well first off, I think to answer your first point. As with most things, there's a grain of truth to most scandals, but it's distorted, exaggerated and sensationalized.

But here's the thing, I freely acknowledge that I make no claim to understanding the whole topic and I call BS on most people who do. Because of the sorry state of our 4th estate. I assume there is some bias one way or the other in just about everything they report, especially when it's political. You don't trust gov't? I don't trust media. With gov't even people who are just ultimately seeking power, they're typically seeking power because they think they can wield it for good. even if they ultimately do bad things with it. No one wakes up and says "you know what? I'm going to totally use my power to fuck over some people, woo hoo!" Even the most crazed elected official deep down thinks they're trying to help out. or they honestly believe their ideas will ultimately benefit everyone.

meanwhile, with the media, it's just pure profit motive there. give me ratings, give me money.

as for your remaining arguments. I think the whole privacy issue is a bit hypocritical. Whenever you buy something with a credit card, that's a fingerprint that gets left behind that can track you. Whenever you use your smartphone GPS, that's something that can track you. Whenever you use the internet, there are a myriad of technologies all designed around tracking you. all for the sake of selling you something, to extract more money out of you.

..and we accept that, hell we demand it.

But when gov't does it, suddenly it's bad. But they're supposedly using that tracking to catch terrorists. So let's see, catching people who mean to do us harm, or ads and methods to extract money from you. I know which one I'd rather have. Sure, both types of surveillance could be abused, but one we tolerate, the other is not. I think that's rather hypocritical. either it's all bad, or it's not.

I also just tend to think our sense of privacy is exaggerated. (and no I felt this way even when Bush was in power). While I don't agree with the Patriot Act, I do think our fears of surveillance and are outdated and as I explained above, hypocritical. Just like virtually every tool, there are good positive uses for surveillance data, and the tool can be abused as well. That doesn't stop us from using it, we just try to put safeguards in place to try and reduce the incentive to use it for harm.

I think our sense of privacy comes from two things. Either we're doing something we shouldn't be doing..ie illegal or unethical, in that case tough shit. Or we're doing something that we consider embarrassing. In that case you're just being human and really shouldn't be embarrassed about it at all.

lets take two cases. First one: homosexuality. Lets say it was the 80s when most people were still quite firmly in the closet. and bam. because of no more privacy, everyone was instantly outed. no more hiding. Everyone knows. People would be forced to accept it. Even though they would be in the minority, there would be just too many people out to dismiss it anymore. You couldn't lock them up or ostracize them without committing holocaust-level atrocities.

Same thing with my 2nd case, marijuana. If it were suddenly possible to know each and every person who ever smoked. It would force the issue out in the open. You couldn't lock them all up as there would be too many. Even if you could, it would be a huge hit to our workforce and our families. We'd be forced to re-evaluate it and legalize it.

it would be impossible to commit physical abuse if there was no privacy.

In many ways, our views on sexuality and privacy are SO puritanical. In the long run things would be so better if we could just get it out there in the open and thus solve problems and help.

I get what you're saying about corruption and power. but historically speaking, ANY time there has been widespread corruption and abuse of power, it's always been stamped out in some way. It has to be. corruption and abuse of power are ultimately unsustainable and it eventually falls apart and gives way to something better that is sustainable. otherwise we wouldn't have survived this long.

If enough people are wronged, they WILL do something about it. If things were REALLY that bad here in America. There wouldn't be pundits talking about revolution and tyranny. There WOULD be revolution and tyranny.

Talk. is. cheap.

If his rights were being violated, why didn't he pull out his gun and defend them AS IT IS WRITTEN? That's where the 2nd amendment fails IMO...or at the very least, that's where people fail. We hear the hard liners whining non-stop that they think they live in a tyrannical gov't (despite being elected by the people) Where are the revolts then? Where are the 2nd Amendment remedies? In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. Where is that willingness to kill and to die in order to preserve liberty? Or are you just talking the talk but when push comes to shove, even the hardliners accept that they don't know what actual tyranny is.

In all honesty though, the audio was so shitty I didn't hear the specific exchange that got the official so pissed off. It seemed like he was being kicked out simply because he was getting too loud or he mouthed back to the official. So yeah, I can agree that he probably didn't deserve to be kicked out. Was it an offense? yep. But it was a trivial offense and BOTH sides should have handled it better. It seemed awful petty of the official for that one thing to set him off. But hey, the activist should have been on his best behavior too. You're representing other people, so represent them well. You don't have to like the person in office, but respect the office nonetheless.

Just seemed like both sides were being childish. Yay two party system!

We're all doing something about this, it's called getting old and dying. Things don't last forever so any notion that tyranny will prevail will last til death.

It does NOT MATTER one bit if guns are regulated or not during a war. This is not about war, this is about trying to protect people from crazy shits and accidents during 'peacetime'. Obviously, if tyranny happened, and there was mass fear in the populace of this or any country, people find a way to stand up and fight back. Guns will be apart of that, and will be a big part. But these regulations that they are trying to put in place have nothing to do with 'surrendering to big brother'.

I completely understand the idea that this can be a 'slippery slope' that will eventually ban all guns and turn us into slaves... somehow. BUT I have a hope in my heart that most of humanity actually is human, and caring of others. We as a species have survived before the gun and after the gun. Unfortunately I can't say that about alot of the other species.

more strawman arguments.

no one has ever said "it couldn't happen." There is no one who thinks that America is magically immune to usurpation.

Here's the thing about that though. there are these wonderful things called warning signs and evidence. indications that we're heading down that road or at the very least THINKING about heading down that road.

none of which has happened yet. And sorry, Republicans losing a couple of elections isn't one of those warning signs...except for the extreme tinfoil hat wearer's in your group.

There are absolutely zero indications that the gov't is trying to confiscate all weapons or become tyrannical. Quite honestly, I don't think most people in America even know what real tyranny is. Having an election and your guy losing isn't tyranny.

When you have actual evidence, maybe the rest of the world will listen. Till then, you're a bunch of paranoid lunatics who are actually more likely to hurt a loved one with a gun than an actual "bad guy"

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience...."

clearly there can be no realistic compromise i will take joy as you use your gun to shoot a virus you cant see, or to force a doctor to use their training to save someone you shot on accident, and other scenarios where having a gun doesn't mean shit if you dont have other people to help you.... lets all shoot ourselves, you first!

Thanks for the heads-up. In return you should be aware every news outlet of the American enemedia save FOX and the Wall Street Journal is an obedient, water-carrying shill for taxocrat party tyranny.

Your wish is my command-O Canada, so close to us yet so far in histories shared, how hast ye benefit from the crown?? Please, enlighten us all as to the freedom from such tyrannies and the general, "Fuck you in the ass should you try to stop the gears of the machine," that the rest of the planet must endure under such great the boot-heal....

At least you have more wilderness to disappear into..

http://www.chicagonow.com/opinion-youth-america/2012/02/direct-popular-vote-v-the-electoral-college/

I've already mentioned a few of the things the article talks about, but the main thing IMO is that we're not just a nation of people, we're a nation of states. The president needs to win not just the people, but the states as well and the EC represents that.

If we decided elections by direct popular vote, rural areas would be completely fucked and the east and west coasts' interests would dominate every election.

I may lean left, but that is NOT how I want to win elections. The nation is already moving leftwards anyway without a direct popular vote so there is just no reason to manipulate the vote like that.

If the population of this nation was spread evenly throughout the country, a direct popular vote might work better, but that's just not the situation is it.

It's another one of those things, like flat tax, where it SOUNDS like a great idea, but when you put it to the test, it just doesn't really work out. Simple ideas don't solve complex situations, and we need to step past that way of thinking if we're going to progress.

It's the same reason rational people laugh when the gun nuts talk about how we need guns to defend against tyranny. Sure tyranny is a very real possibility when you have a monarch, but our government was designed with that in mind. Our gov't is specifically designed to make it hard for tyranny to thrive. You have to have a lot of people on board in order for gov't to make a significant change. Sure it may be slow and inefficient sometimes, but that's a small price to pay for liberty.

Like I said initially though, I do think the EC needs to be tweaked a bit and go to split vote, but the problem of gerrymandering needs to be solved first, before that will work.

Your talk of "the present climate" is intriguing. What present climate exists for the most powerful nation and military force that has ever existed? You see American citizens are so absolutely terrified of everything that it's just gotten ridiculous. People believe that the Chinese are going to attack any minute, that Iran is off our coast with a nuclear weapon. Usually these threats exist coming from those who have our boot on their necks. The disparity of force is mind blowing.

I'm sorry but we are not in need of protection like this. We go around the world supporting terror and tyranny and you say that's for the greater good? I don't believe so, but it's interesting the way you say it, many people believe that we are somehow just about to be strangled by some crazy powerful threat. It's a part of a lot of literature, I suggest you look into the long history of fear in the US...it's not dissimilar to the German public and their fear of Jews that was dredged up.

too bad we don't have some way of...collectively deciding who will lead and be our voice on a periodic basis

oh wait...

When a vote doesn't go the way you wanted it to, That's not tyranny, quite the opposite in fact

You'll have your chance again in a few years

"don't lump me in with Alex Jones"

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHA!

So if our government magically becomes tyrannical, they would obviously remove the 2nd amendment correct?

So if there is no second amendment and guns have been confiscated does this magically stop you from stealing/hiding/stockpiling guns and revolting anyway? Or do you just sit on your thumbs and accept the tyranny cursing "damnit! they revoked the 2nd amendment, we were so close to revolting too!"

And if our gov't becomes tyrannical in the right wing fanatic's fantasy world, how does your AR-15 plan on dealing with Apache helicopters? and F-22s? and laser guided munitions, and bunker busters...or SEAL teams?.

When has the lack of a 2nd amendment stopped anyone from revolting against an oppressive gov't?

If you're going to successfully revolt against a tyrannical 21st century America, you;re going to need at the very least"

1) popular support: in other words, if the guy you voted for doesn't win the election, that's not tyranny. Call me when we stop having elections, then you might have a stronger case for tyrannical govt. paying higher taxes isn't tyranny. Sorry.

2) military support: sorry, your cache of small arms, shotguns, and rifles (assault or otherwise) aren't going to cut it. you're going to need many military units to defect and oppose the government. And guess what, the commander of these units that defect will in all likelihood be leading said revolt, not the right wing pundits and chicken hawks (they'll be too busy cowering in the bomb shelters) and it won't be your "patriotic" militia wannabe survival nut.

3) lots of computer nerds and cyber warfare. Sorry son, the era of the jock is over. The world is digital now bitches. bits can be more powerful than bullets in today's world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. the 2nd Amendment is largely symbolic and nothing more. It basically says that yes, the populace has the right to be armed (something both sides agree with, the degree of which is debatable but I'll get to that in a moment) and that *IF* the government gets tyrannical you aught to revolt

As for what kind of weapons should be allowed. If you acknowledge that its reasonable to keep nuclear arms, and military vehicles and planes and other heavy weapons and firearms out of civilian hands, then you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendments DOES have it's limits. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment. Muskets were the pinnacle of weapons technology. Everyone was allowed to have them. So if you acknowledge that in TODAY'S world, that there are certain firearms that civvies shouldn't have, then you acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't think of everything and times do, in fact, change

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

Nice thought. Only it is contra every recent instance of tyranny and makes no sense in a nation of 300+ million with a seemingly endless supply of those to the south of the border wanting entry and willing to literally work in the vegetable plantation.

But, whatever keeps the fear alive I guess. Terrorism has grown so passée.

A tyrant that wants to keep you alive and healthy!!

Sic semper tyrannis!!