5 ms·

That book might one day be considered as dangerous as an unregistered firearm... Sadly.

unethical_ban 10y ago
I accidentally downvoted on mobile. I'll fix later. I own many unregistered firearms. Fortunately, that is likely to remain legal for some time.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  FYI: you can click the "undown" link on the right after accidentally downvoting.
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Not on the android mobile app I have, unfortunately.
- pjc50 10y ago
  I think it's quite likely that the US will end up with total surveillance of everything except guns. Guns don't threaten the power structure.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Gun homicides are down dramatically[0], yet we hear a constant drum beat from the media about terrorists and mass shooters. Guns absolutely threaten the power structure they will be coming for them soon enough. [0]https://static.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg https://static.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg
    - pjc50 10y ago
      No they don't, at least not in the hands of white people and rightwing fringe groups. We can see this by contrasting the treatment of the Malheur occupiers versus the non-armed Standing Rock occupiers. The Malheur occupiers carried out an armed takeover of a Federal building in the middle of nowhere. No economic threat, no political threat, so they were basically surrounded and left alone. The Standing Rock occupiers are not armed and are standing in the way of money, so they get the water cannon and worse treatment. If there was a time for terrorism to be used as a pretext, it was much closer to 9/11. Similarly for mass shootings. Most of the public accept them as routine and children are drilled about the possibility at school. That isn't enough to make even minor gun restrictions happen. Obviously nothing is going to happen under a Republican government, especially a Trump presidency. "Soon enough" isn't this decade. (The only thing which could provoke serious disarmament efforts would be an armed Black Lives Matter movement..)
      - harambaebae69 10y ago
        As you mention though, Malheur vs Standing Rock is an apples to oranges comparison. The Bundy's took over a very remote ranger station that no one honestly cared about. The Standing Rock occupiers were actually in the way of something.
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Yep, I agree with that. The 2nd is the fallback for if/when the 1st and 4th (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) fail. I hope more Republicans will appreciate that as the younger generation comes to power.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      Other way round: guns are the distraction. You can't use them in any kind of regular politics. None of America's great moments of protest or social progress have been enabled by protestors with guns. Even mortally important ones like the civil rights movement. For obvious reasons: once you start shooting there's no easy way to stop until one side is dead. You'll be allowed to keep them and feel good about it as a consolation prize. But when you're unemployed and lack health insurance, what good will that do you? Republicans will use gun ownership as the wedge issue while they loot the government.
      - groovy2shoes 10y ago
        Not only that, but the state has exclusive access to heavy weaponry. While some firearms are legal, many are not because they're considered too powerful — unless you happen to be the military, of course. Or the police... Guns aren't quite as effective as they were in the times of the founding fathers, now that the government has RPGs and tanks and fighter jets, etc.
noir_lord 10y ago
Given the US used to classify encryption export as a munition (and books where how stuff actually got out see the PGP hoops) that's not as unlikely as it sounds sadly.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
By that do you mean that a bunch of idiots on the coasts will think it's a big issue and and a bunch of people who grew up with them will think they're crazy for caring?

I accidentally downvoted on mobile. I'll fix later. I own many unregistered firearms. Fortunately, that is likely to remain legal for some time.

bobwaycott 10y ago
FYI: you can click the "undown" link on the right after accidentally downvoting.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  Not on the android mobile app I have, unfortunately.
pjc50 10y ago
I think it's quite likely that the US will end up with total surveillance of everything except guns. Guns don't threaten the power structure.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Gun homicides are down dramatically[0], yet we hear a constant drum beat from the media about terrorists and mass shooters. Guns absolutely threaten the power structure they will be coming for them soon enough. [0]https://static.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg https://static.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg
  - pjc50 10y ago
    No they don't, at least not in the hands of white people and rightwing fringe groups. We can see this by contrasting the treatment of the Malheur occupiers versus the non-armed Standing Rock occupiers. The Malheur occupiers carried out an armed takeover of a Federal building in the middle of nowhere. No economic threat, no political threat, so they were basically surrounded and left alone. The Standing Rock occupiers are not armed and are standing in the way of money, so they get the water cannon and worse treatment. If there was a time for terrorism to be used as a pretext, it was much closer to 9/11. Similarly for mass shootings. Most of the public accept them as routine and children are drilled about the possibility at school. That isn't enough to make even minor gun restrictions happen. Obviously nothing is going to happen under a Republican government, especially a Trump presidency. "Soon enough" isn't this decade. (The only thing which could provoke serious disarmament efforts would be an armed Black Lives Matter movement..)
    - harambaebae69 10y ago
      As you mention though, Malheur vs Standing Rock is an apples to oranges comparison. The Bundy's took over a very remote ranger station that no one honestly cared about. The Standing Rock occupiers were actually in the way of something.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  Yep, I agree with that. The 2nd is the fallback for if/when the 1st and 4th (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) fail. I hope more Republicans will appreciate that as the younger generation comes to power.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Other way round: guns are the distraction. You can't use them in any kind of regular politics. None of America's great moments of protest or social progress have been enabled by protestors with guns. Even mortally important ones like the civil rights movement. For obvious reasons: once you start shooting there's no easy way to stop until one side is dead. You'll be allowed to keep them and feel good about it as a consolation prize. But when you're unemployed and lack health insurance, what good will that do you? Republicans will use gun ownership as the wedge issue while they loot the government.
    - groovy2shoes 10y ago
      Not only that, but the state has exclusive access to heavy weaponry. While some firearms are legal, many are not because they're considered too powerful — unless you happen to be the military, of course. Or the police... Guns aren't quite as effective as they were in the times of the founding fathers, now that the government has RPGs and tanks and fighter jets, etc.

noir_lord 10y ago

Given the US used to classify encryption export as a munition (and books where how stuff actually got out see the PGP hoops) that's not as unlikely as it sounds sadly.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

By that do you mean that a bunch of idiots on the coasts will think it's a big issue and and a bunch of people who grew up with them will think they're crazy for caring?