Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Which only works so long as both sides are equally able to protect themselves. Otherwise, the side with the gun wins without need for discussion. This has happened, and continues to happen, all around the world where government oversteps its bounds.
Beautiful false equivalency mired in an "us vs them" mentality.
There was no public resistance to the government in the various Islamic nations before the Arab spring. In Lybia and Syria in particular, part of the army had to peel off to form the resistance. Prior to that, the government simply curtailed rights without recourse.
Nope. That ignores the J-curve of expectations. But you're a smart folklore. I'm sure you can figure out that the army being in charge in Egypt and suppressing people for30 years has nothing to do with it. But I guess the Arab spring being a mostly non violent struggle is lost on you yet again.
Had they been mindful to keep themselves armed throughout their histories, there would never have been dictatorship to begin with.
Great revision of history. But you're on a technology site that just saw the effectiveness of nonviolence through the SOPA protests. Your argument is flawed and dangerous.
They were kept from having guns to exploit them, just as the Jews were disarmed in Germany to prepare for the holocaust, just as there is no democracy in most Middle Eastern nations because the government does not allow the general population to have guns. The gun toting people in the streets are government supported.
I don't think you understand how the US has a history of usurping democracies for their own political interests. You're taking a very narrow view of the Middle East that fits your narrative but doesn't fit history. Keep trying though. Here's a hint: look back to the 1950s for why there are no democracies in the Middle East.
All throughout history, people have had to FIGHT to maintain their freedom. It's beyond ignorant to pretend otherwise. Whatever your agenda is, it certainly isn't freedom or any quality of being smarter or better informed than those who disagree with you.
My interest here is to make sure your brand of Tea Party crazy doesn't rub off on others. You aren't interested in a debate which is obvious. You're interested in promoting a gun agenda by trying to make the world fit your agenda. It doesn't. You don't need a gun to change the world which is a key point that readers should take from this. You just need to be Wyoming to challenge the system through better ideas.
You might scoff and laugh. You might decide the government is your enemy. But then you have to come to a realization eventually. The government is made up of people that others elected to carry their agenda. The troops you once supported are now your enemy. And your enemy had the power of drones, incarceration, law, and tanks.
Have fun trying to change the world through the power of a gun when your enemy is better armed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
I'm not the one leading a circular argument.
"Had everyone had a gun, the world would be different"
Everyone doesn't. Not everyone needs one. We need a society without them as we began to have in 1994.
We have mentally ill people killing people with legally obtained guns. The NRA sports gun dealers over gun owners. And you go spouting nonsense about the South shouldn't have been armed or blacks needed guns which was never going to happen when the people were labor to be exploited.
So by all means. If you ever understand history from your fantasy, continue this thread. I'll be right there to explain how ignorant your replies are based on your authoritarian point of view. I'll explain the history to you so that others can see why your view is dangerous and uninformed.
Such is the reason that the nonviolent method of discussion is far preferable to forcing people to agree with a gun to their head.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
You're obviously dancing. Had blacks had guns, obviously, they would not have been slaves any longer
Congratulations on absolutely ignoring history of white militias to come up with a fantasy scenario. Obviously, the Underground Railroad and non violent struggle are a lost example versus the Nat Turner example I keep pointing out.
The 50's and 60's were hardly non violent. It's just that racism had finally died down to the point where a little violent resistance on the part of blacks did not result in mass lynchings.
Congratulations on ignoring the history of Jim Crow and how it lead to race relations today, along with the struggle of leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr in his struggle to expose the hated with the new fangled concept called television. Congratulations on exposing your ignorance of the Black Panther movement that tried violent struggle and the history of imperialism and impoverishment the US has exemplified since the 1850s. I'm glad to know that you are indeed blind to why guns don't solve anything more than the power complex of simple minded individuals. Those without power are the first cowards to pick up guns. You don't understand how nonviolence promotes stronger reactions than violence ever will.
Had someone gone out and shot Leahy over PIPA, it would have passed without incident. But thanks to people understanding that the bill needed to be defeated, people called and fought it.
You sadly won't ever understand that. All you understand is you like guns and look to defend the 2nd Amendment with little knowledge of American history and the tales of guns to force will on others.
Wow.... so if blacks had had guns in the old South it would have made no difference, and according to you there is no link to the Glorious Revolution and the right to bear arms privately
My discussion is based on an article that you refuse to read. Seeing as how the conservatives wanted to keep blacks subjugated, they took guns away and it took the North and the moderate Abraham Lincoln to give blacks some modicum of decency in the South.
The right to bear arms didn't help minority relations in the 1860s. The ones with that power continued to suppress minorities. Which had been one of the points you can't seem to grasp.
Nonviolent struggle has had a far greater impact on race relations than killing people with Nat Turner's methods. The only thing that proved was that if Pierre recognized the class struggle in the US instead of fighting each other, they would fight the rich to push for more equality.
But that all seems far advanced to someone who's entire mission seems to be to remain ignorant of history and spread mistruths.
They were unarmed because of 300 years of being put on boats and the huge diaspora that occurred.
Second, families were split up to take away cohesion and bonds that would form to rise up against others.
Have you not paid attention to any history while going around with your gotcha questions?
PLEASE try to make sense in your next response. You have yet to argue a coherent thought except your own form of extremism coming from an authoritarian point of view.
Ok, he's my senator. But given that he's up for election in 2014 and he had the chance to takeit to Holder on prosecutorial overreach, I know this is mainly a partisan tactic.
Still, for him to open a new level of inquiry and force some new questions into this tragedy, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. This has me raising my level of respect for him.
Yes, he's still wrong about 90% of what he says (judicial activism, Stratfor, big oil, money as speech) but I'll support him on this.
The hardest thing is filling those really big shoes.
I'm older than Aaron, may not be as smart, but damned if fighting for democracy is one of the hardest things to do when American culture is mired in history that can't be ignored.
It's a new year. Let's hope we can carry the spark that Aaron started by fighting to make a difference.
If we are trying to free up information and close the information dissymetry that has occurred in our society, how are we supposed to stop an opportunist from locking up information they don't want shared?
The government has state secrets privileges that run counter to democratic principles. Corporations have bureaucracy that prevents the workers from understanding the workings at the top. And the public isn't given all information. Instead, we punish the ones that print it or muckrake to find out.
So how do you avoid a scientist's work being locked up in any paywall when you have to run up against IP privileges, corporate bureaucracy and governmental bureaucracy?
" How would slavery in America have worked out if blacks had had guns?"
Given the history of those in power using guns to force their will on others, we would have had more rosewood slayings.
Or more Nat Turners...
Or more the Civil War far sooner than in the 1850s and 60s. Which wasn't a part of the argument. You're moving the goalposts to satisfy your own rhetoric.
The rest of what you say is ad hom, used as a ridiculous appeal to emotion instead of any actual statement worth merit.
Hence, why I say you seem adept at the Hamiltonian form of personal attacks on one's character instead of actual arguments.
It's called the "maximilist position" where you are more adept at spring half-truths instead of debates from a reasoned position.
I duck out of nothing. The article supports a view of Patrick Henry who wantedto keep slaves as property. In order to keep that, he forced Madison to rewrite the 2nd Amendment. Slaves could not be emancipated if they were found a way to the north. We had militias that trained people to use guns and find people through the Fugitive Slave Act. And the state kept these people as poor as possible so they couldn't buy their freedom.
Further, bear in mind that this entire notion of a militia is used to keep a police state in power. That's what the article explains.
Now think about how even Jefferson had a dark side. He found a secret formula to slavery that helped him profit. Swirl that all around as you look into the history of our Founding Fathers and their struggle with tyranny. When theywere ones oppressed by the monopoly that was the East India Company, they were up in arms. Yet when they had the power to change it, they didn't create an egalitarian society as evidenced by the Native Americans of the time.
Now think about the 2nd Amendment. Who had the guns and who had the power? The ones in the field picking cotton sure didn't. The ones that created the KKK and created movies like "The Birth of the Nation" sure did. Then, when the power of guns is introduced as a form of protest based on race, suddenly we need gun control again.
I enjoy the Bill of Rights myself. But I have to be honest in its formation. That requires studying our history and learning how our system can be better.
I would propose losing the electoral college since it allows rich barons to control our elections instead of the people.
I propose relating guns for a free society. I propose ending the drug war so people don't have to attain guns and find better jobs.
I propose rewriting the 2nd amendment so that guns can be regulated so that we have fewer than 30,000 deaths to misfired guns at people.
More than anything, I want a more egalitarian society that actually discusses these issues instead of ignoring them when reality shows us why people took certain positions on issues.
I propose we take our government back. We have a government of the rich, bythe , and for the rich.
As I discussed elsewhere, we are having the wrong kind of argument in or politics. We have had a power argument for the last thirty years and its why we have a fetish with guns now.
The power argument is all about who had power over you. There is no power in your workplace. You've lost power in the government by losing your voice in local politics, and you've lost power in how our government treats the people.
So I understand most people's need to feel that they get an ounce of control back in their lives. But therein lies the rub. We have a ton of evidence showing how games don't cause violence and that they aren't needed for a free state.
Australia allows that a gun ban works.
In Israel, the government takes away guns from soldiers over weekends so they aren't suicide risks.
Also the government can and has regulated guns in the past. We should have a massive overhaul of our gun laws by restricting who can keep them. We should promote funding to figure out who has guns and who needs them. Then have then safely stored away. And odds are if we ended the drug war as Colorado and Washington are doing, we would end the need for guns and work to rebuild or democratic principles back.
Instead of the power struggle, we should focus on the class struggle and the disparity of power that our plutocracy had created. That only comes in recognizing what the need for guns is a assumption of: The ills of capitalism.
What we currently have is a very unstable system that rewards the richest among us as makers and the laborers as takers. That is very dangerous. We can't truly be a democracy if money goes to the richest of us through patent wars or copyright that does not incentivize the original owner.
But that type of protest doesn't happen with a gun. It happens through nonviolent actions. That is the key issue. Change works through better alternatives being formed, not through force. I think most people stocking up on ammunition for a fight against the government have lost sight of that.
But that moves away from my point which gnudist chose to ignore. I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment trumps all other amendments. I was very specific in showing the history of our 2nd amendments to promote slavery. The concept of militias to enforce a slave/police state is a very real part of history. The same way that our electoral college gives more power to "cheap labor" states over any other. The cheap labor of the time of Jefferson were slaves. And now, it's "right to work" states. The point is that the ones amassing a gun collection, looking to fight the government and anyone they don't like, are less inclined to defend the rights of others while supporting the 2nd Amendment over all others.
This article epitomizes an issue that I don't think has been discussed before.
Who has power in our society? The DoJ wants the power to prosecute anyone that they want, filter through our emails and look into our private lives to find us guilty of crimes.
Why?
Because then they can crush those that have no power. The intellectuals, the poor, and those that look to change the status quo.
Aaron wasn't the first victim of this power struggle. But it ignores a key issue that isn't being talked about where Aaron fits right in: class.
Kim Dotcom has access to funds for his defense. He's upper class to do so. But Dajaz1, Torrentfinder, and Ninja video are lower class, with less access to a justice system that works for them.
What we've experienced for the last 30 years is a class struggle where the weakest among us are the ones victimized the most.
The main victims of our drug war is minorities, affecting communities by depriving them of workers, disproportionate sentencing, and no access to the government. If Aaron had been found guilty, he would be a felon. And he has nothing. No vote. No more education. No more protesting. Possible inhumane treatment and solitary worse than Bradley Manning.
That is the class struggle going on. And you won't hear about it on the news nor see it in most mainstream publications. But you can see the disparity of justice if you're rich or poor if you watch how we treat a corporation such as Universal versus a person like Aaron or Dotcom.
I fine it really incredible that she can say this.
I followed a case where she had a person locked up for translating what Al Qaeda said on YouTube videos.
For that, Tarek Mehanna was given 17 years. She has a career in being a tough litigator and locking people away for doing nothing more than what is supposed to be protected speech under the Constitution.
One person was locked away for speaking about terrorists.
The other was led to suicide for enriching the public domain.
She should be stripped of her right to prosecute our plea deal, the same as any other prosecutor. The system is rigged against anyone ever having a fair trial and that is beyond a travesty to our democracy.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Beautiful false equivalency mired in an "us vs them" mentality.
There was no public resistance to the government in the various Islamic nations before the Arab spring. In Lybia and Syria in particular, part of the army had to peel off to form the resistance. Prior to that, the government simply curtailed rights without recourse.
Nope. That ignores the J-curve of expectations. But you're a smart folklore. I'm sure you can figure out that the army being in charge in Egypt and suppressing people for30 years has nothing to do with it. But I guess the Arab spring being a mostly non violent struggle is lost on you yet again.
Had they been mindful to keep themselves armed throughout their histories, there would never have been dictatorship to begin with.
Great revision of history. But you're on a technology site that just saw the effectiveness of nonviolence through the SOPA protests. Your argument is flawed and dangerous.
They were kept from having guns to exploit them, just as the Jews were disarmed in Germany to prepare for the holocaust, just as there is no democracy in most Middle Eastern nations because the government does not allow the general population to have guns. The gun toting people in the streets are government supported.
I don't think you understand how the US has a history of usurping democracies for their own political interests. You're taking a very narrow view of the Middle East that fits your narrative but doesn't fit history. Keep trying though. Here's a hint: look back to the 1950s for why there are no democracies in the Middle East.
All throughout history, people have had to FIGHT to maintain their freedom. It's beyond ignorant to pretend otherwise. Whatever your agenda is, it certainly isn't freedom or any quality of being smarter or better informed than those who disagree with you.
My interest here is to make sure your brand of Tea Party crazy doesn't rub off on others. You aren't interested in a debate which is obvious. You're interested in promoting a gun agenda by trying to make the world fit your agenda. It doesn't. You don't need a gun to change the world which is a key point that readers should take from this. You just need to be Wyoming to challenge the system through better ideas.
You might scoff and laugh. You might decide the government is your enemy. But then you have to come to a realization eventually. The government is made up of people that others elected to carry their agenda. The troops you once supported are now your enemy. And your enemy had the power of drones, incarceration, law, and tanks.
Have fun trying to change the world through the power of a gun when your enemy is better armed.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
"Had everyone had a gun, the world would be different"
Everyone doesn't. Not everyone needs one. We need a society without them as we began to have in 1994.
We have mentally ill people killing people with legally obtained guns. The NRA sports gun dealers over gun owners. And you go spouting nonsense about the South shouldn't have been armed or blacks needed guns which was never going to happen when the people were labor to be exploited.
So by all means. If you ever understand history from your fantasy, continue this thread. I'll be right there to explain how ignorant your replies are based on your authoritarian point of view. I'll explain the history to you so that others can see why your view is dangerous and uninformed.
Such is the reason that the nonviolent method of discussion is far preferable to forcing people to agree with a gun to their head.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Congratulations on absolutely ignoring history of white militias to come up with a fantasy scenario. Obviously, the Underground Railroad and non violent struggle are a lost example versus the Nat Turner example I keep pointing out.
The 50's and 60's were hardly non violent. It's just that racism had finally died down to the point where a little violent resistance on the part of blacks did not result in mass lynchings.
Congratulations on ignoring the history of Jim Crow and how it lead to race relations today, along with the struggle of leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr in his struggle to expose the hated with the new fangled concept called television. Congratulations on exposing your ignorance of the Black Panther movement that tried violent struggle and the history of imperialism and impoverishment the US has exemplified since the 1850s. I'm glad to know that you are indeed blind to why guns don't solve anything more than the power complex of simple minded individuals. Those without power are the first cowards to pick up guns. You don't understand how nonviolence promotes stronger reactions than violence ever will.
Had someone gone out and shot Leahy over PIPA, it would have passed without incident. But thanks to people understanding that the bill needed to be defeated, people called and fought it.
You sadly won't ever understand that. All you understand is you like guns and look to defend the 2nd Amendment with little knowledge of American history and the tales of guns to force will on others.
Good luck in your extremism.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
My discussion is based on an article that you refuse to read. Seeing as how the conservatives wanted to keep blacks subjugated, they took guns away and it took the North and the moderate Abraham Lincoln to give blacks some modicum of decency in the South.
The right to bear arms didn't help minority relations in the 1860s. The ones with that power continued to suppress minorities. Which had been one of the points you can't seem to grasp.
Nonviolent struggle has had a far greater impact on race relations than killing people with Nat Turner's methods. The only thing that proved was that if Pierre recognized the class struggle in the US instead of fighting each other, they would fight the rich to push for more equality.
But that all seems far advanced to someone who's entire mission seems to be to remain ignorant of history and spread mistruths.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
They were unarmed because of 300 years of being put on boats and the huge diaspora that occurred.
Second, families were split up to take away cohesion and bonds that would form to rise up against others.
Have you not paid attention to any history while going around with your gotcha questions?
PLEASE try to make sense in your next response. You have yet to argue a coherent thought except your own form of extremism coming from an authoritarian point of view.
On the post: Senator John Cornyn Asks Eric Holder To Explain DOJ Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz
Still, for him to open a new level of inquiry and force some new questions into this tragedy, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. This has me raising my level of respect for him.
Yes, he's still wrong about 90% of what he says (judicial activism, Stratfor, big oil, money as speech) but I'll support him on this.
On the post: Dan Bull's Latest Song: We Are All Aaron Swartz
I'm older than Aaron, may not be as smart, but damned if fighting for democracy is one of the hardest things to do when American culture is mired in history that can't be ignored.
It's a new year. Let's hope we can carry the spark that Aaron started by fighting to make a difference.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
You make less sense the more you post you misleading half-truths.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
You make less sense the more you post you misleading half-truths.
On the post: Scientist Explains Why Putting Research Behind A Paywall Is Immoral
Hold it
If we are trying to free up information and close the information dissymetry that has occurred in our society, how are we supposed to stop an opportunist from locking up information they don't want shared?
The government has state secrets privileges that run counter to democratic principles. Corporations have bureaucracy that prevents the workers from understanding the workings at the top. And the public isn't given all information. Instead, we punish the ones that print it or muckrake to find out.
So how do you avoid a scientist's work being locked up in any paywall when you have to run up against IP privileges, corporate bureaucracy and governmental bureaucracy?
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Given the history of those in power using guns to force their will on others, we would have had more rosewood slayings.
Or more Nat Turners...
Or more the Civil War far sooner than in the 1850s and 60s. Which wasn't a part of the argument. You're moving the goalposts to satisfy your own rhetoric.
The rest of what you say is ad hom, used as a ridiculous appeal to emotion instead of any actual statement worth merit.
Hence, why I say you seem adept at the Hamiltonian form of personal attacks on one's character instead of actual arguments.
It's called the "maximilist position" where you are more adept at spring half-truths instead of debates from a reasoned position.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
He gave guns to everyone but Jews.
What the hell do you know about history other than the Hamiltonian style of ad hom argumentation?
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Further, bear in mind that this entire notion of a militia is used to keep a police state in power. That's what the article explains.
Now think about how even Jefferson had a dark side. He found a secret formula to slavery that helped him profit. Swirl that all around as you look into the history of our Founding Fathers and their struggle with tyranny. When theywere ones oppressed by the monopoly that was the East India Company, they were up in arms. Yet when they had the power to change it, they didn't create an egalitarian society as evidenced by the Native Americans of the time.
Now think about the 2nd Amendment. Who had the guns and who had the power? The ones in the field picking cotton sure didn't. The ones that created the KKK and created movies like "The Birth of the Nation" sure did. Then, when the power of guns is introduced as a form of protest based on race, suddenly we need gun control again.
I enjoy the Bill of Rights myself. But I have to be honest in its formation. That requires studying our history and learning how our system can be better.
I would propose losing the electoral college since it allows rich barons to control our elections instead of the people.
I propose relating guns for a free society. I propose ending the drug war so people don't have to attain guns and find better jobs.
I propose rewriting the 2nd amendment so that guns can be regulated so that we have fewer than 30,000 deaths to misfired guns at people.
More than anything, I want a more egalitarian society that actually discusses these issues instead of ignoring them when reality shows us why people took certain positions on issues.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Proposal
As I discussed elsewhere, we are having the wrong kind of argument in or politics. We have had a power argument for the last thirty years and its why we have a fetish with guns now.
The power argument is all about who had power over you. There is no power in your workplace. You've lost power in the government by losing your voice in local politics, and you've lost power in how our government treats the people.
So I understand most people's need to feel that they get an ounce of control back in their lives. But therein lies the rub. We have a ton of evidence showing how games don't cause violence and that they aren't needed for a free state.
Australia allows that a gun ban works.
In Israel, the government takes away guns from soldiers over weekends so they aren't suicide risks.
Also the government can and has regulated guns in the past. We should have a massive overhaul of our gun laws by restricting who can keep them. We should promote funding to figure out who has guns and who needs them. Then have then safely stored away. And odds are if we ended the drug war as Colorado and Washington are doing, we would end the need for guns and work to rebuild or democratic principles back.
Instead of the power struggle, we should focus on the class struggle and the disparity of power that our plutocracy had created. That only comes in recognizing what the need for guns is a assumption of: The ills of capitalism.
What we currently have is a very unstable system that rewards the richest among us as makers and the laborers as takers. That is very dangerous. We can't truly be a democracy if money goes to the richest of us through patent wars or copyright that does not incentivize the original owner.
But that type of protest doesn't happen with a gun. It happens through nonviolent actions. That is the key issue. Change works through better alternatives being formed, not through force. I think most people stocking up on ammunition for a fight against the government have lost sight of that.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
On the post: Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is
Coming soon
You cried when the gay porn holders sued millions...
Now be prepared this summer for the movie that will have you in stitches...
PRENDA II: HILARITY OF THE COURT
Starring John Steele as himself
Mark Twain as the mysterious Alan Poole
Special guest Morgan Freeman as the narrator
If you are a pirate, watch out! This lawyer hears all and knows enough to keep you begging for sequels.
Coming soon to all torrents everywhere.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Try reading next time.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: This blog amazes me
Here's what I hate. People that ignorantly believe that guns promote a free society. They don't. They enforce a police state. Call it fascism, call it a totalitarian regime, call it whatever you want. But don't call it a need to protect your fellow man.
What every gun nut is protecting is cheap labor. As the article indicates, a "free state" looks to enslave people and force them to produce goods below market prices. It's not uncommon to see that the most extreme gun nuts tend to be the same people that have a problem with immigration or minorities in other areas of politics.
So by all means. Protect your 2nd Amendment rights. It shows me how little you value any other part of the Constitution. You can't value the First amendment because you would shoot anyone that disagrees with you. You can't value the 4th Amendment because you've made it known that your ideal state ignores the rights of their citizens if they happen to be the wrong skin tone.
You must not have high regards for any of the Restoration Amendments since they give power to the weakest citizens in our democracy because they are the ones that need a government to protect them.
No, the only thing in the 2nd Amendment is a fetish for a power lost in the workplace, in your government, and a need to act out that need for control over others through force.
I find that the saddest part in someone valuing the Second Amendment over any other.
On the post: Law Professor James Grimmelmann Explains How He Probably Violated The Same Laws As Aaron Swartz
Power vs. Class
Who has power in our society? The DoJ wants the power to prosecute anyone that they want, filter through our emails and look into our private lives to find us guilty of crimes.
Why?
Because then they can crush those that have no power. The intellectuals, the poor, and those that look to change the status quo.
Aaron wasn't the first victim of this power struggle. But it ignores a key issue that isn't being talked about where Aaron fits right in: class.
Kim Dotcom has access to funds for his defense. He's upper class to do so. But Dajaz1, Torrentfinder, and Ninja video are lower class, with less access to a justice system that works for them.
What we've experienced for the last 30 years is a class struggle where the weakest among us are the ones victimized the most.
The main victims of our drug war is minorities, affecting communities by depriving them of workers, disproportionate sentencing, and no access to the government. If Aaron had been found guilty, he would be a felon. And he has nothing. No vote. No more education. No more protesting. Possible inhumane treatment and solitary worse than Bradley Manning.
That is the class struggle going on. And you won't hear about it on the news nor see it in most mainstream publications. But you can see the disparity of justice if you're rich or poor if you watch how we treat a corporation such as Universal versus a person like Aaron or Dotcom.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
Just a reminder
I followed a case where she had a person locked up for translating what Al Qaeda said on YouTube videos.
For that, Tarek Mehanna was given 17 years. She has a career in being a tough litigator and locking people away for doing nothing more than what is supposed to be protected speech under the Constitution.
One person was locked away for speaking about terrorists.
The other was led to suicide for enriching the public domain.
She should be stripped of her right to prosecute our plea deal, the same as any other prosecutor. The system is rigged against anyone ever having a fair trial and that is beyond a travesty to our democracy.
Next >>