Indeed, but the great bulk of people ("the masses") have almost never cared. They are going about their daily lives, trying to earn a living, and so on. That the distant government is suppressing others is usually of little concern to them. Nearly all revolutions are initiated and led by elites...I see no reason to expect this to different in "Techno-Revolution."
Yes, It is indeed surprising that more revolutions are not perpetrated by a large proportion of the population, although normally of course it is the case that once the ball is set rolling by a small group the rest of the sheeple join in, safety in numbers. This is of course mentioned in "the theory of oligarchival collectivism", the "sub-book" in Orwells 1984, where he mentions the impossibility of the proles rebelling because they are too concerned with the drudgery of their own lives to understand or care about the greater issues at stake within a society.
Also, the "boiling a frog slowly" metaphor comes to mind...most people have little idea how the vise has tightened. And in the case of "gun rights," most Americans are apparently of the opinion that their lives will be safer if all guns are banned.
Of course, nearly all guns are banned in the UK now, this did not directly affect me as I rarely used to shoot handguns, preferring rifle and shotgun. The assumption that this will save a large number of lives is false of course, the government, when justifying this (which really wasn`t needed as the population at large were calling for banning of guns anyway), cited the statistic that more murders are commited with licensed guns than illegal ones, of course, if someone wants to murder someone they will always find a way, whether it is obtaining a gun illegally or using another weapon of some kind. Really though this is irrelevant, this is why I objected to a number of the points raised at the time along the lines of "such a ban will be innefective", of course it will, but that is really not the point. The right to own a gun is a fundamental one, guns are one of our last levels of protection against government.
(Which may be true, if _all_ guns were banned. Speaking hypothetically. And not necessarily proven (knives are notoriously effective, too, so it's not at all clear that violent deaths would diminish much.) But not all guns could ever be banned, and criminals would then have a major advantage of the defenseless.
This is the case in the UK, where the carrying of ANY weapon by a member of the public (even something completely defensive, such as a can of mace) is illegal. I don`t recall particular instances, but I do remember several instances of people being prosecuted for assult when they had been defending themselves.
And there's the little matter of reimbursing folks like me for the value of our guns, our reloading supplies, our gun magazines and books, and our "invested time." In other words, they want to take my guns, acquired legally, they'd better be prepared to remimburse me what I think all this stuff is worth (which they won't), and guarantee that criminals won't have guns (which they can't).
After the Hungerford killings in about 1985 (when Michael Ryan killed about 10 to 20 civilians with a collection of rifles) the UK government banned all automatic rifles and other weapons like Uzi`s etc... Many of those who had their guns stolen by the state after this have still not been compensated (as if that made any difference). We are under assult from the state in all respects, self defence is the only option.
This is all separate from the clear language of the Second, of course. "When only cops have guns, how do you kill the cops who need killing?" (As some surely do, as the various cases of justifiable self-defense against cops, rogue or otherwise, make clear.)
Indeed, how is it always that the state justifies the behaviour of their employees (ie. our employees) by describing them as "rogue cops"... Presumably a state authorised beating of an anarchist or other politically undesirable person is justifiable, but a white cop beating up a black man is completely inexcusable...
I don't know how it is the UK, but in the US it's fairly easy to have someone committed "for psychiatric evaluation" (observation). A Santa Cruz County Sherriff's Deputy told me once on the phone that my opinions could indicate that I was of unstable mind...his clear hint to me was that he could have me committed for a 48-hour stay in one of the local psychiatric prisons^H^H^H^H^H^H hospitals.
I remember a few years ago being refused a shotgun licence because I had been "evaluated", it did not seem to concern the firearms division of the police force that I had been declared totally sane and "normal" after this "evaluation" (which, incidentally, only took the psychiatrist around 20 minutes). As usual, the reason I was under suspicion at the time was because of my political opinions and because of some comments I had made. When I re-applied the next year I was granted a licence, presumably they felt that at the time, when the police had to give a reason for refusing a certificate, they could not win a court challenge. I have my suspicions that when my certificate comes up for renewal (next couple of years I think) it will be revoked. Now of course the police do not even have to give a reason why they refused a certificate so it is next to impossible to challenge a decision in court.
Why would he do this? Well, in California one loses all rights to own guns for some period of time after such a pyschiatric commitment, regardless of the final determination. (I don't have a URL handy on this, but it's widely discussed in the guns rights groups.)
I`m sure this is the same in the UK, although I cannot be 100% certain, of course my "evaluation" did not take the form of a proper commital to a mental institution so I was able to obtain a shotgun licence shortly after.
(I'm a believer that basic constitutional rights should not be taken away, even for convicted criminals, except insofar as the actual punishment requires. Thus, an imprisoned man loses his rights to move freely, of course, and perhaps rights related to this (gun ownership, obviously!). But once released, he should not lose his voting rights (which happens to convicted felons), gun ownership rights (ditto, for most felonies, as I recall), and so on. What would we think if a released prisoner lost his First Amendment rights? Or his Fourth, or Fifth? Etc. (Don't laugh, many of these rights are already lost. Some in the process of parole, some even after parole ends.)
Absolutely, this is why I dislike the actions many states are taking against convicted paedophiles of informing people in the area they move to once released from jail. I believe that this is merely a form of speech so if the individual state employees choose to do this on their own time I have no problem with it, but using taxpayer money to persecute people who have served their punishment already leaves me with a bad feeling.
By the way, one of the advantages of the huge number of things which are now felonies gives to the authorities is the ability to pile on a horrendous number of charges, some of which may "stick." This gives prosecutors bargaining power for pleas, so that they can get convictions without length trials.
This is observable all over the world now. There are, of course, two distinct advantages for the state in having such a large number of felonies, the first is what you mention above, the second that if the state chooses to fuck someone over they can always find some law they have broken, just about everyone is guilty of some felony or another.
Hmm, I don`t think this is really relevant though, it makes no difference whether the discussions are theoretical or practical, they are still valid discussions.
I agree with this point. Lucky was wrong to imply there's a difference in speech rights between "theoretical" and other forms of speech. A crime is a crime, of course, but talking about desirable courses of action, political outcomes, and so on is of course protected speech.
(Discussions which are actual criminal conspiracies is a touchy issue, and is a marginal area of the law, as near as I can tell. But essentially all discussions are protected unless strong evidence is presented that a crime is being plotted, and even then the speech is usually protected. Discussing tax evasion strategies, for example, has not been successfully prosecuted (per se), in any cases I am familiar with. And as Duncan noted, even sedition is hard to prove.)
From a legal point of view I`m sure it is criminal in the UK to be involved in the plotting of any crime. From an ethical and moral point of view I really see no crime in even the direct plotting of, for example, murder, even if you draw up the plans and actual details of the crime. To me, the act of agression is perpetrated by A. The murderer himself, and B. If it was a hit, the people that hired him.
I have problems with people with auxhilliary roles, like getaway driver etc, as I believe although they commit no direct act of agression they participate in an active sense in the commision of the crime. This is where innocence in conspiracy moves onto shaky ground. However, I have no problem at all with saying I believe no speech, no matter how specific and intended to facilitate or discuss commision of a crime, is wrong.
I could not begin to aspire to your collection of rifles and other defensive weapons Tim, but I too have been placing keys to my gun cabinet and shells in convenient places for quick access at one of those "4am black clad ninja just burst through my front door" moments.
It's a sad state of affairs when the police increasingly resort to the 4 a.m. Nomex-hooded, no-warnings-issued SWAT-type raids. Readers may recall the many stories of innocents killed when they were shocked out of deep slumber by "flash-bangs" thrown into their bedrooms and the sudden appearance of black-clad ninja raiders.
I personally see no difference between the police breaking into my house and anyone else doing the same. If I see someone about to attack me I will defend myself by any means necessary. If that means I kill a cop, well that`s a bonus point.
Notable example: the Malibu doctor suspected--wrongly, it turns out--of growing pot on his ranch. He and his wife were startled by the ninjas bursting into their bedroom. The doctor reached for a handgun in his nightstand and was sprayed with 9mms from the Heckler and Kock MP-5s of the raiders. The estate of the doctor is currently suing the LA County Sheriff's Department and other agencies, but you know how those things go. I know I shock a lot of people by saying this, but I think those involved in the raid should be tried on murder charges and, if found guilty, executed promptly. And if the court system won't do this, which it obviously won't, then the alternative is <CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED>.
This is quite right, the police had no right to be in his house as he had commited no ethical crime, therefore he merely attempted to defend himself against people who had broken into his house. If they then shot him they are guilty of murder, no question about it. If the government want a "war on drugs" they can expect a real war, where the enemy fight back. All of those fortunate enough to be living someone where they are legally entitled to obtain defensive weapons, Lock and load. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"