The Revolution is dead.

[Kennylz]

For major nations atleast. One being America. This thread is for the branching conversation from the Virginia shooting thread.

I don't think the constitution could of predicted the computer, far reaching advantages of digital infrastructure, and how deep 'civilized' people would become embedded into it.

In the forseeable future of the people who wrote it, it was still possible to rebel against your country, and win. (Ala, they just got through doing it)

Now, if you want to succeed, the government just denys you electricity, thats if you even get that far, and aren't just quietly arrested, and taken off while they play re-runs of your favorite TV show to distract the populus.

Welcome to 2007, where the revolution, is a revalation, that you can't defeat giant machines with ideas, only with destroying it, then rebuilding from the ashes.

-Cues metal music.-

[leeho730]

How does the government deny us electricity, especially in US? It's run by coorporations.

And you assume people put so much value at TV programmes and computers.

It's not those shotrage of convenience that defeats people, it's the indefference. I don't think the government had to cut electricity to pass PATROITIC acts and various other acts in European countries that turned the nations into near-police state.

[Gelgoog]

its called checks and balances here in the usa. when those safeguards fall you have an armed populous who wont roll over if pushed to far. unlike europe, our leaders werent afraid of the people rising up and rebeling.

if you know anything about the US constitution then you'll realize that it was left fairly vague, for the express reason that founding fathers knew they couldnt predict the future. this is why the allowed the ability to add in amendments. this country was founded on the protection of its civil liberties. the government is here to serve the people, not the other way around.
have no doubt, if the american people had the will to rebel, its would be fairly easy to do so. a military can only operate so long as the men enlisted actually obey orders. just look at the russian revolution, it doesnt take much.

[leeho730]

its called checks and balances here in the usa. when those safeguards fall you have an armed populous who wont roll over if pushed to far. unlike europe, our leaders werent afraid of the people rising up and rebeling.

More realistic answer would be that large arm manufacturers had more lobbying power to the politicians than average populace.

if you know anything about the US constitution then you'll realize that it was left fairly vague, for the express reason that founding fathers knew they couldnt predict the future. this is why the allowed the ability to add in amendments. this country was founded on the protection of its civil liberties. the government is here to serve the people, not the other way around.
have no doubt, if the american people had the will to rebel, its would be fairly easy to do so. a military can only operate so long as the men enlisted actually obey orders. just look at the russian revolution, it doesnt take much.

Yet people somehow allow undermining of civil liberties by various counter-terrorism laws, not to mention not-so-impressive Worldwide press freedom index (ranked 53 out of 168, 2006 figures by Reporters Without Borders http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388)

Deterioration in the United States and Japan, with France also slipping

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

With PATRIOTIC acts and all that, it seems that government has started to take over some of civil liberties and people didn't even flinch! Government is not foolish to take away your freedom in amateurish way; they'll slowly take away your freedom with public relation skills and laws, not with guns and tanks.

Not to mention US citizens themselves will protect governments-you only need to see what kind of difficulties Dixie Chicks and some celebrities who were against the invasion had to go through. Government did not need to act-people knew how to treat those un-American traiters!

Yes, US, the beacon of freedom. How far have ye fallen!

[Gelgoog]

More realistic answer would be that large arm manufacturers had more lobbying power to the politicians than average populace.



Yet people somehow allow undermining of civil liberties by various counter-terrorism laws, not to mention not-so-impressive Worldwide press freedom index (ranked 53 out of 168, 2006 figures by Reporters Without Borders http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388)

Yes, US, the beacon of freedom. How far have ye fallen!

With PATRIOTIC acts and all that, it seems that government has started to take over some of civil liberties and people didn't even flinch! Government is not foolish to take away your freedom in amateurish way; they'll slowly take away your freedom with public relation skills and laws, not with guns and tanks.

Look at yourself before claiming how free your nation is.

yes the bush adminstration sucks, yes its exploited public fear into passing extreme measures, such was the state of the war powers act after pearl harbor. once bush is out of office we will see if legislation is done against the patriot act. hopefully judicial review will sort that mess out.

america has a heck of alot more overall safeguards and watchdogs setup then any other nation in the world. youll be hard pressed to disprove this one. americans still possess more inherent freedoms from government interference then any other nation. believe me, all i freakin do is study law all day long.

and yes america has had to revolts since its establishment when the public became to concerned about their freedoms. the first being shays rebellion and the second being the civil war.

[leeho730]

and yes america has had to revolts since its establishment when the public became to concerned about their freedoms. the first being shays rebellion and the second being the civil war.

Then DO it, don't just sit on the computer preaching it and start some shooting against government officials and soldiers with semi-automatic rilfes that you regard as an essential tool for revolution.

We promise, we'll never interfere with your civil war.

[Lord Etharion]

america has a heck of alot more overall safeguards and watchdogs setup then any other nation in the world. youll be hard pressed to disprove this one. americans still possess more inherent freedoms from government interference then any other nation. believe me, all i freakin do is study law all day long.

This is kind of offtopic, but interesting to me (I'm a law student as well, but I'm in a more classically common law system (NZ), and naturally I think my system is better).

At first glance, you appear to be right: The USA has a written constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms and (much more importantly) this constitution is seen to 'trump' laws passed by the legislature. As far as I'm aware, no other common law system has this (In NZ for example, we have a Bill of Rights, but those rights are 'subject to reasonable limitations' and any other piece of legislation can overwrite it).

However, in practice, this doesn't necessarily guarantee rights, it just leaves the final arbitration of laws to the Supreme Court rather than the legislature (a curious thing in a country with otherwise such rigorously enforced separation of powers). I'm not saying a written constitution doesn't work, just pointing out that it doesn't work as transparently as might be hoped.

Furthermore, the public perception is that the US isn't especially superior in its civil liberties by comparison to countries with less protections (Okay, you guys get better rights to guns, but the rest of us have much greater freedom from surveillance, and some of us even get niceties like same-sex marriage and legal prostitution).

So the question is, what use are inherent (ie, theoretical) protections if they don't guarantee real rights?

PS. Of course, the UK, with its oh-so-wonderful Westminster constitution, still managed to pass some fairly oppressive surveillance laws, so perhaps the degree of civil liberties one enjoys is a function of the paranoia of the populace, rather than any constitutional protections or lack thereof.

[Kennylz]

If a group were to rebel against the US, inside the US, they would not be able to win, because they wouldn't be able to use their money, because the government would freeze their accounts, would label them as criminals, and everyone would accept it, because they have no reason to beleive you would be anything more then a gang of criminals, or looneys.

[Mikelus Trento]

If a group were to rebel against the US, inside the US, they would not be able to win, because they wouldn't be able to use their money, because the government would freeze their accounts, would label them as criminals, and everyone would accept it, because they have no reason to beleive you would be anything more then a gang of criminals, or looneys.

Actually, it would depend more on the cause they were rebelling for. If it was a righteous cause that many people were sympathetic with, anything is possible.

[Lord Bohemond]

Actually, it would depend more on the cause they were rebelling for. If it was a righteous cause that many people were sympathetic with, anything is possible.

Why? There's no need for that. Reform can be made peacefully. You only resort to violence when all else fails... or the enemy starts using violence.

[Thanatos]

Why? There's no need for that. Reform can be made peacefully. You only resort to violence when all else fails... or the enemy starts using violence.

But war is quicker, darnit! I won't let you take my fun away from me!

*Goes and pouts in corner* [/sarcasm]

[removeduser_487563287433]

The second amendment is essential. Problem is that it has been abused beyond any recognition of its original purpose by a childish gun lobby that enjoys explosions and loud noises and responsibility be damned.

[leeho730]

The second amendment is essential. Problem is that it has been abused beyond any recognition of its original purpose by a childish gun lobby that enjoys explosions and loud noises and responsibility be damned.

Agreed.

Actually speaking, I am against outright banning of all semi-autos. Heavier regulation means that government and police forces should provide firearm license for those who wish to obtain pistols and semi-autos, by checking background records, exams, compulsory education sessions, testimonials and reference from pistol/rifle clubs, secure storage conditions (eg. lockable, sturdy containers, separate containers for ammunitions and firing mechanisms such as bolts). I believe bolt-action rifles are moderately regulated with license similar to those necessary to drive a car.

I own two bolt-action rifles myself, and I intend to use it for sport hunting (and making salamis ).

Outright banning is crazy, IMHO, and will not reduce crime rates in overall. However, I believe the total number of semi-autos and pistols in civilian sector should decrese.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I am for banning them, because I see no useful application for them. They cannot be used for hunting, they cannot be used for sport, they cannot be used for defense. They have a use for two people: those who want to kill other people and those who enjoy sheer firepower, noise and metal smashing into objects at hundreds of miles per hour. Who doesn't enjoy that? But if you think they shouldn't be banned just so you can do that then you simply aren't displaying the maturity that is necessary for any gun ownership in the first place.

And I know the argument that's coming, that cars kill more people. Cars have a useful application, like shotguns, like handguns, like rifles. Automatics simply don't.

[Cataclysm]

I am for banning them, because I see no useful application for them. They cannot be used for hunting, they cannot be used for sport, they cannot be used for defense. They have a use for two people: those who want to kill other people and those who enjoy sheer firepower, noise and metal smashing into objects at hundreds of miles per hour. Who doesn't enjoy that? But if you think they shouldn't be banned just so you can do that then you simply aren't displaying the maturity that is necessary for any gun ownership in the first place.

And I know the argument that's coming, that cars kill more people. Cars have a useful application, like shotguns, like handguns, like rifles. Automatics simply don't.

It is illegal to own an automatic weapon in the United States without a Class III permit which is very hard to obtain.

If anything, handguns should be regulated, nobody's going to keep a Winchester Model 70 rifle hidden in their coat. It's too damn big.

[Erik]

If a large part of the population wants a revolution all they have to do is stop paying their taxes.

Let's see how the government deals with bankruptcy.
Let's see how many soldiers remain loyal to a government that doesn't pay them.

Americans want to own guns because they find them fun, no other reason.
The occasional school shootings are just the small price Americans are more than willing to pay to keep their toys, I don't see what the drama is.

[Sheep]

If a large part of the population wants a revolution all they have to do is stop paying their taxes.

If a government was bad enough to stop caring about what the population thought, what would stop them from simply confiscating the populations' assets?

And I know the argument that's coming, that cars kill more people. Cars have a useful application, like shotguns, like handguns, like rifles. Automatics simply don't.

Automatics have the simple and useful application of defending yourself against OTHER people with automatics. Like the government. Which is the whole point of the Second Amendment (and all the other Amendments), to allow you to defend yourself against the government.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Which assumes that in a situation where the US had decendent to such civil war then the boundaries would be neatly drawn as army vs. civilians. Incredibly unlikely. And besides, going into matters of science fiction when dealing with something as serious as weaponry is not appropriated. Rifles are sufficient for the common man, should he feel the need to join the coup d'etat.

[Sheep]

Which assumes that in a situation where the US had decendent to such civil war then the boundaries would be neatly drawn as army vs. civilians. Incredibly unlikely. And besides, going into matters of science fiction when dealing with something as serious as weaponry is not appropriated. Rifles are sufficient for the common man, should he feel the need to join the coup d'etat.

It doesn't have to be neatly drawn, but you can bet that whoever the government has fighting for them is not going to be armed with rifles and revolvers.

And I don't think a democratic government descending into a dictatorship is "science fiction." On the contrary, it happens all the time. It may be less likely to happen in the US, or it may not. However unlikely, in any case, it is still a real enough concern that the Founders built protections against it right into the Constitution.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It doesn't have to be neatly drawn, but you can bet that whoever the government has fighting for them is not going to be armed with rifles and revolvers.

And I don't think a democratic government descending into a dictatorship is "science fiction." On the contrary, it happens all the time. It may be less likely to happen in the US, or it may not. However unlikely, in any case, it is still a real enough concern that the Founders built protections against it right into the Constitution.

Indeed, I in fact would argue that right now the US has abandoned much of its democracy.