talkpolitics | (no subject)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Also your unwillingness to address any of my points

Let the semi-malfunctioning collective jump in in 3, 2, 1...

You asked a question a while back, I answered it, you came back with a boatload of questions, I answered some, you got comical.

What about the 1812 war specifically do you have in mind?

It would be the part where we were attacked by the British and needed to defend ourselves.

How should I interpret it? You "would say"? Did you toss a coin to define what you "would say" about tanks?

Dude, there should be a reliable criterion for such a distinction.

This is a silly tactic. If I were to try answering, would you go back to " Who's to define that? You?". And it's quite easy to distinguish very dark gray from light gray (a tank being very dark gray), and here you are wanting a clear line separating light gray from the rest.

Let the semi-malfunctioning collective jump in in 3, 2, 1...

And here I had this faint hope that you were really attempting a sensible conversation here. One that wouldn't eventually resort to throwing some arbitrary statements with little to zero criteria built into them, and responding with "I'm so not going to speak to you any more" whenever asked for actual details. Oh well then.

You asked a question: That's the exact text of the 2nd Amendment. Please elaborate exactly how it translates INTO "the government can't take our guns".

I answered the question. Instead of addressing what I said, you asked a bunch of other questions (derailing the issue at hand). I answered some, then a few more. and here you are with the "you can't answer, respond, have a reasonable discussion" schtick.

Well I do believe I did explain the motivation behind some of those questions, so I don't need to repeat myself. Shrug.

Quite a non-answer (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1721694.html?thread=136985182#t136985182) you gave there (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1721694.html?thread=136988510#t136988510). "Look after the comma. Look at the Civil War. Kthxbye". No wonder subsequent requests for further elaboration had been needed.

Truth is, you don't want to give a meaningful answer because you don't have one. None of you do. It's just "But, But, the Constitution!!!!" being used as a knee-jerk mantra, but whenever asked to dig somewhat deeper into the issue, things start to become rather "greyish".

The question was What's the usefulness of the entire first part of that statement, namely "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?

The War of 1812 was my answer. How that doesn't obviously answer the question is beyond me. How you came up with the Civil War is a bit beyond me as well.

Look after the comma

Yes, after the comma where it says " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Good. But in the very next thread you assert (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1721694.html?thread=137000798#t137004894) that people shouldn't be allowed to own snipers. So with half your mouth you're arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, while with the other half you're asserting that the right of the people to keep and bear some arms should be infringed.

Have you been trying to confuse me, mhmmm?

Snipers are people...

Perhaps what was meant was sniper rifle? I think some of those actually are legal if I'm not mistaken.

I think just about all of them are. A majority aren't even semi-automatic. The D.C. sniper used a AR-15 with a scope. That is a relatively weak rifle. Most hunting rifles are higher caliber.

Hence my tic slavery comment.

A sniper (not the real kind) in a pre-online discussion would be someone who takes "pot shots" at people. Sniping,roughly translated for you youngins would be snark, or in extreme cases; de-railing or even trolling.

I suppose a sniper could be one who hunts snipe, a rather obscure reference involving camping noobs, so probably not applicable here.

To the best of my knowledge and memory (and I'm too lazy to look it up) You are basically correct (below) as a "pure" rifle used by an actual "sniper" is usually bolt action, and while they are varied, depending on the shooter, are used primarily for competition shooting (I'm sure there are cases where they are used for assassinations).

I could go on, but this thread has gotten so far OT from the post, I feel almost guilty ;)

It is what it is. Anyways, any rifle with a scope can be a sniper rifle, assuming it is accurate. Most real sniper prefer bolt-action, and they aren't particularly powerful, scary weapons. I'm not sure why they should be targeted for "banning."

So is Soylent Green.