Political Ocean's 11

[213374U]

Forget some fascist takeover. Yes, many, many, and more countries have freedom in some measure without a citizenry armed to the teeth. How many of those have an absolute guarantee it will stay that way? Not one. We do. Armed people will not be willingly rounded up and herded into camps. Armed people will not willing have their homes or freedoms illegally seized or their rights abrogated.

I must admit I am always amused by a notion most gun control advocates entertain. That it's ok for the government to take away our right to bear arms because we don't really need to worry about the government taking our rights.

 

More like your right to bear arms doesn't actually do much to prevent the government from abrogating your other rights. Last time I checked, it wasn't France that passed the Patriot and Protect America acts, it wasn't Sweden that established the Gitmo prison and CIA black site network, it wasn't Japan that ran a campaign of extrajudicial drone killings extended to their own citizens, and I'm pretty sure that, despite the poor quality of our democracy, you can't have your stuff (guns included) stolen by the police without a conviction here.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gun ownership rights. However I think your vision of said rights as a safeguard against government excesses is just not terribly realistic.

Edited October 6, 2017 by 213374U

[Tigranes]

I must admit I am always amused by a notion most gun control advocates entertain. That it's ok for the government to take away our right to bear arms because we don't really need to worry about the government taking our rights. 

 

Quite apart from the question of what exactly should be done or not done about guns, what do you mean exactly?

 

Are you saying any limitation on individual freedoms is bad? America is not a land of absolute individual freedoms, no country is, and its (rightly) celebrated commitment to freedom of speech too is (rightly) restricted in many ways. Considering minimal restrictions on guns partly to protect other freedoms isn't singling guns out for special treatment, it's treating guns in line with everything else from hate speech to brawling in the streets. We can certainly dispute what should count as 'minimal' for guns, but you can't argue that any advocacy for gun control is  'anti-freedom', for example. I don't think that gets us anywhere, same as telling gun owners they're de facto murderers doesn't get us anywhere.

 

And/or are you saying guns specifically help protect Americans from governments taking away our rights or abusing their power? I.e. a scenario where the rest of the world gets conquered by Kim Jong Un clones, America alone will resist because its citizenry have guns. I accept that that's one possibility, but it's quite a distant possibility compared to the present reality that this country just keeps killing its own citizens again and again and again every year all the time in massive numbers that would be much  more difficult to achieve proportionate to forms of gun control. If you want to argue that the safety of America's basic freedoms is so under threat that it is worth killing [insert number here] of citizens each year, OK - I may not agree, but it would be a rational argument, one which presents a costs and benefits assessment. Is that where you are going with it?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tigranes

[Namutree]

 

 

I have my doubts as well simply because a certain group of people will mostly likely always back what is being done. The fascists or whoever else won't rise to power in a vacuum.

No doubt it will be done to thunderous applause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/the-campus-anti-free-speech-movement-black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-aclu-speaker-at-william-mary/?utm_term=.92681c96e2bc

I know we went from Confederate flag is racist to US anthem is racist in like 2 minutes, but now liberalism is racist? What's next? Non racist are racists?

 

Non-racists are racists has been a thing. You're behind the curve. I'll cut you some slack since you don't live in the US.

[Guard Dog]

 

I must admit I am always amused by a notion most gun control advocates entertain. That it's ok for the government to take away our right to bear arms because we don't really need to worry about the government taking our rights. 

 

Quite apart from the question of what exactly should be done or not done about guns, what do you mean exactly?

 

Are you saying any limitation on individual freedoms is bad? America is not a land of absolute individual freedoms, no country is, and its (rightly) celebrated commitment to freedom of speech too is (rightly) restricted in many ways. Considering minimal restrictions on guns partly to protect other freedoms isn't singling guns out for special treatment, it's treating guns in line with everything else from hate speech to brawling in the streets. We can certainly dispute what should count as 'minimal' for guns, but you can't argue that any advocacy for gun control is  'anti-freedom', for example. I don't think that gets us anywhere, same as telling gun owners they're de facto murderers doesn't get us anywhere.

 

And/or are you saying guns specifically help protect Americans from governments taking away our rights or abusing their power? I.e. a scenario where the rest of the world gets conquered by Kim Jong Un clones, America alone will resist because its citizenry have guns. I accept that that's one possibility, but it's quite a distant possibility compared to the present reality that this country just keeps killing its own citizens again and again and again every year all the time in massive numbers that would be much  more difficult to achieve proportionate to forms of gun control. If you want to argue that the safety of America's basic freedoms is so under threat that it is worth killing [insert number here] of citizens each year, OK - I may not agree, but it would be a rational argument, one which presents a costs and benefits assessment. Is that where you are going with it?

 

 

Oh don't get me wrong. I would not recommend or support absolute unrestricted behavior in all things. We do all have to live together and to do that there must be some ground rules. Although they should be few, clear, and limited only to protecting the individual from the excesses of other individuals. Like Drunk Driving for example. Even on the subject of firearms there are and should be what the SCOTUS has called several times "reasonable" restrictions. For example Concealed Carry Permits. The right to own a firearm might be sacrosanct (even with some limitations) but that does not necessarily extend to carrying a firearm in public, open or concealed. So each individual state has taken that up and decided for themselves how it will be handled. Some like Connecticut & Illinois are a hard no on legal concealed carry. Some states like Wyoming it's just implied and no permit is needed. I think this is the way to go. And I disagree with the Trump administration on forcing CC Permit reciprocity nationwide. Some states already have it, some don't. It's up to the State governments (and their voters) to decide what is best for each state. My permit is issued in Tennessee. Indiana has a different set of rules so if I wanted to carry there I have to apply for a permit there and follow their rules. With the exception of most of the North East & Illinois you can legally carry unloaded firearms that are not stored with the ammunition (pistol under the seat, ammo in the trunk or something like that) pretty much anywhere. Owning a firearm means accepting certain responsibilities. Carrying one means accepting even more. First among those is learning what the law is wherever you are going and following it. Whether the law is too restrictive is a matter for the voters of the state. In other words if you don't like it, don't go there. You will never see me living in New York.

 

 Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

​I agree with that. However, outside of that prohibition on ownership or even legal carry (unloaded/disassembled/etc.) is where we go from reasonable to tyranny. In Heller ​the heart of the issue is the city of Washington DC would not allow handgun ownership. Period. All other firearms must be kept locked or disassembled. THAT is NOT reasonable. The Court agreed: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster." 

 

It's worth noting that in 2008 the city of Washington DC had a population of 508k give or take. Making it the 11th largest city in the US that year. But it had the 2nd most homicides, 3rd in property crime, and 5th assaults. The only people who did not have guns were the law abiding citizens. It's also worth noting that since 2008 (the year the handgun ban was struck down) violent crime has dropped 20% (as of 2015). Now I am not saying that is necessarily all because of Heller (post hoc ergo propter hoc) but it would definitely be a factor. 

 

Now, on your second point. Right now, the government of the United States does not represent a clear threat to the safety and liberty of the citizens of the United States. Although they do come close sometimes as 213374U pointed out in a few examples. But those are issues that have legislative and sometimes judicial remedies. Armed resistance and insurrection are the last, last, and final means of defense. I seriously doubt that will ever be required. But by no means should we ever give up that capability. As I posted before an armed population is the only guarantee of the continuation of liberty. The guarantee that it will not be lost without bloodshed, or taken without cost. A citizen without the ultimate tools to defend their lives and liberty enjoys both only at the sufferance of the people who have the means to take them. Whether the ones who have the means are the government or criminals it makes no difference.  There is an old saying "An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject." 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Blarghagh]

 

 

 

I have my doubts as well simply because a certain group of people will mostly likely always back what is being done. The fascists or whoever else won't rise to power in a vacuum.

No doubt it will be done to thunderous applause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/the-campus-anti-free-speech-movement-black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-aclu-speaker-at-william-mary/?utm_term=.92681c96e2bc

I know we went from Confederate flag is racist to US anthem is racist in like 2 minutes, but now liberalism is racist? What's next? Non racist are racists?

 

Non-racists are racists has been a thing. You're behind the curve. I'll cut you some slack since you don't live in the US.

 

Indeed, if you are 100% non-racist you're erasing cultural heritage by not paying attention to it at all. Or something.

[redneckdevil]

I'm glad the idea of only white people can be racist has blown over as well.

[BruceVC]

I'm glad the idea of only white people can be racist has blown over as well.

Yes that one particularly use to both annoy me and make me laugh.....and trust me living in SA this is one I consider myself an expert on 

[injurai]

I'm glad the idea of only white people can be racist has blown over as well.

 

Has it? It seems to be a sacred creed in some circles.

[Malcador]

I'm glad the idea of only white people can be racist has blown over as well.

Was that all that widespread, to begin with?

[213374U]

 

Buzzfeed of all places had a decent article on the origins of our alternative-friends

 

Great piece. Doesn't hold up to facts, though.

 

 

 

 

 

[HoonDing]

Milo kinda looks like young Bobby Fischer.

[Hurlshort]

NFL Players - "We are kneeling because of racial inequality and police brutality in the US."

 

Trump Administration - "NFL Players hate the flag, the anthem, and soldiers!"

 

Originally I thought the protest was silly and didn't see how it would be effective. I saw it as a distraction more than anything because people were too stupid to really understand the purpose. But I certainly didn't expect the PotUS to jump in to the deep end with that stupidity. Do they know they won the election? This whole political theater they are engaging is ridiculous. Pence attended an NFL game with the intent to leave after the anthem. Why is our VP wasting time engaging in dramatics with NFL players? Everyone knew a sizable chunk of 49ers are going to kneel. Why go to the game at all? 

 

The current administration is purposefully (I hope!) misconstruing the protest to serve their own political interests. Police brutality and racial inequality are real issues in our country, and the administration seems more interested in political theater than actually addressing them. This is crazy.

[Blodhemn]

Eh, that's par for the course. Don't know why it bothers anyone at this stage. An admin engaging in political theater? The horror!

[Malcador]

Why is our VP wasting time engaging in dramatics with NFL players? Everyone knew a sizable chunk of 49ers are going to kneel. Why go to the game at all?

Because a lot of people are good little seals when it comes to The Flag and soldiers or anyone in uniform, so it plays well to those.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

NFL Players - "We are kneeling because of racial inequality and police brutality in the US."

 

Trump Administration - "NFL Players hate the flag, the anthem, and soldiers!"

 

Originally I thought the protest was silly and didn't see how it would be effective. I saw it as a distraction more than anything because people were too stupid to really understand the purpose. But I certainly didn't expect the PotUS to jump in to the deep end with that stupidity. Do they know they won the election? This whole political theater they are engaging is ridiculous. Pence attended an NFL game with the intent to leave after the anthem. Why is our VP wasting time engaging in dramatics with NFL players? Everyone knew a sizable chunk of 49ers are going to kneel. Why go to the game at all? 

 

The current administration is purposefully (I hope!) misconstruing the protest to serve their own political interests. Police brutality and racial inequality are real issues in our country, and the administration seems more interested in political theater than actually addressing them. This is crazy.

 

Remember when you were a kid? When you found out professional wrestling isn't real? That it's all just a show? Just a made up drama that people got far too into because they thought it was a sport? The Trump administration is a lot like that. Only worse because Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, and all the rest knew they were a farce from the get go. I think Trump is as fooled as everyone else that the show isn't real. 

 

As for the NFL protests, did anyone see that Indians/Yankees game that just wrapped up? That was a great game. 

[smjjames]

NFL Players - "We are kneeling because of racial inequality and police brutality in the US."

 

Trump Administration - "NFL Players hate the flag, the anthem, and soldiers!"

 

Originally I thought the protest was silly and didn't see how it would be effective. I saw it as a distraction more than anything because people were too stupid to really understand the purpose. But I certainly didn't expect the PotUS to jump in to the deep end with that stupidity. Do they know they won the election? This whole political theater they are engaging is ridiculous. Pence attended an NFL game with the intent to leave after the anthem. Why is our VP wasting time engaging in dramatics with NFL players? Everyone knew a sizable chunk of 49ers are going to kneel. Why go to the game at all? 

 

The current administration is purposefully (I hope!) misconstruing the protest to serve their own political interests. Police brutality and racial inequality are real issues in our country, and the administration seems more interested in political theater than actually addressing them. This is crazy.

 

They're also being accused of wasting taxpayer dollars with the use of private jets for the political stunts.

 

Definetly not the first poilitical stunt, but they're usually subtler and not so egregious, if that's the right word to use. They also tend to be more political rather than nursing an ego bruise.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

As for the NFL protests, did anyone see that Indians/Yankees game that just wrapped up? That was a great game. 

 

A deep irony gets lost here. NFL protests over racism, the VP leaves indignantly because the flag and the anthem gets dragged in the mud, all in the context of a game where the teams are literally called "Indians" and Yankees", two racist terms, if I ever saw any. How can these teams even be allowed to have such names when confederate generals get torn down and liberals are labelled "racists"?

 

Yeah, I get it, those names is tradition by now and so forth, but that should go for freedom of speech and expressing different opinions, democratic rights, etc? What happened to the land of the free and Freedom with a capital F? Is the US now a country where a kneeling football player appals a vice president so much that he turns the back on you abhorrently? Is USA a nation so uncertain of its identity and history that it needs to tear down statues of old frigging generals? Over here in Europe, the very beauty of most of all the old and ancient architecture stems from dictators, tyrants and generals. Most of the art and buildings isn't demolished (except statues in former Communist countries, and obviously Third Reich paraphernalia after WWII). 

Edited October 9, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[Guard Dog]

 

 

As for the NFL protests, did anyone see that Indians/Yankees game that just wrapped up? That was a great game. 

 

A deep irony gets lost here. NFL protests over racism, the VP leaves indignantly because the flag and the anthem gets dragged in the mud, all in the context of a game where the teams are literally called "Indians" and Yankees", two racist terms, if I ever saw any. How can these teams even be allowed to have such names when confederate generals get torn down and liberals are labelled "racists"?

 

Yeah, I get it, those names is tradition by now and so forth, but that should go for freedom of speech and expressing different opinions, democratic rights, etc? What happened to the land of the free and Freedom with a capital F? Is the US now a country where a kneeling football player appals a vice president so much that he turns the back on you abhorrently? Is USA a nation so uncertain of its identity and history that it needs to tear down statues of old frigging generals? Over here in Europe, the very beauty of most of all the old and ancient architecture stems from dictators, tyrants and generals. Most of the art and buildings isn't demolished (except statues in former Communist countries, and obviously Third Reich paraphernalia after WWII). 

 

Actually Indria those are baseball teams. The playoffs are going on in the MLB. The joke was everyone is making such a big thing over the NFL protests and there was something better to watch on.

 

But how is the Yankees a racist name? AFAIK it goes back to Dutch living in New York. As far as Indians, the name itself isn't really racist. The Chief Wahoo logo is a different story but from what I read that won't be around much longer.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I should have written "in the context of sports", heh.

 

As for those terms being racist, I thought these had been dubious and debated for decades. Just checked Ye Olde Wiki:

 

"Yankee" a pejorative term for Northerners in the US (from the Civil War, the Union side, with more liberal ideas), and earlier used insultingly about Dutch Americans

 

"Indian", the term "Indian" is generally considered offensive when used by non-Natives (the Native American Controversy).

 

This point was made tongue-in-cheek, hence the winky smilie. In fact, I think such walking on broken glass when it comes to any such traditional labels easily turns into unwarranted absurdity. Rather, my major point was about the hypocrisy of it all, when freedom in the US should trump compliance to specific conventions any day, you'd think.

[Zoraptor]

"Indian", the term "Indian" is generally considered offensive when used by non-Natives (the Native American Controversy).

 

Redskins would have been a better example as they are an NFL team, and that term is a lot more offensive as compared to Indians.

[injurai]

Yankee is only a pejorative in the south were they think they pulling one over on the yanks. A yank would be nonplussed over being called a yank.

 

Indian is less pejorative and more just an in-factual holdover that doesn't go away.

[Guard Dog]

Redskins is probably over the line I guess. Personally I wouldn't be offended by it but whatever. Note Dame is the Fighting Irish, that does not offend me in the least. There a many teams with indian names that are handled pretty tactfully and tastefully. Florida State University is the Seminoles and the Seminole Tribe of Florida is a big supporter.

[Hurlshort]

The only thing offensive about the term Indian (other than the factual inaccuracy, Happy Columbus day everyone) is the fact that most American Indians prefer to be identified by their tribe. That's why nobody complains about the Braves.

 

Ok, I'm sure there are probably people who complain about the Braves and their tomahawk chop, but people complain about everything.

[Gfted1]

Huh, I didnt know "indian" was an offensive word now. Seriously, its my go-to word for describing that race of people. "Native American" is a bit unwieldy but I guess I better get with the times! Is "east indian" also now offensive to people from India? Honest question.

[Malcador]

 

NFL Players - "We are kneeling because of racial inequality and police brutality in the US."

Point me to any statement made by NFL players that said so. There were no press conference, no speech after kneeling, no nothing from those players. And that's part of the problem, and that's why NFL approval rating fallen face first on the ground:

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/354365-poll-nfl-drops-as-favorite-us-sport

 

Would be surprised they'd have to, given the context of the situation. Then again if people are moving to watch baseball, doubtful how intelligent they are in the first place...