You need to be specific, because your response can be taken two ways.
Are you talking about the measured Palestinian response to Israeli state sponsored rocket and heavy weapon fire on civilians?
I also can't imagine a country putting up with the treatment the Palestinians have endured since the invaders shoved them into the (constantly shrinking, and increasingly ruined) ghetto they live in today without retaliating, and considering the statistics on casualties, and the continuing expansion of Israel, it's clear who benefits from continuing the conflict and who suffers.
In the last 15 years, there's been little to no military action from the Palestinian government (the dumbfire rockets are basically home made model rockets) but there's been constant deadly action from Israel inside what's left of Palestine, and constant expansion by "settlers" (armed invaders with the military's backing).
Considering the history, nuking the entire region seems like a measured response to me...At least better than the status quo (if you're Palestinian). ;-)

EDIT: OK, I finally read the link, and see you were agreeing at least in part, with the above.

a guess based on very little information:

he was shooting at an abstract, at a proxy for the system and source of a pervasive and ubiquitous fear, at the protectors of the very thing that is causing a lot of the suffering and senseless death within his community. it was clearly an act of desperation and the really sad part is no one will ever consider any of that and no one will ever be able to say any of that in public and so this act of desperation becomes another piece of the narrative of apologetics to maintain the status quo. a reciprocal of the bullshit "bad apples" argument that gets repeated ad nauseam.

while this op ed is thoughtful and considered, it isn't thoughtful enough, imo. but no one is allowed to consider the motivation for this act of desperation to be legitimate.

What's going to be really shit if Trump wins is that it will be blamed on Sanders.

He's campaigning for all the right reasons and he's trying to move politics along, away from the stale and shitty status quo. Good things will only happen if people really work for them.

But so much of the media and the democratic party seem to want to keep their cushy status quo that they'll spin this out as his fault for trying to be disruptive. The public will lap it all up and progressives wil become a thing to hate, to be scared of.

It'll be shit.

The rep version wasn't too bad.

Basically the status quo, but would get the person flagged onto LE radar along with a 3 day delay.

Doesn't crap too hard on innocent people, while at least drawing attention... in case attention is needed.

All in all a decent compromise, given that the watch list is packed full of innocent people that were robo-flagged.

-scheherazade

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

Oh, but if only there was someone qualified to disqualify him.

...if only.

...but there isn't, and now we have to hope the hoi polloi figure out the difference between his dangerously qualified, and her merely status-quo-corrupt qualified.

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.

Agreed.
The GOP used to stand for small government.

If Government went back to its original intent then yes it would be smaller and less wasteful.

The feed back loop will always be there but at least with a small government it would be less.

I truly back Ted Cruz for this reason.

Trump and Sanders represents the total frustration of the people towards government.

Sanders will lean towards bigger government control and more "people" controlling companies. I don't thing that is a good thing.

OBAMA has only brought social change. That does not put food on the table.

Trump will do well, but well at what I do not know. One who actually runs an empire He knows that efficiency and getting a good deal at the table is a good thing.

I think he will truly put Americans first. AT least first than Clinton.

Government is run by big business. You need a leader with big balls and a force to recon with to be able to change the status quo. Trump could possibly do this. Bernie and Hillary could not.

@newtboy -- "It's sickening that this is who the Democrats want to put up against Trump, knowing full well that she'll be indicted <1 month before the election, and knowing that she polls terribly against Trump, while Bernie has no scandals in either his past or in the pipeline AND polls exponentially better than Clinton VS Trump. I can't fathom why they're throwing this election away. Can they really be that stupid?"

The more I think about it, the more I venture into "vast conspiracy" territory. The key question is who stands to gain MORE by having Hillary be the president than they stand to LOSE if she loses to Trump? Status quo, establishment Democrat elites, that's who. If Hillary wins, they win -- she is one of them. If Trump wins, they still win, because they feel comfortable betting that Trump will screw things up bad enough to push huge numbers of independents and moderate Republicans to the Democrat side for years to come.

The scary part is that when you think about it, it seems like a quite rational play from their perspective...

At about 9:54, the dude on the right asks:
"But why are you assuming that we would find out about it [something / anything shady] then [just before the general election]?"

Because that is when it would cause the most damage, duh. It is well possible that some parties on the right already have something, considering that Guccifer probably DID hack into her server. If any such people DO have anything (or if they get anything new), they are well motivated to hold their cards until revealing them would have the most impact -- ie., AFTER she's locked up the nomination, but just BEFORE the general election.

Cenk and other democrats are 100% right to be absolutely terrified by this. I don't know that I think it is *likely*, but the democrat establishment just glossing over it seems bizarre and shortsighted.

Also, I seriously doubt that Biden would ever attempt to pick up Clinton's hypothetical fumble and run away after the DNC. I figure the GOP bigwigs that are suggesting it just want to make it look like the democrat side is in just as much disarray as the republican side.

But if either party actually does any "contested convention" shenanigans, all they will accomplish is to bring up serious and legitimate questions about their legitimacy within their core base of supporters. This election is proving that large segments of BOTH parties are NOT going to be blindly loyal to their party line and the status quo. In that environment, pushing their luck by inserting some handpicked golden child as their candidate would be suicidally stupid for either party.

Great point at the end by Cranston: "Maybe it's time for a viable 3rd party."

I doubt there has ever been a more golden opportunity for a 3rd party to rise up than right now. Certainly not in living memory.

Half of registered republicans think that Trump is some sort of folk hero in the making. Nearly everybody else thinks that he would be a disaster of near-Biblical proportions. He might get a decent amount of votes from that crowd by people who "just want to watch the world burn", but still. Meanwhile, nearly everybody (including democrats) thinks that Hillary is a sleazy, status-quo politician. Her "supporters" think that she has the best chance of preventing President Trump -- apparently they don't trust polls that show Bernie Sanders being a much more palatable option for everyone, specifically in the sense that he'd easily beat Trump whereas Clinton vs Trump is neck and neck.

Basically, anyone who runs for a third party in this election stands a fantastic chance of doing better than one or both of the presumptive nominees from the two major parties. Jesse Ventura would get a LOT of serious attention in this election. Any other election, probably not so much -- but right now...

I dunno... as much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly, that showed a pretty encouraging amount of self-awareness and savvy comprehension of some of the root issues that are tearing the Republican party apart.

And the Democrat party establishment better be taking notes, because plenty of their base are upset about the same sorts of problems with the system. Next time, the "nightmare candidate" that the status-quo-loving party elites just can't shake off might be on the Democrat side...

Try is right and Bernie is not it.

Cruz and Trump will lead America out of Democrat failure.

Education-- 50+ years of democrat control.. Failed

Santa Clause Bernie is incapable of changing the status quo.
Same goes for Hillary.

I wish I had her faith in the delegates switching their vote, but when 70% of votes go to Bernie (Washington state) yet NONE of the state's super delegates (all elected officials mind you) cast for Bernie, you have to wonder if they really are a safeguard against despotism or simply a means of protecting a party's status quo.

We didn't learn during Prohibition that you can't force people to stop trying to seek escape or pleasure through substance abuse.

Now there are so many agencies and officials getting money from the 'war' that they will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.