3 ms·

>How is it that we can be enraged over a privacy bill that erodes the Fourth Amendment, but completely fine with a gun control bill that erodes the Second Amend

>How is it that we can be enraged over a privacy bill that erodes the Fourth Amendment, but completely fine with a gun control bill that erodes the Second Amendment? Because while just about everybody publicly holds the Constitution up as holy scripture, they really just care about using it to get what they want. I don't care about the right to bear arms. I think it's a dumb, outdated provision that never should have been added in the first place. Speech, privacy, not being forced to incriminate yourself - these are all immensely important rights that every human should have. Owning weapons, on the other hand - what are we, cavemen? And don't tell me that it's so we can fight the government if it ever gets too much out of hand. We're long past that point. Any serious attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week, the leaders assassinated by unmanned drones. So I will play lip service to the second amendment insofar as I don't want precedent set that will weaken the parts of the Bill of Rights that are actually important. But don't tell me I'm a hypocrite because I care about privacy and also think that violent criminals shouldn't be able to easily buy guns.

lmickh 14y ago
Just curious, but why bother fighting a privacy act if you think that the government could not be overthrown in revolution? If the government wants it, they will take it since nothing can stop them.
- mistercow 14y ago
  This is the idea behind checks and balances. The government isn't usually a unified force. The FBI might want to do something like read your email, but Congress can stop them with legislation. If they do it anyway, the courts will decide what's what. A well functioning government is a framework that fills what would otherwise be a political void with powerful entities pitted against each other so that most of their power is canceled out, allowing the majority to nudge the remainder in whatever direction it sees fit. But if you try to overthrow the government, suddenly all of that power will be united against you, and you will not stand a chance.
  - hga 14y ago
    "But if you try to overthrow the government, suddenly all of that power will be united against you, and you will not stand a chance." What makes you think many parts of this very un-unified government (you didn't even get into federalism including state and local divisions of labor) won't also be on the side of those wishing to overthrow it?
    - mistercow 14y ago
      In that case, I don't see how private gun ownership preceding the revolution would be particularly relevant anyway.
      - hga 14y ago
        Then your imagination is seriously limited. Let's just look at my home town of Joplin, Missouri, in solidly Red State America. Only a few hundred police for 50K residents; as a hypothetical, what do you think would be the difference between their revolting alone, vs. with thousands of just as well armed civilians? Who's RKBA they strongly support, in words and deeds, I might add.
squozzer 14y ago
> Any serious attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week, the leaders assassinated by unmanned drones. To which I answer, Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly the insurgencies there would not be considered "successful" revolutions, but they have made the political price of occupation higher, AND forced concessions from the US and local governments. That said, I don't relish contesting the US Armed Forces violently. OTOH, fending off a group of small-time thugs is a perfect application for a firearm.
- hga 14y ago
  Mistercow's focus on tactics is a mistake; as the saying goes, "... professionals focus on logistics". And while not one of those (poor eyesight kept me out), I can't help but notice that the logistics tail for those drones is all in the US, and of course the pilots flying them. Who have to go home at the end of the day. As for the US Military, a lot if not most of the scenarios posited have much or most of them on the side of the "revolution", but much more likely a counter-revolution.

lmickh 14y ago

Just curious, but why bother fighting a privacy act if you think that the government could not be overthrown in revolution? If the government wants it, they will take it since nothing can stop them.

mistercow 14y ago
This is the idea behind checks and balances. The government isn't usually a unified force. The FBI might want to do something like read your email, but Congress can stop them with legislation. If they do it anyway, the courts will decide what's what. A well functioning government is a framework that fills what would otherwise be a political void with powerful entities pitted against each other so that most of their power is canceled out, allowing the majority to nudge the remainder in whatever direction it sees fit. But if you try to overthrow the government, suddenly all of that power will be united against you, and you will not stand a chance.
- hga 14y ago
  "But if you try to overthrow the government, suddenly all of that power will be united against you, and you will not stand a chance." What makes you think many parts of this very un-unified government (you didn't even get into federalism including state and local divisions of labor) won't also be on the side of those wishing to overthrow it?
  - mistercow 14y ago
    In that case, I don't see how private gun ownership preceding the revolution would be particularly relevant anyway.
    - hga 14y ago
      Then your imagination is seriously limited. Let's just look at my home town of Joplin, Missouri, in solidly Red State America. Only a few hundred police for 50K residents; as a hypothetical, what do you think would be the difference between their revolting alone, vs. with thousands of just as well armed civilians? Who's RKBA they strongly support, in words and deeds, I might add.

squozzer 14y ago

> Any serious attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week, the leaders assassinated by unmanned drones. To which I answer, Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly the insurgencies there would not be considered "successful" revolutions, but they have made the political price of occupation higher, AND forced concessions from the US and local governments. That said, I don't relish contesting the US Armed Forces violently. OTOH, fending off a group of small-time thugs is a perfect application for a firearm.

hga 14y ago
Mistercow's focus on tactics is a mistake; as the saying goes, "... professionals focus on logistics". And while not one of those (poor eyesight kept me out), I can't help but notice that the logistics tail for those drones is all in the US, and of course the pilots flying them. Who have to go home at the end of the day. As for the US Military, a lot if not most of the scenarios posited have much or most of them on the side of the "revolution", but much more likely a counter-revolution.