> The Atlantic is really churning out great articles on this, another good one from yesterday
I agree; and anyone else out there who agrees should consider getting a subscription. Information may want to be free, but content production isn't! :) I subscribed last summer, renewed last month, and haven't regretted it.
"We cannot mention the letter at the heart of the EFF's demand without noting that it comprises perhaps the most diverse collection of groups in the modern history of American politics."
If you are passionate about the right to bear arms, because you view it as a vital protection against a tyrannical government, I'm curious how you feel about surveillance/collection of all your phone calls, movements, and internet activity.
Why is there massive support in this country for the right to own & use guns, but not for the right to communicate privately and not be tracked and monitored?
Do the same people who view banning guns as a threat not view massive surveillance as a threat?
If we were writing a Constitution nowadays, I would certainly support explicit protections for the right to privacy in all forms of communication and the right to use encryption technology. The principles of the Constitution are very good but the language is too outdated to withstand the concerted effort of cynical men seeking to expand their power.
Of course, I also support the right to bear arms. We need new protections from our government. Now is not the time to be wolves, not little lost sheep in search of a protector.
> If you are passionate about the right to bear arms, because you view it as a vital protection against a tyrannical government, I'm curious how you feel about surveillance/collection of all your phone calls, movements, and internet activity.
I support both the 2nd and the 4th amendments.
I think the reason you don't hear as much of an outcry about surveillance is because it is usually not noticeable, whereas weapons restrictions are very noticeable if you're someone who takes an interest in them.
I really have trouble believing that the real reason people want a gun is so they can fend off the government. To be honest when you consider the opposition(the American military!) I don't know how anyone can say it with a straight face.
The people bearing arms isn't to shoot at the government. That's a common misconception.
It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation wherein everyone loses.
Eric Blair (who's ratings are spiking on Amazon this week, incidentally) once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
"Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.
I hear this one a lot. "The military is so big, they have missiles, drones, etc etc etc, you could never defeat them in battle." This argument has several flaws:
1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more.
2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s).
3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far.
4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion.
5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule.
6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose).
EDIT:
7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.
Doesn't it matter that the guy giving the orders was President-freakin'-Washington? Even putting aside the Constitutional questions of the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't think that's reasonable evidence on the fair-mindedness of U.S. military personel.
To be fair, though, you can dismiss the argument all you like, but they do have missiles and you don't. It does seem like a rational argument. I don't know that I necessarily want tactical nukes over the mantel but isn't that what it would actually take to balance things out at this point?
Firstly, I think it unlikely that the White House would drop a nuke on New York to quell political unrest/rebellion.
Secondly, yes the gap in power has widened. But just look to the Revolutionary War. The British had the world's greatest troops, and the world's greatest Navy. (Hell, the Queen's Navy was like the prototypical American Navy) The power gap was already tremendous.
I'm not a philosopher on the issue or anything, but the crux of the matter, the thing that makes revolution different from war, is the government does not need to crush. It needs to obtain consent. It wishes to govern, not to conquer, for a government without people is nothing at all.
Firearms are one of the ways the populace can resist in some fashion, can refuse to consent.
You do have a point, the British weren't prepared for guerilla warfare. But I don't think it necessarily carries over to the modern day, our military's at least got some experience in urban warfare and the like. It probably depends a great deal on how far the government's willing to go and how far the military's willing to go.
I understand the principle and I respect it. I just really, personally and at a visceral level hate the idea of armed uprising. I want the system to be salvageable. I want dialogue and compromise. But I suppose if it came down to real, true tyranny then you'd be correct. Everyone has the right to stand against that.
Sure, nobody wants to engage in an armed uprising. It's supposed to be a backstop, a last resort. A final option when all attempts at dialogue, salvage, and compromise have failed.
I don't have that right, ergo it must not be inalienable. I might as well say it is an inalienable right to possess pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. At least those things are easily obtainable.
Pipe bombs and molotov cocktails are "arms" (just ask the government). Don't confuse "should you" with "do you have the right". Should you have pipe bombs and molotov cocktails? Probably not, as I'm sure they are illegal. And even if they weren't, you might decide it's not a good idea for you. But do you have that right? I think our founding fathers intended for us to be as well, or even more well armed than our government.
But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?
But lets update the technology from when 'right to bear arms' was written ...
If modern arms are cyber-warfare and information flow, then the arms to keep that power in check are computation, math, encryption, anonymity, private messaging, realtime chat, social networks, web graphics ...
So the right to bear arms in todays terms, I would argue, _is_ the right to a) private internet communications between parties and b) public information broadcast to everyone
"guns" are just part of the guns-gods-gays social trifecta. it's reactionary language joyfully kindled by gun manufacturers. the "second amendment", etc is an appendix for the sake of politics
Sometimes money and being a privileged government institution is not enough as long as free speech is still allowed. What these groups have is an audience.
It's not a big audience, but it's important to recognize that a lot of people do follow EFF, Reddit and the others in the list of 86 [1] - and because of this the effects can multiply exponentially, because this trial will get news coverage.
You see, government agencies and politicians that violate our rights do so hoping either (a) that people don't find out about it or (b) that people forget about it in a week. But if organizations and companies keep the issue relevant and in the news, then it persists and things can quickly escalate, just as it happened with SOPA or ACTA.
And then you'll also see the online giants protesting it, because first of all, it's bad for business. And then you'll also see street protests, even from other countries. And then you'll finally see the real shit-storm that no amount of money can quickly wash away (although such issues tend to reappear, because those in power tried shoving too many things down our throats at once, who knows, maybe people will grow a social conscience after all).
Yeah, I'm sure the NSA are trembling, if they gave two shits about laws or civil liberties we would be here, so I'm sure this isn't going to do a thing.
The circular logic they were relying on to make the law go away, "can't sue without standing, can't get standing without evidence, can't get evidence without suing" has been cut at step 3.
Except that they claim that the leaked material is still classified. If you have clearance and you download that material to your personal computer, they would say that you were leaking it (seriously). This is one of those cases where "things that make sense" is not the same as "the law."
Yeah, moving from FPTP to Approval voting or Cordocet voting or something would be a huge improvement, at least in those terms. It's a tough fight though. Critics say "oooh, that's too complicated, it'll confuse the voters" blah, blah. Hell, in NC the SBOE (State Board of Elections) has used "voter confusion" as justification for policies that historically made it all but impossible for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot.
To give some perspective... in NC, in the modern era, only one 3rd party has ever achieved ballot access (the Libertarian Party). And until a few years ago, the rules were rigged to force the LP to constantly recertify through a long, tedious and expensive petitioning process every election cycle.
When the LP, Green Party and others sued the SBOE, they actually argued that having "too many candidates on the ballot could confuse voters", despite their essentially never being more than 3 candidates for any given office. Further, in most election years many, many races are actually uncontested! But we'll confuse the voters if we allow the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc. on the ballot. Sheesh.
I am not sure how you can make such an assertion, when almost everything they do is classified and they have repeatedly lied about the very existence of the programs in question for years now. Until the details of the program are available and subject to legal scrutiny, I would not assume that they were following the law, regardless of what President Obama or his allies in Congress have to say.
And furthermore, they're operating based on a DoJ interpretation of FISA that they have also classified so the public cannot know how they are interpreting the law.
The ACLU is leading a particularly good suit. As a Verizon customer, their phone records were scanned as well. And as a legal firm handling cases where even the existence of a call to a lawyer is privileged information (ie govt whistleblowers), the system is clearly unconstitutional.
I almost wish they didn't do this so soon. Because now the administration probably won't declassify anything else for fear of getting sued over it. I think they should've waited a little more for more leaks to come out of the Guardian and then the public outrage to force them to declassify more. And then gang up on them in full force.
I'm also awaiting for the PRISM lawsuit, which seems a lot more important than the phone records one, to me.
At that point, it becomes overtly criminal. If, in that event, the law isn't upheld (i.e. via appropriate punishment), then we will be witnessing the complete and unquestionable dismantling of our nation.
Within the USA this is a clear violation of the right to free-association (which should also work against drone tracking).
The Atlantic is really churning out great articles on this, another good one from yesterday:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-obam...