Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[Seth]

Jim's post that you were responding to was talking about constitutions, not an armed populace. So yes, you are doing your usual tactic of moving the goalposts.

The two are inextricably entwined. A constitution is meaningless without the ability to enforce it.

[Brian Peacock]

*depots*, lol.

[pErvinalia]

Jim's post that you were responding to was talking about constitutions, not an armed populace. So yes, you are doing your usual tactic of moving the goalposts.

The two are inextricably entwined. A constitution is meaningless without the ability to enforce it.

Sure thing. Let me know how your spud gun goes against an Abrams Tank and an f-35.

[laklak]

The Abrams might be a problem, but the F-35s barely fly.

[Seth]

Jim's post that you were responding to was talking about constitutions, not an armed populace. So yes, you are doing your usual tactic of moving the goalposts.

The two are inextricably entwined. A constitution is meaningless without the ability to enforce it.

Sure thing. Let me know how your spud gun goes against an Abrams Tank and an f-35.

The question is not whether the citizenry is either likely or unlikely to prevail in a conflict against a tyrant, the question is whether they have the arms with which to make the attempt or not. You might want to find the video of the Syrian rebel dropping a hand grenade down the barrel of a Syrian army tank to see just how easy it is for a single person to destroy a main battle tank. Or go watch "Saving Private Ryan."

When you dismiss the power of an armed citizenry you are not stating a truth, you are merely demonstrating your complete ignorance of matters military.

It only takes one bullet to depose a dictator, even the Secret Service knows this and admits that it's extremely difficult to keep someone safe if an assassin doesn't mind dying to achieve the objective.

Besides, the most effective use of military-grade weapons by an armed citizenry occurs merely that they possess them and that the government knows neither how many of them there are, who has them or where they are to be found, which is, as our Founders said, a potent deterrent to tyranny and despotism.

[Brian Peacock]

Or go watch "Shaving Ryan's Privates."

[Tero]

Nice myth of armed citizenry. Barely made a scratch so far. Timothy McVeigh made that scratch.

[Sean Hayden]

So, who decides the government has gone too far Seth, and removal by force is justified?

[Sean Hayden]

Or go watch "Shaving Ryan's Privates."

[Hermit]

It all depends on whether the national security issue (in terms of the risk to innocent civilians) is real or not. Are you saying there would never be a situation where normal legal processes should be held in abeyance for the greater good, given the reality of islamic terrorism from that very dangerous minority?

Yes. The various Homeland Security laws that have been introduced in many countries as the result of the attack on the World Trade Towers basically constitute the bypassing of the constitutions in those nations, and therewith our basic rights and freedoms. Brian Peacock has pointed out that such measures can be initiated by politicians rather than the judiciary. Therein lies the opening for dictatorships. While a strictly monitored extension of time for habeas corpus can reasonably be argued in favour of, none of the other measures can. The ability to not let the prisoner know what he or she is being charged with and the ability to keep him/her incommunicado to the extent of not even allowing access to legal representation is particularly Kafkaesque You seem to be supporting that. It's not what I'd call typical of someone who really is a political moderate.

[JimC]

They can in Britain if they drop out of the EU and rescind the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human rights as implemented through the European Court on Human Rights.

Yes, but only by going through a legally available process, part of which is leaving a supra-national jurisdiction. What I really meant is that they cannot ignore habeus corpus and the rest of common law...

Tell it to the Soviet satellite states and the 40 million people Stalin liquidated without regard for habeus corpus or common law.

The ONLY recourse for individuals in such cases is force, and if they are unarmed they are unable to overthrow a dictator, and pretty much everywhere on earth government knowingly and deliberately DISARMS the citizenry (or tries to using the "legal system") precisely so that it can maintain ultimate control, thus leaving the people at the mercy of whichever demagogue or tyrant seizes power, by hook or by crook.

The "universal declaration of human rights" is a piece of paper that is as worthless as toilet paper to those who do not have the ability to enforce it themselves.

My implication was about the UK and Australia, really, where the common law is at least as good a protection against abuse of government power as any other system. Of course, it is never a perfect defence against a dictatorship, but I see no point in worrying about extremely unlikely events.

[JimC]

It all depends on whether the national security issue (in terms of the risk to innocent civilians) is real or not. Are you saying there would never be a situation where normal legal processes should be held in abeyance for the greater good, given the reality of islamic terrorism from that very dangerous minority?

Yes. The various Homeland Security laws that have been introduced in many countries as the result of the attack on the World Trade Towers basically constitute the bypassing of the constitutions in those nations, and therewith our basic rights and freedoms. Brian Peacock has pointed out that such measures can be initiated by politicians rather than the judiciary. Therein lies the opening for dictatorships. While a strictly monitored extension of time for habeas corpus can reasonably be argued in favour of, none of the other measures can. The ability to not let the prisoner know what he or she is being charged with and the ability to keep him/her incommunicado to the extent of not even allowing access to legal representation is particularly Kafkaesque You seem to be supporting that. It's not what I'd call typical of someone who really is a political moderate.

When faced by the very real danger of terrorist attacks from citizens of your own country who have been radicalised to become suicidal killing machines, ordinary police powers may simply be insufficient. I'm well aware that some actions by governments to address this have the potential to be the thin end of the wedge, and lead to a spiralling loss of freedom for all. There is a very fine line to be walked, but walk it we must. This is not an extremist position, but one of carefully and judiciously balancing alternative risks.

For example, the islamic terrorist who slashed the throat of the French priest was on a watch list. If, instead of being on a list, he was indefinitely detained, that murder would not have taken place...

[Hermit]

It all depends on whether the national security issue (in terms of the risk to innocent civilians) is real or not. Are you saying there would never be a situation where normal legal processes should be held in abeyance for the greater good, given the reality of islamic terrorism from that very dangerous minority?

Yes. The various Homeland Security laws that have been introduced in many countries as the result of the attack on the World Trade Towers basically constitute the bypassing of the constitutions in those nations, and therewith our basic rights and freedoms. Brian Peacock has pointed out that such measures can be initiated by politicians rather than the judiciary. Therein lies the opening for dictatorships. While a strictly monitored extension of time for habeas corpus can reasonably be argued in favour of, none of the other measures can. The ability to not let the prisoner know what he or she is being charged with and the ability to keep him/her incommunicado to the extent of not even allowing access to legal representation is particularly Kafkaesque You seem to be supporting that. It's not what I'd call typical of someone who really is a political moderate.

When faced by the very real danger of terrorist attacks from citizens of your own country who have been radicalised to become suicidal killing machines, ordinary police powers may simply be insufficient. I'm well aware that some actions by governments to address this have the potential to be the thin end of the wedge, and lead to a spiralling loss of freedom for all. There is a very fine line to be walked, but walk it we must. This is not an extremist position, but one of carefully and judiciously balancing alternative risks.

Balancing risks implies evaluating them, don't you think? No matter whether you live in the USA, Australia, France, Germany or the UK, you are multiple more times likely to be killed in a traffic accident than a terrorist act of any sort. Do you think we should grant police extraordinary powers to fight the carnage? I mean, that pimply-faced juvenile chucking a wheelie at the traffic lights must be a prime suspect for wanting to kill an innocent mum pushing a pram to the corner shop, even though we can't prove it right at the moment. Let's throw him into a cell, tell him we can keep him there for as long as we like, don't let him have any access to lawyers or family and don't say why he is being held. Sooner or later he'll confess and we may have saved the lives of two law-abiding citizens. History proves it works all the fucking time.

[JimC]

Now you're just being silly...

Reductio ad absurdem...

[Seth]

Nice myth of armed citizenry. Barely made a scratch so far. Timothy McVeigh made that scratch.

It's "barely made a scratch" because it works damned well without having to scratch, dent or break anything. The mere fact that an armed citizenry exists has been quite effective in keeping our politicians from creating the circumstances under which it might be necessary for the citizenry to rise up and put the government back in it's proper place.

We have peaceful transfers of power from one side of the political spectrum to the other on a daily basis all over this nation without the need for tanks rolling down the streets or declarations of martial law, as in Venezuela and other places.

America itself would not exist as a nation if the citizenry had not been well armed at the time we declared independence from Britain. The "Minutemen" and the patriots who fought and died at Lexington and Concord fought with their own private arms, and it was private arms that allowed the Continental Army to function effectively because the new government had neither the money nor the infrastructure to build weapons for every soldier.

The one time post-revolutionary period when an armed citizenry was really important was the Civil War. Militia volunteers were essential to victory in that case.

And it was American citizens who freely donated their own personal firearms to the UK during WWII to arm the Home Guard, because nobody in the UK had adequate weapons of their own when Hitler was preparing to invade.

The notion that an armed citizenry provides no security or benefits to the nation is manifest ignorance of history.