6 ms·

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but

by ykler 9y ago

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

mandelbrotwurst 9y ago
It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are. To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance. EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to destroying them. I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar. Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.
  - mandelbrotwurst 9y ago
    I didn't say or imply that an individual person would be able to fend off a government dedicating its entire resources to invading their home.
- codedokode 9y ago
  That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon. The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.
  - koenigdavidmj 9y ago
    The US army are nearly losing two wars to people with small arms and IEDs.
    - hodjifhg 9y ago
      Exactly, do people even engage in critical thought or is all their thinking done for them via identity politics and media.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      So, ya, isn't this post about making terrorism illegal? I feel like we've come full circle at this post.
      - koenigdavidmj 9y ago
        This whole subthread is about states being heavyhanded and our options in responding. Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        In a thread about prosecuting people for watching terrorism videos, we have gone on about how the 2nd amendment gives Americans the tools to fight against the therapy of their government, and then it was pointed out the USA military is much better armed than civilians can be. Finally, the comment was made that the military could be faught with ambushes and IEDs, probably just as explained in those terrorism videos. I just think it is really ironic.
  - mandelbrotwurst 9y ago
- codedokode 9y ago
  I can say even more: if an armed group of people can influence the decisions of the government or Congress or any other institution then something is very wrong (or you are living in Somalia). There cannot be two authorities. You can remember American Civil War for example. There were people opposing the government, they had weapons but it didn't help them. There may be cases when weapon can be necessary: for example if you live in a remote uninhabited area. But I don't think people should have a long range weapon when they are in a densely populated city.
snerbles 9y ago
Having more force is irrelevant if it can't be properly applied. Easy when a few yahoos take over an abandoned building on federal land, a little harder when an insurgency of thousands has metastasized throughout a society. See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
seorphates 9y ago
pp is not on the wrong track. The first is clearly under assault from several quarters. Without the first we cannot even question authority much less dig in and speak about it. The second seems meant to shore up the first. I guess you have to try to think a little like a man that has only just gained his freedom and whose aim is hold and maintain that freedom for all of his and on equal footing. How would you proceed? Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train. The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies. First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.
ColanR 9y ago
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -- probably Isoroku Yamamoto

by ykler 9y ago

mandelbrotwurst 9y ago

It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are. To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance. EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to destroying them. I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar. Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.
- mandelbrotwurst 9y ago
  I didn't say or imply that an individual person would be able to fend off a government dedicating its entire resources to invading their home.
codedokode 9y ago
That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon. The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.
- koenigdavidmj 9y ago
  The US army are nearly losing two wars to people with small arms and IEDs.
  - hodjifhg 9y ago
    Exactly, do people even engage in critical thought or is all their thinking done for them via identity politics and media.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    So, ya, isn't this post about making terrorism illegal? I feel like we've come full circle at this post.
    - koenigdavidmj 9y ago
      This whole subthread is about states being heavyhanded and our options in responding. Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        In a thread about prosecuting people for watching terrorism videos, we have gone on about how the 2nd amendment gives Americans the tools to fight against the therapy of their government, and then it was pointed out the USA military is much better armed than civilians can be. Finally, the comment was made that the military could be faught with ambushes and IEDs, probably just as explained in those terrorism videos. I just think it is really ironic.
- mandelbrotwurst 9y ago
codedokode 9y ago
I can say even more: if an armed group of people can influence the decisions of the government or Congress or any other institution then something is very wrong (or you are living in Somalia). There cannot be two authorities. You can remember American Civil War for example. There were people opposing the government, they had weapons but it didn't help them. There may be cases when weapon can be necessary: for example if you live in a remote uninhabited area. But I don't think people should have a long range weapon when they are in a densely populated city.

snerbles 9y ago

Having more force is irrelevant if it can't be properly applied. Easy when a few yahoos take over an abandoned building on federal land, a little harder when an insurgency of thousands has metastasized throughout a society. See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

seorphates 9y ago

pp is not on the wrong track. The first is clearly under assault from several quarters. Without the first we cannot even question authority much less dig in and speak about it. The second seems meant to shore up the first. I guess you have to try to think a little like a man that has only just gained his freedom and whose aim is hold and maintain that freedom for all of his and on equal footing. How would you proceed? Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train. The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies. First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.

ColanR 9y ago

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -- probably Isoroku Yamamoto