9 ms·

> ACLU, EFF and NRA I consider my neighbour being able to own an assault rifle as an encroachment of my civil liberties.

ItsDeathball 11y ago
How does that even process? Sure, if your neighbor is firing off rounds in the street, that's an encroachment, but your neighbor simply owning a thing you morally disagree with in no way affects you. If your neighbor keeps an AR-15 in a locked cabinet and takes it down to the range for weekend target shooting, how would you even know? Edit: I really should have taken note of your spelling of "neighbour". This post was written under the assumption that both of you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
- peteretep 11y ago
  I disagree with my neighbour being able to keep anthrax-infected sheep on her property too, no matter that she tells me she's got a super safe pen for them, and really prefers the taste. Although admittedly I wouldn't know until she gets raided by the CDC or accidentally the whole nearby biosphere.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Firearms don't walk out of a gun safe under their own power.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      And yet somehow every gun that's ever been used in a mass homicide has found its way out of a gun safe.
      - tracker1 11y ago
        But not because the wind carried it out... it was a malicious act of a person. There's also the ability to make bombs, and other devices. Killing has been illegal as long as laws have existed, it still happens.
yourepowerless 11y ago
Cool, you must be OK with your friendly trustworthy government controlling and using far more devastating means to commit war crimes then.
- peteretep 11y ago
  I think you are confusing two issues here, but yes, I am happy for the government to have a monopoly on assault rifles, tanks, missiles and artillery.
  - yourepowerless 11y ago
    So you expressly support torture and genocide?
    - dang 11y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.
arca_vorago 11y ago
Well it's a good thing we beat you brits in the war and have a superior constitution that protects our rights to bear arms. Speaking of the original subject, wasn't it some despotic king of yours that formed the star court in the first place? Am I going crazy or is LaRouche seeming a bit less crazy these days?
- ionised 11y ago
  The French beat the British for the US actually, because it was in their interests to have Britain lose their hold on the North American colonies. Without French support the American colonists would not have been able to maintain a prolonged resistance against Britain. At the same time, Britain's main forces were across the other side of the world, fighting battles that were more important to them at the time. They were a superpower with global concerns.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    In the end, it's extremely difficult to fight against guerilla warfar against an enemy in their own territory. Generally 12-15% of the population is needed for an armed rebellion to be successful. It'd be hard for most countries to buy off enough soldiers to fight against that, in most areas. Just looking at Iraq and Afghanistan it's rough. The rifts in that entire region are problematic. Even with superior technology and training, there's no clear victory... the same could be said of domestic rebellion if it ever came to that in the U.S.A.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > have a superior constitution that protects our rights Mmm, you guys have certainly managed some impressive innovations in habeas corpus[0][1], property rights[2], and free speech[3][4] O_o [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [4] The article, innit?
giardini 11y ago
Please explain. Do you feel the same way when they buy a new car? Is this "keeping up with the Joneses"? Perhaps you should buy an assault rifle for yourself (and another for the wee wifie)!
- peteretep 11y ago
  You know how Americans feel about Iran getting nuclear weapons? That's how I feel about my neighbours acquiring weapons intended for war zones.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Your average hunting rifle is far more powerful than your typical assault rifle... tbh, it's all kind of silly wrt small caliber weapons in general. I don't, personally own a firearm. I have gone hunting, and done target shooting with friends, and feel the right to own as such is an essential right. I don't feel that the ACLU defends this right, which is why I put the NRA.. if the ACLU or another org was less obtuse in terms of defending gun rights, I'd probably prefer them. I'm not a nut.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I consider my neighbor being able to utter blasphemy as an encroachment of my civil liberties.
- peteretep 11y ago
  You'll be pleased to hear that many of those in congress who have the highest NRA scores share your view.
tracker1 11y ago
In what way does your neighbor having ownership of anything implicitely encroach on your civil liberties? One could damage your person, family or property just as easily with a motor vehicle or household chemicals as they could with an assault rifle. Even then, most hunting rifles are more powerful than the "assault" rifles that are typically used as reference for banning.

ItsDeathball 11y ago

How does that even process? Sure, if your neighbor is firing off rounds in the street, that's an encroachment, but your neighbor simply owning a thing you morally disagree with in no way affects you. If your neighbor keeps an AR-15 in a locked cabinet and takes it down to the range for weekend target shooting, how would you even know? Edit: I really should have taken note of your spelling of "neighbour". This post was written under the assumption that both of you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

peteretep 11y ago
I disagree with my neighbour being able to keep anthrax-infected sheep on her property too, no matter that she tells me she's got a super safe pen for them, and really prefers the taste. Although admittedly I wouldn't know until she gets raided by the CDC or accidentally the whole nearby biosphere.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Firearms don't walk out of a gun safe under their own power.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    And yet somehow every gun that's ever been used in a mass homicide has found its way out of a gun safe.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      But not because the wind carried it out... it was a malicious act of a person. There's also the ability to make bombs, and other devices. Killing has been illegal as long as laws have existed, it still happens.

yourepowerless 11y ago

Cool, you must be OK with your friendly trustworthy government controlling and using far more devastating means to commit war crimes then.

peteretep 11y ago
I think you are confusing two issues here, but yes, I am happy for the government to have a monopoly on assault rifles, tanks, missiles and artillery.
- yourepowerless 11y ago
  So you expressly support torture and genocide?
  - dang 11y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

arca_vorago 11y ago

Well it's a good thing we beat you brits in the war and have a superior constitution that protects our rights to bear arms. Speaking of the original subject, wasn't it some despotic king of yours that formed the star court in the first place? Am I going crazy or is LaRouche seeming a bit less crazy these days?

ionised 11y ago
The French beat the British for the US actually, because it was in their interests to have Britain lose their hold on the North American colonies. Without French support the American colonists would not have been able to maintain a prolonged resistance against Britain. At the same time, Britain's main forces were across the other side of the world, fighting battles that were more important to them at the time. They were a superpower with global concerns.
- tracker1 11y ago
  In the end, it's extremely difficult to fight against guerilla warfar against an enemy in their own territory. Generally 12-15% of the population is needed for an armed rebellion to be successful. It'd be hard for most countries to buy off enough soldiers to fight against that, in most areas. Just looking at Iraq and Afghanistan it's rough. The rifts in that entire region are problematic. Even with superior technology and training, there's no clear victory... the same could be said of domestic rebellion if it ever came to that in the U.S.A.
peteretep 11y ago
> have a superior constitution that protects our rights Mmm, you guys have certainly managed some impressive innovations in habeas corpus[0][1], property rights[2], and free speech[3][4] O_o [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [4] The article, innit?

giardini 11y ago

Please explain. Do you feel the same way when they buy a new car? Is this "keeping up with the Joneses"? Perhaps you should buy an assault rifle for yourself (and another for the wee wifie)!

peteretep 11y ago
You know how Americans feel about Iran getting nuclear weapons? That's how I feel about my neighbours acquiring weapons intended for war zones.
tracker1 11y ago
Your average hunting rifle is far more powerful than your typical assault rifle... tbh, it's all kind of silly wrt small caliber weapons in general. I don't, personally own a firearm. I have gone hunting, and done target shooting with friends, and feel the right to own as such is an essential right. I don't feel that the ACLU defends this right, which is why I put the NRA.. if the ACLU or another org was less obtuse in terms of defending gun rights, I'd probably prefer them. I'm not a nut.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

I consider my neighbor being able to utter blasphemy as an encroachment of my civil liberties.

peteretep 11y ago
You'll be pleased to hear that many of those in congress who have the highest NRA scores share your view.

tracker1 11y ago

In what way does your neighbor having ownership of anything implicitely encroach on your civil liberties? One could damage your person, family or property just as easily with a motor vehicle or household chemicals as they could with an assault rifle. Even then, most hunting rifles are more powerful than the "assault" rifles that are typically used as reference for banning.