Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[Seth]

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

We, the People do.

[Seth]

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.

No, it's not, precisely because you, as an individual and collectively as citizens have absolutely no ability to force an intransigent and tyrannical government to respect or obey the common, or any other law.

Of course, it is never a perfect defence against a dictatorship, but I see no point in worrying about extremely unlikely events.

Neither, I suspect, did the inhabitants of Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, South Africa, Niger, Somalia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Croatia, Yugoslavia, Germany, France, Britain, Ireland, Scotland...well, you get the idea...you can just add every country that has suffered invasion or violent social and political upheaval and the deaths of its citizens at any time in history.

The citizens of all such nations didn't think they needed to worry about "extremely unlikely events," so they didn't, and their failure to prepare for dealing with such events got hundreds of millions of them killed by despots and tyrants.

We in the US chose not to ignore those lessons and to build the most basic protection any human enjoys, the right to keep and bear arms for self defense and defense of the nation, into the very DNA of our country, and we choose not to allow that to be changed by anyone. It's served us well for 240 years so far, far longer than any other modern nation has enjoyed peace and freedom from tyranny...except perhaps Switzerland.

[Seth]

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...

Things would be much better and dealing with such people would be so much easier and quickly accomplished if ten people in that church had been armed with concealed handguns and had simply killed the terrorists the moment they posed a threat to anyone. As usual, no one other than the terrorists were armed, not even with knives, and when seconds counted the police were only minutes away.

The procedure is quite simple: Make sure at least 50 percent of the public is trained and qualified by the government to carry a personal concealed handgun, provide them with a handgun and ammunition at public expense, and expect them to carry those weapons at all times when in public. This will increase by many times the possibility that one or more armed citizens will be present at any similar attack, whereupon those armed citizens can take instant action and blow the fuckers away long before they can finish shouting "Allah akabar" much less sawing off anyone's head.

That'll put the fear of god into the heathens pretty swiftly as every radical Muslim fuck who sticks his head up out of the sewer he lives in gets it blown off immediately.

[Seth]

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.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything and constitutes a strawman argument and a particularly egregious fallacy.

Do you think we should grant police extraordinary powers to fight the carnage?

Well, we already do in most places.

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.

I'm all for that when it comes to traffic scofflaws who endanger others. Even if it doesn't teach them anything, as a matter of public safety and sanitation they need to be removed from society.

And history proves that locking up or killing violent criminals and terrorists keeps them from committing more violent terrorist acts...until some fuckwit liberal bleeding-hearts get them turned loose from Gitmo, whereupon the terrorists go right back to terroristing. A bullet in the head guarantees zero recidivism.

That you cannot distinguish between necessary actions to deal with terrorism and spanking pimply-faced juvenile drivers doesn't speak well of your intellectual prowess.

[Seth]

Now you're just being silly...

Reductio ad absurdem...

And slippery slope fallacy.

[pErvinalia]

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

Seth and a bunch of right wing nut jobs. What could possibly go wrong?

[pErvinalia]

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.

I'm all for that when it comes to traffic scofflaws who endanger others. Even if it doesn't teach them anything, as a matter of public safety and sanitation they need to be removed from society.

"Libertarian"

[Brian Peacock]

People who don't keep their front lawns trimmed and tidy (not a euphemism), or who leave their trash cans out days after collection, or who use their drive as a workshop bring down the house prices of their neighbours, as a matter of public order they need to be removed from society.

[JimC]

And teetotallers!

[Brian Peacock]

What about coffeetotallers?

[JimC]

They are acceptable, as long as they don't wear mauve shirts with frilly sleeves...

[pErvinalia]

Gin drinkers who have "botanicals" in their gin!

[JimC]

Er, that would be all gin drinkers...

Mind you, it is only the ones of us who are obsessive wankers about it who rabbit on about the unique balance of botanicals in any given gin...

[Sean Hayden]

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

We, the People do.

Shit, I thought it was a difficult question.

I bet the right answer is always closer to a handful of people.

[Hermit]

Now you're just being silly...

Reductio ad absurdem...

Yes, I was, but there is a valid point underlying the silliness: Terrorist menaces do not justify giving up human rights and freedoms, especially given the small scale of terrorism in western democracies.

ETA: And I notice you are definitely not a Latin teacher.

Perpetrators of maths instruction should be rounded up and held incommunicado for an indefinite period. Eventually someone will think of something to charge them with. Then they will be tried in a court of law and executed via triangulation.