Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

It could be worse you know.
 
Rocket From the Sockets!!!!

Must resist urge to make terrible joke...

Giggity.

[Frumple]

Hey, if robots can use mammaries as missiles, why not fall back to built in launch tubes? Even potential for implementation on both gender giant robots! Or... I guess all gendered? I'm suddenly morbidly curious if there's hermaphrodite giant robots. Not sure how the gender thing's moving along in the giant robot field, honestly, especially the super robot stuff.

With japan apparently attempting a functioning gundam (is that still going down?) that junk's even related to possible real world applications! Albeit ones that fit in th'progressive thread due to the horrific waste involved in actual giant robot construction, but hey!

[GreatJustice]

Was it... was it this thread or some other that pointed out that the actual impact of the 2nd amendment in a theoretical second American civil war scenario would be pretty close to nonexistent?

Th'face of modern warfare's made most civilian weapons, especially in the hands of the more-or-less untrained, more or less meaningless. I mean, you could do a little bit with guerrilla stuff, but it really wouldn't mean jack in the face of an actual military force, especially one integrated with a modern military support structure (artillery, air, etc.). Calling the second amendment a method of resisting tyranny is... kinda' silly, nowadays. Original intent, maybe, but the combat effectiveness of the sort of militia the second amendment would involve arming is pretty piss poor these days.

If any uprising's going to occur and do more than jack-all in the face of actual physical oppression, it'll involve a military schism, not a civilian uprising. Arming the citizenry just doesn't really do much (besides jack up the death toll) anymore, especially with the stuff that's accessible by the general American population.

I guess it's a bit of a psychological comfort, though, even though the actual capability to resist is effectively nil? Illusion of the capability to resist might be an effective tool of control, honestly...

Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot. Keep in mind, they're fighting with vintage WW2-Cold War era weaponry, whereas the hypothetical American rebels would be fighting with modern equipment. Add the fact that the US government would be far more limited in fighting a rebellion since they would need to keep some measure of public approval to get recruitment, avoid defection, and not create more enemies. If they handled it like they handled Afghanistan, they'd have 80% disapproval and every dead rebel would create ten more in the short run.

Oh, it wouldn't be a "The armed Americans march to Washington and clear out the evil dictator/boundary-overstepping President in a grand battle" scenario obviously, this IS the 21st century. It would be a long, bloody guerrilla war. But then, it would be a long, bloody guerrilla war that the rebels would almost certainly win in the long run, whereas with an unarmed populace the government would undoubtedly have all the cards.

Anyway, gun ownership support from the left is a relatively new thing. Barring some weird states like Vermont, most American left wingers were strongly anti-gun in the 1990s and it was a major issue like healthcare reform. I'm pretty sure what happened is that the pro-gun types won that one so strongly that the mainstream left kinda gave up on the issue, since it hasn't swung back in the direction of gun control since the 90s.

Libertarians tend to be pretty fundamentally opposed to the kind of economic reform Occupy is going for.  It's not surprising you'd want them out of your movement.

In this case, they seem to be going to the protests and comprise (alongside the bridge building left wingers) over 50% of them, so I find it funny that a couple of the so-called "99%" are incorporating to keep the rest out of their club. If they want to be exclusively for lefties, and incorporate, than they sure as hell aren't the 99%.

[scriver]

Right wingers have a pretty strong history of claiming leftist concepts and labels as a form of deceptive propaganda (along with the usual history revisionism) when they're proven successful or has popular support, so no, it's not weird at all that they want to keep people or are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from using them. Just recently we had a similar issue over here, where the liberals kept using "the Swedish Model" to refer to their own politics and actions (protip: There is few things more socialist than "the Swedish Model", and the liberals have nothing to do with it), prompting the biggest union to trademark (or copyright) that phrase. Words have power, and politicians are not above using the to mislead and trick people.

[EveryZig]

This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.

There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/mississppi-church-refuses-marry-black-couple-205218322--abc-news-topstories.html

Just wow.... "Lets fire the pastor if he marries the black people...." Really?

[kaijyuu]

Well it sounds like the majority of the residents are outraged over it. A vocal racist minority got their way, but at least some of the core corruption came to light and will hopefully get cleaned up.

[Truean]

.

[miauw62]

Well it sounds like the majority of the residents are outraged over it. A vocal racist minority got their way, but at least some of the core corruption came to light and will hopefully get cleaned up.

Yeah, this is the problem with "religious freedom." Namely, it goes too far. It isn't that it's a vocal racist segment of the church, it's that we're dealing with an influential and powerful segment of the church (they made the pastor fear for his job didn't they?). Frankly, there pretty much should be SOME limits on it, like your "religious freedom" shouldn't enable you to not marry black people, because they're black.

There's also an estoppel argument in there. Estoppel is where you get stopped from acting and telling people that you'll do one thing, but then doing another. Here, the church had this black family attend services for several years, and had them basically as members (they were going to "officially" join the church right after the wedding). I somehow doubt that the church let this black couple know it had racist policies before they invested years of their life in this church (and made contributions to the collection basket).

Frankly it smacks of fraud against the black couple. The church won't marry them and doesn't want them there, but it sure took their money for years huh?

AFAIK, human rights include freedom of speech and the right to come togheter (whatever its called in english), so you dont really need religious freedom, these two rights can cover religious freedom.
Not sure tough.

[Nadaka]

The particular issue with "freedom of religion" is freedom from religion. It is not just a right to think, assemble for and speak your religious views. It is the right to be free from your or any other religion being made law and wielded against you.

[miauw62]

That isnt really of any use, because the people who determine what is a religion usually are part of the religion that is made law.

[Phmcw]

This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.

There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

The main difference is the strategy. Take hostage, bomb the cities that resist too much, starve the ennemies,...
The US cannot use efficient anti insurancy techniques, but a real dictatorship could.

And, I kind of remember how the last uprising unfolded in America, during the secession war.... those rebels sure gained their freedom with their guns.

[Truean]

That isnt really of any use, because the people who determine what is a religion usually are part of the religion that is made law.

It would be if the notion of separation of church and state was properly enforced.

At some point in time, the churches have more power than the people, or even the churchgoers....

[Nadaka]

This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.

There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

The main difference is the strategy. Take hostage, bomb the cities that resist too much, starve the ennemies,...
The US cannot use efficient anti insurancy techniques, but a real dictatorship could.

And, I kind of remember how the last uprising unfolded in America, during the secession war.... those rebels sure gained their freedom with their guns.

Actually the last armed uprising in the US was entirely successful. Servicemen returning home from war found their local government to have become oppressive and corrupt. They overthrew it by force of arms, called in the national guard and restored democracy. I'll have to google a bit to find a reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

[Truean]

This is unrelated to the issue of gun control itself, but something I have noticed about conservatives is that they always seem to promote gun ownership as a defense against oppression while at the same time aiding oppression at just about every other turn (military spending, surveillance, torture, etc).

Funny, last time I heard there were groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that were having some measure of success fighting the US Armed Forces, with just small arms to boot.

There is a very important difference between Afghanistan and the more probable tyrannical U.S. uprising scenario. That difference would be that in Afghanistan, the U.S. army was very clearly an occupying foreign power, and as such are considered invasive outsiders almost by default. In tyranny!U.S., however, the government forces would have precedent for being in power (if in a less evil form), the opportunity for a gradual and subtle buildup of control, and the advantage of being local rather than outsiders. With those advantages along with some biased news coverage and fear-mongering the government would have a much easier time finding supporters among the U.S. population than among Afghans.

The main difference is the strategy. Take hostage, bomb the cities that resist too much, starve the ennemies,...
The US cannot use efficient anti insurancy techniques, but a real dictatorship could.

And, I kind of remember how the last uprising unfolded in America, during the secession war.... those rebels sure gained their freedom with their guns.

Actually the last armed uprising in the US was entirely successful. Servicemen returning home from war found their local government to have become oppressive and corrupt. They overthrew it by force of arms, called in the national guard and restored democracy. I'll have to google a bit to find a reference.

I would really like to think that something along the lines of a political/issue/voting block could do much better, but unfortunately, the despair and apathy along with the divided nation don't favor that.

Honestly, was I the only one worried when they started saying "Red States and Blue States." This is an old one, divide and concur. [shrugs]