answer occurred to me. "Rifle" is a subset of "weapon", so if we can define "assault weapon" then we can understand what an "assault rifle" is.
As a comparative definition, a "murder weapon" is a object that has been used to commit murder. Weapons that might be used to commit murder are not "murder weapons", there must be a murder before there can be a murder weapon. So based on this common usage, also used in legal cases, I conclude that an "assault weapon" is an object that has been used to commit assault, so an "assault rifle" is a rifle that has been used to commit assault. No assault, no assault rifle.
Essentially the term assault rifle has no significance in its common usage other than to allow hoplophobes to blur the understanding of the distinction between a morally neutral object and a morally significant act. It is a way to attribute motive to an inanimate object.
It's probably not a good idea for small groups to be effective against the state. Get 40 or 50 million citizens up in arms and the FBI won't know what to infiltrate. Any abuses of government power in the US will stop very soon after the majority decide they don't like it enough to contribute financially and vote for someone who is committed to changing things.
The US government is simply not going to let things get to the point that a majority would support armed revolution. If the population wasn't armed, well, then they might because it wouldn't matter.
Sure, it's true... A single hunting rifle will be, and always has been utterly ineffective against an army.
Well, just one rifle, sure. Hunting rifles are by no means ineffective military weapons. Snipers have had increased roles in the military over the years because of their effectiveness, using weapons that are more similar to hunting rifles that regular force's automatic rifles.
The question is how many Americans would actively fight or support the cause. If a quarter of the US population decided to fight, it would not be feasible for the government to persist. I do not believe it would ever even get to that. Differences with the revolution:
US troop's families are US citizens. US military is supplied by companies owned, staffed etc by US citizens. US government would be unlikely to carpet bomb a US city. US military would likely be divided in loyalty in the case of a revolution.
If you had tens of millions of people, armed only with hunting rifles and a couple hundred rounds of ammo each and popular support it would be next to impossible to overcome them without completely destroying the country. A few small groups can be overcome easily, especially if the majority support the government. If enough people were taking up arms and propaganda wasn't solving the governments problem they would change what they were doing.
An interesting example is the Eureka Stockade in Australia. Only a small group took up arms and was easily overcome, but those captured could not be convicted of sedition because it was a popular cause and juries acquitted them. I know, I know, gitmo, military commissions etc, but if you think that makes much difference you're missing the point of the effect of popular support of an armed population, which the gitmo detainees do not have.
As a previous poster noted, no-one should want a civil war. In my opinion, it's not even remotely likely to happen in the US, and that's good. What many people seem to miss is that the militia is not only for use against your own government, but for the defence of the country also. In times when irregular warfare is the way wars are being fought, this shouldn't be underestimated. From an Australian's perspective, I am quite sure that a terrorist acting in the US is much more likely to be shot before completing their plans than here in Oz.
When I was single, I used to buy most of my food by the fortnight. Two different main dinners alternating days, a bit more variety provided by changing sauces, spices etc.
Not the height of culinary excitement but hardly unbearable.
the fact remains that human mores about sex appear to run counter to the rest of nature.
As does clothing, housing, medical care and many other things we have and do. Calling something "unnatural" is rarely a good argument for or against it. It stirs the emotions, that's all.
If you're moving across country, negotiate a fixed term contract in lieu of probation. You need to calculate "If this doesn't work out, what do I need?" and require that in the contract before moving. Anything else is gambling.
I guess one other question would be, if you've been given an employment offer containing various terms of the employment, signed and accepted it, how free should they be to add the extra contract.
If they fired you for not signing the new contract (new contract not having been mentioned as a condition of employment) it should either be not legal or they should have to pay you a redundancy etc. There might be nothing in the law to protect you in this case, but insisting on a minimum term of employment (which they have to pay out if you are let go) in the original contract before moving would be the way to cover yourself. That way you at least have your moving costs covered and some time to look for something else. Then you could say "No, I'll work according to the agreement we already have" or at least negotiate a better deal.
Any comment I've made on the law is regarding the way I think it should be, not the way it is.
1) Movies that I can't buy if I want to.
Name one.
The Last Starfighter, as far as I can tell not available in region 4. If I have to commit a crime (breaking the encryption) to access it, then they aren't making it available to me to buy.
I don't think freeloading off other people's work is the answer, but I can see why people see that as better than complying with the idiocy of the movie and music industries.
Yup. The question is, what happens when what you receive in writing at arrival (the contract) is different than what you receive in writing prior to (the job offer and acceptance letter).
That's the point. You get the contract in writing before coming. Why would you move across country for employment without knowing the terms of your employment and making sure you will be adequately compensated if the employer doesn't stick to them?
On farm I grew up on, my dad rarely carried a gun, my uncle fairly often. For shooting pests, crows, foxes etc which can be quite devastating to lambs. (My uncle spend more time working the sheep than my dad, who did more work with crops). But while not many in our area carried guns all the time, it wouldn't have rated a mention to see someone with a gun at any particular time. On one place I worked, I was frequently reminded by the owner to take my rifle with me during work, but he had more problems with feral animals than we did at home. I'd say it was common to carry a gun, but certainly common to not be carrying a gun too.
I must claim ignorance as to whether or not the GPL would legally prevent open source DRM from being implemented.
If you had the source code and were able to compile and run it on the device containing the "protected" media, there would be no way to stop you accessing the media in unauthorized ways. That is, the DRM could not be effective for its most prevalent purpose, that being the extraction of payment for music and movies. If the only thing preventing the "open source DRM" from being hacked is the law, then you may as well not have it, as music and movies are already protected by copyright laws.
You have failed to point out which points in my post are "bullshit" and why. Perhaps you missed the part where I said the model depended on an unregulated market which doesn't exist and can't be proven to give a superior result to our current (regulated by copyright) market, or that economic theory often has a tenuous relationship to reality.
So tell me genius, how many millions have YOU made on the principle of making top quality software that can compete with commercial products, which your economic genius has told you must be given away free?
I didn't say software had to be given away free. I said that in a (non-existant) unregulated market, the price of already existing software approaches zero. Since copyright has been societies response to this issue (albeit a response predating software, but relevant to other easily copyable products) in order to secure an incentive for the writers, and copyright is fairly universal worldwide, I'd say my theory is on pretty solid ground. I didn't advocate any position (specifically stating that a preference was subjective) but merely described the effect of unlimited supply of a product on that products price. Copyright is quite deliberately an artificial limitation on supply in order to increase price, and therefore incentive for the creator.
In your other post you direct me to the wikipedia article on fixed costs.
Fixed costs should not be confused with sunk costs.And from that article:
In business, an example of sunk costs may be investment into a factory or research that now has a lower value or no value whatsoever.
Cost of software development is a sunk cost in an unregulated market. To the extent that it can be considered a fixed cost it is so because of restricted supply (copyright) being used to inflate prices, something we have done with the express purpose of making development costs recoverable.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably the assumption is that "common folks" will stand united in their cause, in complete agreement about how the country should be run afterwards.
1) The potential for armed resistance hopefully acts as a moderating influence on the government so that armed resistance is unnecessary.
2) Successful armed resistance does not necessarily require the actual overthrow of the government. Check out the Magna Carta and the Eureka Stockade for examples of how this can work.
In (most of) Europe citizens are not allowed to bear arms and very few people get shot.
Except for that 100 million people or so last century that got killed by their own governments. Apart from that, very few.
I'm firmly convinced that if the United States ever has another Civil War, it will be the direct result of a Supreme Court decision.
If you have enough support to win a civil war, you have enough to effectively nullify this law in the jury box. Educate people you know about jury nullification, too many people don't understand what it is and how important juries are to the maintenance of a free society.
Just because people wrote a document a long time ago doesn't make what they wrote magically wise.
No, but it does make it the law. If it is decided by the people that the law is flawed and should be changed, there are basically three ways to do that:
1) Ignore the law.
2) Reinterpret the law.
3) Change the law by due process.
While all these methods may work in the short term, only one of them doesn't corrode the rule of law and undermine the viability of society. Changing the constitution ought not to be done lightly. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." the US Declaration of Independence.
The forms of government referred to would rightly be considered to include the Constitution for countries that have a written constitution as it defines the power of the government. It should be changed only by due process and with long and careful deliberation.
The insurgency tactics being used in Iraq require access to things like plastic explosives and knowledge of bomb making. Those aren't available under your 2nd amendment rights, and if you tried to get them Homeland Security would come a-knocking.
You actually seem to be serious. The knowledge of how to make bombs has been around for a long time. Where I grew up, you could do a course in rural explosives for a few dollars. Any electronics text would show you all you need for detonators. Start stockpiling explosives and blowing things up and you'll probably get trouble, but you don't need to. The skills are widely known and the materials are impossible to restrict. There's no need for civilians to make bombs "just in case".
If the Iraqi insurgents were using the sort of guns available to American citizens they'd have lost a long time ago.
Yeah, if only we could restrict them to Barret 82A1's and SOCOM II's and other M1A variants. Of course, if they had these, the chance is very high that they could at some stage capture other weapons also, but let's ignore that.
I would just like to state that a mugging is not an acceptable reason to shoot someone.
The use or threat of violence with intent to rob absolutely justifies an armed violent response. I have no obligation to hand over my possessions to criminals. I have no reasonable assurance of continued safety if they succeed in overpowering me. In the case of determined attack, the first to escalate to lethal violence will win. I do not initiate violence, but if I am attacked, I intend to win. The law happens to agree with me in this case, though perhaps not where you live.
The type of person who willingly submits to violent criminals need not be listened to when making public policy. They have proven themselves to be lightweights not suitable to direct the course of their own lives, much less society.
However, in each individual mugging, you personally are better off acquiescing.
Not if you are properly armed:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.[6] Cook[7] offers his unsupported personal opinion concerning robbery victims that resisting with a gun is only prudent if the robber does not have a gun. The primary data source on which Cook relies flatly contradicts this opinion. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.
Uh. I was under the impression that Americans believe in God and Bible.
Christianity became extinct because Jesus let himself be nailed to a cross? Because christened did not resist Romans and allowed themselves to be fed to lions?
Now, the American faith seems to be that it is up to every American to take arms and decide themselves whether another life is worth living.
1. I'm not Jesus. My death won't save an attacker. An attackers sin may well kill me.
2. Luke 22:36 Jesus said to buy a sword if you didn't have one. John 18:36 He said the evidence that his kingdom is not of this world is that his followers did not fight for his cause. We may therefore conclude that the swords they were to buy were for personal defense. Hint: turn the other cheek when someone strikes it != let someone kill you. A slap on the cheek is not a lethal assault.
3. Jesus said he did not come to change the law and that law had provision for self defense.
4. All that is moot. The first amendment does not allow the binding of the whole population to the religious interpretations of others.
Besides which, even the name "assault weapon" seems kinda silly. I mean, it's a weapon. What else are you going to do with it?
My other comment on "assault weapon"
In short: an "assault weapon" is an object that has been used to commit assault. (My attempt at a more logical definition than I find currently used)
Since self defence is not usually defined as assault, a rifle used in self defence is not an assault weapon, although still a weapon.
Can you define an "assault rifle?"
Stupid attempts at definitions for the purpose of banning guns aside, for the purpose of understanding what type of instrument a rifle is, the term has no meaning. However, while reading some other replies to your post, the answer occurred to me. "Rifle" is a subset of "weapon", so if we can define "assault weapon" then we can understand what an "assault rifle" is.
As a comparative definition, a "murder weapon" is a object that has been used to commit murder. Weapons that might be used to commit murder are not "murder weapons", there must be a murder before there can be a murder weapon. So based on this common usage, also used in legal cases, I conclude that an "assault weapon" is an object that has been used to commit assault, so an "assault rifle" is a rifle that has been used to commit assault. No assault, no assault rifle.
Essentially the term assault rifle has no significance in its common usage other than to allow hoplophobes to blur the understanding of the distinction between a morally neutral object and a morally significant act. It is a way to attribute motive to an inanimate object.
It's probably not a good idea for small groups to be effective against the state. Get 40 or 50 million citizens up in arms and the FBI won't know what to infiltrate. Any abuses of government power in the US will stop very soon after the majority decide they don't like it enough to contribute financially and vote for someone who is committed to changing things.
The US government is simply not going to let things get to the point that a majority would support armed revolution. If the population wasn't armed, well, then they might because it wouldn't matter.
Sure, it's true... A single hunting rifle will be, and always has been utterly ineffective against an army.
Well, just one rifle, sure. Hunting rifles are by no means ineffective military weapons. Snipers have had increased roles in the military over the years because of their effectiveness, using weapons that are more similar to hunting rifles that regular force's automatic rifles.
Not to mention that the US military supply chain originates from US citizens.
The question is how many Americans would actively fight or support the cause. If a quarter of the US population decided to fight, it would not be feasible for the government to persist. I do not believe it would ever even get to that. Differences with the revolution:
US troop's families are US citizens.
US military is supplied by companies owned, staffed etc by US citizens.
US government would be unlikely to carpet bomb a US city.
US military would likely be divided in loyalty in the case of a revolution.
If you had tens of millions of people, armed only with hunting rifles and a couple hundred rounds of ammo each and popular support it would be next to impossible to overcome them without completely destroying the country. A few small groups can be overcome easily, especially if the majority support the government. If enough people were taking up arms and propaganda wasn't solving the governments problem they would change what they were doing.
An interesting example is the Eureka Stockade in Australia. Only a small group took up arms and was easily overcome, but those captured could not be convicted of sedition because it was a popular cause and juries acquitted them. I know, I know, gitmo, military commissions etc, but if you think that makes much difference you're missing the point of the effect of popular support of an armed population, which the gitmo detainees do not have.
As a previous poster noted, no-one should want a civil war. In my opinion, it's not even remotely likely to happen in the US, and that's good. What many people seem to miss is that the militia is not only for use against your own government, but for the defence of the country also. In times when irregular warfare is the way wars are being fought, this shouldn't be underestimated. From an Australian's perspective, I am quite sure that a terrorist acting in the US is much more likely to be shot before completing their plans than here in Oz.
Redhat ceased supporting their desktop line for a reason
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Desktop
When I was single, I used to buy most of my food by the fortnight. Two different main dinners alternating days, a bit more variety provided by changing sauces, spices etc.
Not the height of culinary excitement but hardly unbearable.
If you're moving across country, negotiate a fixed term contract in lieu of probation. You need to calculate "If this doesn't work out, what do I need?" and require that in the contract before moving. Anything else is gambling.
I don't think freeloading off other people's work is the answer, but I can see why people see that as better than complying with the idiocy of the movie and music industries.
I've found "reply all" to forwarded email hoaxes to have an effect in stopping people sending them. To me, anyway.
On farm I grew up on, my dad rarely carried a gun, my uncle fairly often. For shooting pests, crows, foxes etc which can be quite devastating to lambs. (My uncle spend more time working the sheep than my dad, who did more work with crops). But while not many in our area carried guns all the time, it wouldn't have rated a mention to see someone with a gun at any particular time. On one place I worked, I was frequently reminded by the owner to take my rifle with me during work, but he had more problems with feral animals than we did at home. I'd say it was common to carry a gun, but certainly common to not be carrying a gun too.
In your other post you direct me to the wikipedia article on fixed costs.
Fixed costs should not be confused with sunk costs. And from that article:
In business, an example of sunk costs may be investment into a factory or research that now has a lower value or no value whatsoever.
Cost of software development is a sunk cost in an unregulated market. To the extent that it can be considered a fixed cost it is so because of restricted supply (copyright) being used to inflate prices, something we have done with the express purpose of making development costs recoverable.