15 ms·

It is strange that the same country which cherishes its 'right to bear arms' on the grounds that it gives them a level of protection that the government is unab

• tibbon 13y ago
  Interestingly enough though, that 'right to bear arms' actually gives zero protection from the government as theorized- even if the gov't is acting in a corrupt manner. If this guy was in Texas holed up with a small armory, the FBI would still bust in there and arrest him. If he tried to use that small armory (and wasn't killed) it wouldn't have just been him 'exercising his right' of course.
  • saalweachter 13y ago
    You know, you are on to something there. What we really have in this country is literally a "right to bear arms". You have no right to fire or wield or use your arms. I can think of no situation where you could fire upon an agent of the government that would not end badly for you, unless there was a total dissolution of Federal and probably State government. Even acting in self defense, even against a corrupt agent of the government, I can't imagine it ending any way but badly for you. You can't shoot the government a little to make a small change. Either you completely overthrow the government, so that there is no one left to hang you, or you go to jail in the best case, and be executed lawfully or gunned down in the street in the worst case.
    • tibbon 13y ago
      I'm not up on my history as much as I should be, but I think some of the influence there conceptually is from the "right to overthrow the government", and the idea that many of the new governments at the time were only lasting a short period of time and then would need revised.
    • bmelton 13y ago
      Well, in Texas (and other states), there's Castle Doctrine, that would have allowed him the right to fire, wield and use his arms with lethal intent if in fact those FBI agents didn't have a warrant, which provides some protection that the agents would at least have to prove to a judge that there was reasonable cause to arrest him. Of course, they likely would have had a warrant, and if not, might possibly have gotten one from the FISA court (I'm not sure on the process there) which pretty much always issues a warrant, so it still wouldn't have been great for him.
      • saalweachter 13y ago
        I do believe there are sets of laws and circumstances which logically or even ethically permit it, but I think in the end The Man wins. In this case, I suspect there are federal laws against shooting FBI agents, which would trump state law. Even if there weren't, well, suspects aren't always taken alive to be vindicated in court.
        • bmelton 13y ago
          I don't believe there are any laws against shooting federal agents actually, though I could well be wrong, but in the absence of a verifiable warrant, there's no guarantee that they are federal agents. Even if they are federal agents, that doesn't give them any right to enter your home without your consent, absent a warrant. I don't otherwise disagree with the synopsis you've put forth, I'm just saying that our right to bear doesn't prohibit us from ever firing in the event that there is clear justification. People storming your home is such a justification, no matter what uniforms they're wearing.
  • gyardley 13y ago
    While the right to bear arms doesn't give one person the natural ability to resist overwhelming force, it does make imposing tyranny on larger numbers of people rather expensive for the tyrants. Let's say the government wants to send my family to a death camp - perhaps for a racial, ethnic, or religious affiliation. (Historically, this does happen from time to time, even in countries that were 'liberal democracies' in the recent past.) The government would absolutely be able to do so - I've got no fantasies about my ability to resist a government agency. However, I could certainly try to make it expensive for them, and I might succeed. If enough people are similarly inclined to make things expensive for them, the price may grow to be too high for the government to pay.
• newbie12 13y ago
  The right to bear arms is also, explicitly, a protection against tyranny BY the government. Thomas Jefferson: ""When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
  • Yver 13y ago
    No offense to Thomas Jefferson but a government that is afraid of its own people is a pretty peculiar definition of "liberty."
    • jswinghammer 13y ago
      It's one based on examining the history of governments.
    • dsego 13y ago
      Governments have to be kept in check. They're granted great power and people who have power tend to abuse it. My understanding is that the founding fathers were realists and recognised this very early on.
      • Retric 13y ago
        Having guns does little to hold government in chech. A well educated, well informed, and politically active populace on the other hand is a strait jacket. Which is why free assembly and free speech are so important.
        • DamnYuppie 13y ago
          I agree a well educated and informed society is the best deterrent to keeping governments serving the best interest of the people. Yet recent events have shown that we are not that well informed by our media and government on purpose. Guns are not a deterrent in as much as a means to allow the people to defend themselves against an abusive government when and if needed.
• youngerdryas 13y ago
  Not exactly. A lot of people voted for Obama because he promised more transparency. He appears to be breaking his promises. If he was smart, which he hasn't seemed lately, he would use this crisis to try to regain some credibility.
  • zanny 13y ago
    He is the president of the United States. He is smart. A lot of background characters love it when you question the intellect of your leaders because you see intended aggression and depravity as incompetance and stupidity. Never blame a goverments wrongs on incompetance, blame them on those responsible and expect them to have a functional brain, because to get into the positions they have, they do have working brains, and know exactly what they are doing.
    • youngerdryas 13y ago
      So the reverse of never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Glass half empty.
• MatthewPhillips 13y ago
  Seriously HN, this is the top comment? Using a political controversy as an opportunity to dismiss some unrelated political topic is about as low brow as you can get and contributes nothing to mature discussion.
• nthj 13y ago
  It's interesting to note that in neither case (physical security OR information security) has the government accepted responsibility to protect you. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
• pinaceae 13y ago
  a lot of the people that don't want to ban guns because of freedom do want to ban abortions. you're looking for logic in this? buhaha.
  • forgiveme10k 13y ago
    Sure, guns protect life and provide a great equalizer to those who may not have physical strength. IOW, give anyone who can legally sign a contract and wants one a gun, no matter where they live (notice, this also deals with mental instability). That provides a level playing field when it comes to physical force. As to abortions, once they have a working brain stem, they kind of are human beings that can feel pain.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• rdl 13y ago
  A lot of cypherpunk type people (who are generally pro 2a/guns to a great degree) believe anonymous and secure communication through cryptography is more of a 2A issue than a 1A or 4A issue. A "CALEA 3", key escrow requirement, ban on the Internet, etc would cross my red line. Banning all guns would, too, although unclear exactly where the line is (a total handgun ban probably wouldn't be enough). Obviously legal and political challenges first.
• theklub 13y ago
  People aren't happy about this. Most don't even know about it. The one's that do know about it can't do anything. There simply aren't enough politically active people in this country and far less young ones. Don't confuse what the media says with what people actually feel or want.
• robg 13y ago
  Imagine if with the simple act of buying a firearm, you agreed to increased government monitoring of your online activities.
• mindcrime 13y ago
  It is strange that the same country which cherishes its 'right to bear arms' on the grounds that it gives them a level of protection that the government is unable to provide is 'happy' to build the infrastructure which allows the same government to peek into their lives. I think part of the issue is that this kind of electronic surveillance, and the corresponding awareness of the issue, is relatively new (compared to, say, the firearms issue). I mean, I don't think a lot of people were thinking about the government capturing emails and cellphone records, 100 years ago (or probably 50 years ago, or 20 years ago, or maybe even 10 years ago). But 200+ years ago, private firearms ownership was already a big deal.
• forgiveme10k 13y ago
  There's another plausible explanation for what you have observed re: outrage. Indifferent isn't the right word, it is outright drooling ignorance. That, and some of them may still not use any electronic means of communication, but those are pretty well dying off. The limit of their outrage would be to Echelon. Encryption and modems. Oh, and anything to slow down those NLP MR jobs, like screwing with spelling and word boundaries. (Yes, immature and and likely ultimately futile)
• aluhut 13y ago
  Both laws are based on fear. Fear after 9/11 brought you (and many other western countries) those laws. Now your only chance is to turn the fear around so people fear the tools that have been brought in to fight their fear of terrorists. What is actually happening in some media and on the net. I'm not sure if this will work out as a long time strategy...