6 ms·

Yay, more fascism! Now, anything that wasn't explicitly within the law before is now within the boundary of the law, and thus is legal. This opens up all sorts

Yay, more fascism! Now, anything that wasn't explicitly within the law before is now within the boundary of the law, and thus is legal. This opens up all sorts of new avenues for abuse, while closing none. It also is one more statute that will need to be eventually repealed. Predictably, defenders of the bill are trying to pass it off as more oversight with their doublespeak. I am really tired of this country and its bullshit. We've slid toward totalitarianism every single year for quite a few years running now. Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change?

frostmatthew 12y ago
> Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change? If voting is "useless" it makes it impossible to demand change since voting is how we enact change in a democracy.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Voting is not the exclusive way to make change in a democracy, even if it's the preferred...
  - commentzorro 12y ago
    We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. The pen may be mightier than the sword but sometimes you must write with the blood of your oppressors just to begin to be heard.
    - scott_karana 12y ago
      Honestly, I meant mass-protests, blocking of work, passive resistance, and the like. I don't think the situation is bad enough to warrant violent revolt (yet).
    - frostmatthew 12y ago
      > We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. No. We have a second amendment to maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect the state - not to make it easier to overthrow it.
      - nextw33k 12y ago
        That is an interesting point of view, the government and the state are two separate things. You cannot overthrow a state (since it is a community) but you can overthrow a hostile government. The American militia were part of the revolution to overthrow the British government and the recognition of that is codified in the Second Amendment.
        frostmatthew 12y ago
        You're confusing nation[1] with state[2][3] (though you may be correct that it might be more accurate to say "overthrow a government"). The writers of the Constitution didn't envision a standing army (or at least not a very large one) which is why they a) gave Congress the power to raise armies and b) highlighted the importance of a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." "Security" meant repelling foreign invaders and stopping insurrections, not starting them. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions[4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
- wyager 12y ago
  What do you think the second amendment to the U.S. constitution is for?
  - frostmatthew 12y ago
    If you think it's because they wanted to make sure the people could easily overthrow the government if/when needed then you don't understand much about the founding fathers. The founding fathers were terrified of the people. This is why they created the electoral college - they didn't trust the general population to decide such an important decision. [They thought they had designed the system such that the college would never (or at least rarely) produce a winner and Congress would select the President]. Only the House was intended to be based on popular vote, senators were selected by state legislatures up until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. If the founders didn't trust the people to select their own President or senators do you really think they trusted them with the decision of overthrowing the government?
    - refurb 12y ago
      "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." John Adams
      - frostmatthew 12y ago
        In the context of a discussion of the 2nd amendment's [intended] purpose and how those that wrote it felt toward the people I fail to see the relevance of a quote by someone who had no part in writing our Constitution. [John Adams was in Britain during the Constitutional Convention].
        refurb 12y ago
        I can provide more quotes but i get the sense that nothing will convince you. The ability of citizens to maintain power over the government was a critical piece of how the US constitution was developed. Hell, just read the opinions from DC v Heller.
- aksophist 12y ago
  > how we enact change in a democracy You're either thinking of another country or have it wrong. The way change (legislation) gets enacted in the US is through lobbying.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    aka voting with dollars (only legal if you're a corporate-american).
snarfy 12y ago
It will happen when people stop demanding change and start demanding blood.
- yuhong 12y ago
  I think enough people demanding change is enough.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    People need to demand change (they are) and there need to be real avenues for change (questionable). The parent is likely echoing JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Here are some things that have made peaceful revolution seem impossible: - No ballot items for surveillance disclosures - Loss of Udall, one of the only people representing the people on this issue in any real way in the Senate Intelligence Panel and in the legislative body - Candidate Obama's campaign promises significantly divergent from President Obama's actions on civil liberties (and he was a constitutional law scholar, exactly what you think we would have needed) - Habeas Corpus still suspended in America. The Constitution is a peace time document, but America is in perpetual war - in fact it is in wars that have no clear ending conditions (Terrorism and the threat of Terrorism will never end; the same is true of drugs) - Political movements and protest groups responding to the surveillance state disrupted by federal agents - Word games played with 'Congress was briefed' regarding Executive Branch activity, FISA courts proven to be rubber stamps, CIA willing to hack legislatures auditing them - intelligence arms seem to have escaped checks and balances. - Hot button protests are being corralled away from protest zones where they are highly visible, either by police cages or by 'free speech zones' which are miles away, off the map and require you to register your intent to express free speech and get confirmation from the state - Fusion Centers merging federal anti-terror tools with local law enforcement - ending non-surveilled local grass roots efforts to organize actions to express non-condoned political ideas - Journalists and media outlets under routine surveillance and tap-and-trace (like the AP scandal this administration) to chill confidential informants that may bring stories from Washington to the news (and thus the people) - The US government cuts access to press releases and interviews for those media outlets that don't 'play nice' with USG narratives or delay/kill/censor select stories (meta point: there's a reason journalism is called the Fourth Estate of American Politics) - Every modern administrations feel it is reasonable to use their access to power to harass and sabotage political rivals (as is commonly done with the IRS) - Political debates purposefully exclude third party candidates, appearing in front of the public and challenging 'enshired parties' - Gilens and Page study out of Princeton and Cornell show high correlation between passed legislature and the demands of rich elite interests but poor correlation with national consensus - The approval ("I feel represented") rating of the Congress is around 7% and the president's approval rating is around 50% - The American people made it explicitly and extremely clear they were not interested in many things (such as military engagement in Syria) but could only manage to delay military action with a >75% national consensus on the issue for a couple of months - The government lied repeatedly about the contents of the Snowden documents and passed faux legislation and even proposed bills to expand NSA authority as a response to public outcry It would be easy to continue adding to the list. There are many reasons why it is hard to feel that peaceful revolution is possible. So the parent feels, maybe, and maybe he said it a bit flippantly, that violent revolution is inevitable.
happyscrappy 12y ago
You are the problem. You whine and cry but don't do anything. Vote with your feet, go to some country not associated with the West if you find it so fucking oppressive.
antman 12y ago
" Until they become conscious they will never rebel and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." 1984

frostmatthew 12y ago

> Voting has been useless in the many elections I have participated in. When will people wake up and demand change? If voting is "useless" it makes it impossible to demand change since voting is how we enact change in a democracy.

scott_karana 12y ago
Voting is not the exclusive way to make change in a democracy, even if it's the preferred...
- commentzorro 12y ago
  We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. The pen may be mightier than the sword but sometimes you must write with the blood of your oppressors just to begin to be heard.
  - scott_karana 12y ago
    Honestly, I meant mass-protests, blocking of work, passive resistance, and the like. I don't think the situation is bad enough to warrant violent revolt (yet).
  - frostmatthew 12y ago
    > We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. No. We have a second amendment to maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect the state - not to make it easier to overthrow it.
    - nextw33k 12y ago
      That is an interesting point of view, the government and the state are two separate things. You cannot overthrow a state (since it is a community) but you can overthrow a hostile government. The American militia were part of the revolution to overthrow the British government and the recognition of that is codified in the Second Amendment.
      - frostmatthew 12y ago
        You're confusing nation[1] with state[2][3] (though you may be correct that it might be more accurate to say "overthrow a government"). The writers of the Constitution didn't envision a standing army (or at least not a very large one) which is why they a) gave Congress the power to raise armies and b) highlighted the importance of a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." "Security" meant repelling foreign invaders and stopping insurrections, not starting them. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions[4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
wyager 12y ago
What do you think the second amendment to the U.S. constitution is for?
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  If you think it's because they wanted to make sure the people could easily overthrow the government if/when needed then you don't understand much about the founding fathers. The founding fathers were terrified of the people. This is why they created the electoral college - they didn't trust the general population to decide such an important decision. [They thought they had designed the system such that the college would never (or at least rarely) produce a winner and Congress would select the President]. Only the House was intended to be based on popular vote, senators were selected by state legislatures up until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. If the founders didn't trust the people to select their own President or senators do you really think they trusted them with the decision of overthrowing the government?
  - refurb 12y ago
    "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." John Adams
    - frostmatthew 12y ago
      In the context of a discussion of the 2nd amendment's [intended] purpose and how those that wrote it felt toward the people I fail to see the relevance of a quote by someone who had no part in writing our Constitution. [John Adams was in Britain during the Constitutional Convention].
      - refurb 12y ago
        I can provide more quotes but i get the sense that nothing will convince you. The ability of citizens to maintain power over the government was a critical piece of how the US constitution was developed. Hell, just read the opinions from DC v Heller.
aksophist 12y ago
> how we enact change in a democracy You're either thinking of another country or have it wrong. The way change (legislation) gets enacted in the US is through lobbying.
- r00fus 12y ago
  aka voting with dollars (only legal if you're a corporate-american).

snarfy 12y ago

It will happen when people stop demanding change and start demanding blood.

yuhong 12y ago
I think enough people demanding change is enough.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  People need to demand change (they are) and there need to be real avenues for change (questionable). The parent is likely echoing JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Here are some things that have made peaceful revolution seem impossible: - No ballot items for surveillance disclosures - Loss of Udall, one of the only people representing the people on this issue in any real way in the Senate Intelligence Panel and in the legislative body - Candidate Obama's campaign promises significantly divergent from President Obama's actions on civil liberties (and he was a constitutional law scholar, exactly what you think we would have needed) - Habeas Corpus still suspended in America. The Constitution is a peace time document, but America is in perpetual war - in fact it is in wars that have no clear ending conditions (Terrorism and the threat of Terrorism will never end; the same is true of drugs) - Political movements and protest groups responding to the surveillance state disrupted by federal agents - Word games played with 'Congress was briefed' regarding Executive Branch activity, FISA courts proven to be rubber stamps, CIA willing to hack legislatures auditing them - intelligence arms seem to have escaped checks and balances. - Hot button protests are being corralled away from protest zones where they are highly visible, either by police cages or by 'free speech zones' which are miles away, off the map and require you to register your intent to express free speech and get confirmation from the state - Fusion Centers merging federal anti-terror tools with local law enforcement - ending non-surveilled local grass roots efforts to organize actions to express non-condoned political ideas - Journalists and media outlets under routine surveillance and tap-and-trace (like the AP scandal this administration) to chill confidential informants that may bring stories from Washington to the news (and thus the people) - The US government cuts access to press releases and interviews for those media outlets that don't 'play nice' with USG narratives or delay/kill/censor select stories (meta point: there's a reason journalism is called the Fourth Estate of American Politics) - Every modern administrations feel it is reasonable to use their access to power to harass and sabotage political rivals (as is commonly done with the IRS) - Political debates purposefully exclude third party candidates, appearing in front of the public and challenging 'enshired parties' - Gilens and Page study out of Princeton and Cornell show high correlation between passed legislature and the demands of rich elite interests but poor correlation with national consensus - The approval ("I feel represented") rating of the Congress is around 7% and the president's approval rating is around 50% - The American people made it explicitly and extremely clear they were not interested in many things (such as military engagement in Syria) but could only manage to delay military action with a >75% national consensus on the issue for a couple of months - The government lied repeatedly about the contents of the Snowden documents and passed faux legislation and even proposed bills to expand NSA authority as a response to public outcry It would be easy to continue adding to the list. There are many reasons why it is hard to feel that peaceful revolution is possible. So the parent feels, maybe, and maybe he said it a bit flippantly, that violent revolution is inevitable.

happyscrappy 12y ago

You are the problem. You whine and cry but don't do anything. Vote with your feet, go to some country not associated with the West if you find it so fucking oppressive.

antman 12y ago

" Until they become conscious they will never rebel and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." 1984