6 ms·

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 su

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?

jacoblyles 13y ago
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 The principles of the Constitution are very good but the language is too outdated to withstand the concerted effort of cynical men seeking to expand their power.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.
tokipin 13y ago
"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
- willurd 13y ago
  Oh gods of HN, grant me thine Downvote Dagger that I may smite this post.
ollysb 13y ago
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.
- gridmaths 13y ago
  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
  - grappler 13y ago
    That would certainly fit with the classification of encryption methods by the government as “munitions”. p.s. web graphics?
- willurd 13y ago
  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/beneficiary.asp http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s 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/ 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.
Jayschwa 13y ago
> 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.

jacoblyles 13y ago

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.

tokipin 13y ago

"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

willurd 13y ago
Oh gods of HN, grant me thine Downvote Dagger that I may smite this post.

ollysb 13y ago

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.

gridmaths 13y ago
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
- grappler 13y ago
  That would certainly fit with the classification of encryption methods by the government as “munitions”. p.s. web graphics?
willurd 13y ago
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/beneficiary.asp http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s 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/ 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.

Jayschwa 13y ago

> 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.