Mark Blyth is my third favorite Scot, right after two brothers who are dear friends of mine. After his famous interview for Athens Live, every video of his released by the Watson Institute has pretty much been a must-watch, particularly his takes on "The Deplorables" and the Front Nationale.

I got his book "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" after it was praised heavily over at NakedCapitalism 3-4 years ago -- to me, there is no bigger compliment for an economist than praise by Yves and the commentariat over at NC.

His takes on the mercantilism of Germany are among the best, and by far the clearest. Bill Mitchell had some great pieces on it as well, but Blyth's capacity for facilitating understanding of these concepts is on a different level entirely.

So do I disagree with him on parts of his economic analysis? Yes, but only on the fringes where MMT/functional finance is concerned.

Check out the companion talk to his book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

And a recent bit:
https://youtu.be/vGiHiZyKuAE?t=43m2s (juicy, this one)

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

*ban
Excess Capacity Solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxuhvg6lY_Y

Mutually assured destruction I think is often woefully overlooked as a stabilising force in the world.

I don't think it's at all a co-incidence that since nuclear proliferation we have only seen wars vs non nuclear nations. You can never really win meaningfully vs a nation that has the thermo-nuclear trump card in their back pocket.

When superpowers come to blows now, proxy wars are the only realistic option. That may still suck for the poor bastards that get caught up with it, but it does mean a world war is somewhat off the table (even if they like to rattle the sabres from time to time).

Also Starship troopers is an oft misunderstood book I think. Some people get so hung up on the underlying idea of a Military dictatorship that they miss much of the nuance and wisdom woven into it.
I'm not even sure Heinlein was even necessarily advocating such a world, but rather using it as a narrative device to explore how our societies really work once you drop the wishful pretences (especially the stable ones).

It seems like there is perhaps some intrinsic relationship between peace and the capacity for effective and controlled violence. There are few people as calm and non aggressive as the ones who truly know they have nothing to fear from you in a fight.

If I remember correctly, the band made it out the back. I can't remember if they were convicted or if so, of what, but they sure should have been. Pyro in a tiny club like that with no fire protection and seemingly at least double capacity sure spells 100 counts of manslaughter in my eyes.
*terrible, absolutely terrible. I should have skipped this one.

*promote

i would like to say a few things.

first,
i would personally like to welcome my anti-war democrats back to the party.it appears it only took voting in the worlds most successful used car salesmen and professional internet troll to get you fuckers to get off the bench.

saved a seat for ya!../pats seat

second,
while i can admire this woman's passion and self righteous indignation,i refuse to accept her moral condescension,because for all her flowery and bombastic condemnation of anyone who voted for trump was a vote for:racism,sexism,bigotry and hatred,and implies she has deep understanding the motivations for voting trump.

i submit that she does not.
i submit that she is a hypocrite.

i submit that while she decries her anger and outrage at the moral ineptitude of her fellow americans for failing to rebuke an obviously unqualified candidate,who openly used racist and sexist rhetoric to appeal to our most base fears and anxieties.

she was missing the main point.the main reason.

so while she stood upon her ivory tower aghast at the horror unfolding in front of her on election night,she STILL did not get it.

she watched in horror as her fellow americans ignored trumps obvious racism.
ignored the sexism.
ignored the proto-fascist verbiage.
ignored the narcissism and petty tantrums.
ignored pretty much everything leading an election night into the surreal and absurd.

because she didn't get it,and obviously STILL doesn't get it.

because voting trump was not a vote for:racism,sexism,bigotry or hatred.
a vote for trump was a "fuck you" vote.
a trump vote was a "no confidence" vote.

now of course there are those who are racists,and sexist and are most certainly bigots and hateful fuckheads..of course.

and there are those who are diehard rightwing republicans...of course.

but the majority of those who voted trump are NOT those people.the majority of americans have..for forty fucking years..tried to utilize a system to counter correct the political establishment only to get fucked in the ass by the very same system they were trying to correct.

you can go look for yourselves.it looks like a clock pendulum.swinging dem and then back to repub and then back again.

and what did the american people get?
nothing.
nada.
zip.
zilch.

they got:
expanding wars.
stagnant wages and jobs.
higher taxes.
higher living costs.
drone strikes and secret prisons.
a two tiered justice system.
private prisons.
debt peonage.

and a government bought and paid for by:big banks,wall street,military industrial complex and multi-national corporations.

all this while the american middle class fell off the map into poverty and working poor.

so while those who voted trump may be politically unsophisticated,they are most certainly not dumb.

they got it.
and they finally understood that the system that they had been raised to believe was "by the people,for the people" no longer functioned at that capacity.

so the very same people who voted for obama and his "hope and change" campaign.
voted trump.
the people who had become politically engaged by the message that sanders brought to the table,either stayed home,or voted trump.

this was a protest vote.
plain and simple.

your fellow americans just nuked the system.
because it was the SYSTEM that was corrupt and no longer was functioning.

i find their choice just as terrifying as you do,but i have to admire the audacity to just nuke the entire system.

but can you really blame them?
they tried for decades to course correct,but the two party dictatorship had a stranglehold,and they served not 'we the people" but money and power.so our fellow americans utilized their one power given to them by the constitution.

and the hypocrisy here is that when bush was in office the left was losing their shit,and rightly so,but when obama was in office all we heard was crickets....and a disturbing silence from the left.(i realize this is an over generalization.there of course was some noise coming from the left).

and this woman is so out of touch that she is convinced that voting trump was a social issue matter?

i am sorry sweetheart,but some things are just not that simple,and condescending from your ivory tower,prattling on about social constructs as if you have been given some moral authority to judge others,only serves to solidify your own tiny and secluded echo chamber.where everybody can smell their own farts and pat themselves on the back for how clever they are,without ever having to critically examine ones own position.

which just means that she will never..ever..get it.

that is my .02 anyways.
take it for what it is worth.

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

Well, to be fair, we don't have any real idea of the living conditions on planets in nearby systems that are roughly earth sized. We haven't been able to detect them until the last few years, and most of those are orbiting too close to the sun (because those are the easiest to detect), and getting any kind of real idea of their atmospheres is currently unavailable. There could be several systems with habitable planets within 30 ly, we just don't know yet. We are improving our capacity to detect these every year, so perhaps by the time we have colonized Mars, we should have a few viable extra-solar earthlike planetary candidates to send probes. Still would be another 50-100+ years after sending probes to receive back enough data to justify sending colonists. Hopefully by then our tech has matured enough to make it possible, and the war with Mars has settled down enough.

Clearly, you don't understand how guns work.

But then, I'm not really surprised as you have the intellectual capacity of a particularly slow rock.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

"Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)"

Well, it's now off topic, but still equally detached from the statement that followed.


I could say "because kids sports helps child development, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear sports equipment".

So, would it then be that only sports teams can have sports equipment? Only children? Only young children?
Or how about people (i.e. multiple persons) can bare sports equipment, just so if/when they want to teach their kids to play and put them on a team, they have that ability?

Honestly, it sounds more like a rule that is in place to preserve a specific capacity, and less like a rule in place to assign a restricted use.
Otherwise, it would make more sense to replace 'the people' with 'kids sports teams' and make it particular to a restricted use. There's no need to even mention the people.




Ok, I think we read around each other.

I though that earlier you had said that Hamilton was in opposition to the idea of the lesser "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education" - which confused me because I thought that Hamilton was in favor of a "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education".
And now I see you actually meant the same thing I wrote.

-scheherazade

Then you end up with people taping mags together and reloading within a second or so.
Even faster if they count shots and stop firing at capacity-1 before reloading.
There are work-arounds...




Realistically, the end game of the political left is a gun ban + confiscation. The end game of the political right is total gun deregulation.
Each side needs something to argue to excuse their existence, so they will argue in their direction so long as there is anything left to argue, and those are the natural consequences.
Gridlock is literally the best thing that can happen for folks in the middle.




Syria isn't the best example. The people were not armed, and they turned to foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. They invited and gave shelter to all sorts of foreign militants to fight against their government, and made a mess of things. They would have been better off with a home-grown insurgency.

Not like a home grown insurgency would have done much good either way. The Syrian Arab spring was a democratic call for ... Islamic law. It originated in Hama, where an earlier Islamic insurgency was put down (the muslim brotherhood) by Assad's father. Half the country didn't support the insurgency against Assad, and anyone who is non-muslim or secular, or even moderate, is sitting on Assad's side of the country hoping he holds out.

But generally speaking, insurgency with small arms is what defeats occupiers over time. Not in pitched battles, but by making occupation so expensive and tedious that the occupier loses interest over time.


-schehearazde

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