OK, all you anti-gun liberal types out there

[unixronin]

(Not meaning to imply that all liberals are anti-gun, by the way.  I'm just talking to the "Ew, Guns Are Icky" set here.)

Remember all the times we evil gun-totin', NRA-decal-displayin' gun nuts have said that the Second Amendment is the most important of all the amendments, because it protects all the rest?

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

Yeah, yeah, I know; it says it's only for use against gangs and only in "safe zones".  But as metahacker points out, the devil is in the details.  Surely you folks remember "designated free-speech zones", right....?  Remember the first rule of legislation:  Any law, no matter how clear its original intent, sooner or later succumbs to "mission creep".

"Yeah, I know this law was passed for X.  But we're already using it for Y.  Why don't we use it for Z as well?  I bet we could, especially in front of Judge J."

Speaking of which...

mazianni found these two articles on the 9th Circus's ruling that US border agents can search laptops and other personal electronic devices for evidence of crimes without a warrant or cause.  Once again, "security" trumps liberty, and another little piece of the Fourth Amendment is whittled away.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  ...Unless we want to.

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Sure, like the Patriot Act was only ever used to go after terrorists.
And RICO was only ever used to go after organized crime syndicates.
And asset forfeiture was only ever used to keep drug kingpins from using their ill-gotten gains to hire hot-shot lawyers.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

oh, let's take it allllll the way back to unions, sedition, Salt Lake City. or even the whiskey rebellion. There's nothing particularly new about american governments, be they local, state, or federal, trying to go totalitarian.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

As previously pointed out, and as recognized by some of the Great And Astounding Founding Fathers, this ain't new. Government loves to enslave.

In fact, the last 60-80 years have seen a net gain in free speech and assembly rights. But we're not at the peak of the curve and aren't making gains as fast as we're suffering losses.

Were I to bring firearms into it, I'd argue that the defense of the society against external threat AND INTERNAL tyranny is the only real abiding purpose I can accept for the second amendment. Agreed there.

Unfortunately, in my experience with the pro gun crowd I've run into a few basic types that really don't give me much in the way of positive hopes:

There's the LEO/security/outgun-the-badguys crowd that really wants to have bigger and badder weapons than The Enemy Down the Street (which apparently, according to fun stories from friends, includes holding a hidden gun on the UPS guy and pizza delivery. paranoia.....) - and these people are all for restricting gun rights in people they don't like andor disagree with. They could, in general, care less about Jeffersonian ideals as long as they have the ability to blow away the asshole down the street who let dandelions grow.

Then there's the hunter/sport crowd who doesn't care as long as tags are cheap. This isn't all hunters, by any stretch, but there's a fairly large chunk that doesn't see the gun club culture of england as bad.

Then, and we can't forget them, there's the "Every man is an island" survivalist crowd - the one that actually thinks that if things go to pot it is every man for himself without any hope of trusted "alliances between independent person states". Too bizarre, way too bizarre. But they get media attention.

And then there are Dominionists. I don't even know where to start on that crowd, but they'd happily sing hosannahs while putting me in a noose on general principle, so I'm not particularly objective on the God Hates Everyone but Me and My Preacher crowd.

These are people I deal with *every day* in what I do. They are real, and they are a real bad side to gun culture.

I also deal with hippies every day. A surprising number of them have firearms, specifically in case something happens like elections getting cancelled or the FEMA camps getting opened to long term campers. They tend to have more liberal politics, some of them are even so liberal as to Believe in the promises of science fiction.

I don't think 16 inch cannons are a good thing for people to own on their own. Not so hot on M60s, for that matter. But I'd love to see semiautomatic rifles and shotguns removed from ALL tracking and background checks by the government. Preferably with a semester of safe handling in junior high or high school, but whatever.


Anyhow, just pointing out that while it's bveen programmed into us to say "liberal" and "gun control" in the same breath, it ain't necessarily so. There's a fair amount of conservative gun control nuts out there, too.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

That's because the M60 is a worthless piece of lowest-bidder stamped trash. MAG58s are much better. Or MG3s.

Back on track, I'd argue that the defense of the society against external threat AND INTERNAL tyranny is the only real abiding purpose I can accept for the second amendment but you think we shouldn't even have basic squad level weapons, let alone anything that might let us actually win against a nearly overwhelmingly superior armed force? I'm thinking you need to spend a bit more time contemplating, at the very least, the logistics of your position.

Unfortunately, in my experience with the pro gun crowd I've run into a few basic types that really don't give me much in the way of positive hopes

Niven's Law. "No matter how noble the cause, it will always attract fuckheads."

There are people in every group who make that group look bad. Oftentimes, they're the loudest and most visible portion of that group. 40% of American households own at least one firearm. Do you really think that your descriptive groups account for a significant portion of that total?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's because the M60 is a worthless piece of lowest-bidder stamped trash. MAG58s are much better.

+5 :)

[koyote.livejournal.com]

The m60 is *logistically* much more supportable for anything more than a single use ambush in the US. And while it is a touchy beast (I'm moderately experienced with them) it's not completely non functional by any stretch.

In a battlefield scenario, with stable lines of supply and matching air power, the SAW and "serious" hardware is possibly necessary. (Proven in conventional warfare where all sides follow similar military theories, but other systems of fighting are possible, so who knows for sure until tested?)

However, we are dealing with the prevention or overthrow of tyranny within the US. That suggests, strongly, two possible scenarios.

One involves a large scale defection of military personnel and material. Civil War. In such a case, having a SAW in your closet is perhaps moot, at best a minor addition to forces.

The other scenario involves guerilla warfare, almost exclusively, at least in the first stages of conflict. In such a case you DO NOT HAVE and cannot gain and maintain artillery and air supremacy. In such a case, the SAW is logistically untenable in comparison to partisans with rifles and IEDs. a SAW becomes a hot target that is disproportionally valuable in comparison to the dozen odd rifles you could supply with similar ammunition and maintenance requirements.

"Overwhelming force" becomes a thing not of Rommelesque battle field superiority, but ambush capability, sniping, willingness to kill your neighbor's kids to support tyranny, ability to hunt down all of a couple million armed citizens in a LIC environment, acceptance of destruction of your OWN infrastructure, etc. Dirty, ugly, and not nice. uniformed armies facing each other down on a battlefield is much more gentlemanly.

I would counter your charge by saying that you need to spend some time contemplating the logistics of insurrection. :)

This is probably a fruitless debate, because it seems to come from two radically different views on warfare. And I'll readily admit that my only actual field experience is in the conventional theatre. However, I have been trained in some aspects of LIC, and have given a lot of thought to the possible eventual necessity- it's my duty as a responsible gun owner in this nation.


Oh- and yeah- I think my descriptive groups account for a large enough portion of the total of gun rights activists to matter. To flavor and even control the debate. Ignoring the people who want to take MY gun away while protecting the rights of "proper" citizens just because I have long hair, live in a collective household, am not a christian, or vote wrong- that's insane.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

These are people I deal with *every day* in what I do. They are real, and they are a real bad side to gun culture.

The problem with this line of thought is that it basically comes down to "Some (or many) bad people like X, therefore X is bad." The absurdity of this reasoning is apparent at a glance:

"Bad people like guns, therefore guns are bad."
"Bad people like fast cars, therefore fast cars are bad."
"Bad people like big houses, therefore big houses are bad."
"Bad people like medical care, therefore medical care is bad."
"Bad people like money, therefore money is bad."
"Bad people like pretty girls, therefore pretty girls are bad."

The flaw in the reasoning is that there's no reason on earth that a "bad person" can't like a good thing for bad reasons. It's not about the thing. It's about the reasons.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

Not at all. I'm not positing that gun ownership is bad because some of the pro gun crowd are anti-liberty, nutjobs, or bad.

What I am saying is that I don't see the (IMO) prime reason for the second amendment as ascendant in the minds of much (how much? who knows?) of the "standard" pro gun crowd. Obviously, this is more than a simplistic binary issue. Nonetheless, I won't ally myself with so called conservatives who promote a fascist (or ragbar redbeard) trend in our country. Said trend being observable to me in a lot of segments of the polarized gun debate (on both sides).

That DOES NOT mean I favor gun cuntrol legistlation. As stated, I'd like to see an end to ALL paperwork and tracking on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

And then there's Blackwater (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/057), whose founder and CEO is a radical-right christian. I wish that lot was shut down.

Thank you. As I remarked in my earlier response, one of the problems liberals and Democrats (not the same thing) face in forming a coalition with firearms advocates is that the a great many of the most vocal firearms advocates are in fact hard right and are badmouthing us all over. I think my "don't care much one way or the other" position is more typical of liberals than strong anti-firearms positions, but the way in which firearms advocacy has developed has alienated many of us.

Finally, the theory that widespread firearm ownership is going to protect us from the loss of our rights so far doesn't seem to be passing muster.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

"Finally, the theory that widespread firearm ownership is going to protect us from the loss of our rights so far doesn't seem to be passing muster."

Well, I think that a lot of that is a fairly direct result of the way the 2nd amendment debate has been propagandized and how we are educated on the issues of liberty, government, protection of rights, and citizen duties.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I don't see this as going after the right of peacable assembly. Emphasis on the peacable. It's aimed at preventing known gang members from ganging up to commit gang activity.

But whether or not this law is constitutional, your post is incredibly misleading. As the article clearly states, similar laws are already in place in Fort Worth, Texas -- land of many guns. Have the citizens of Texas arisen in armed rebellion to protect their right to peacably assemble?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's aimed at preventing known gang members from ganging up to commit gang activity.

Oh, sure. And civil forfeiture was aimed strictly at drug dealers. Now it's being used in California to seize land that the state wants when the owner doesn't want to sell, and in New York to steal motorcycles from their legal owners if the owner can't prove — on the spot — that the VIN number hasn't been altered or transferred to a different (custom, say) frame.

Mission creep. You think this'll be any different?

As the article clearly states, similar laws are already in place in Fort Worth, Texas [...]

... and a couple other places.

Does that automatically make those laws a good idea?

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Does that automatically make those laws a good idea?

Nope. And without even addressing the idea of whether this specific law is a good idea or not, I can still tell you that your post is misleading.

Your post states that:

1) The right to keep and bear arms is what guarantees other civil rights. This implies that it is the fear of armed rebellion which prevents the government from undermining civil rights.

2) Massachusetts first enacted strict gun-control laws, and now is attempting to undermine civil rights. Implying that (2) proves (1), that if a government wants to undermine civil rights, first it will remove the right to keep and bear arms.

I say that your second point is grossly misleading. Without even addressing the question of whether this anti-gang law undermines civil liberties or not, it is NOT the case that this proves your point, any more than the fact that "my grandmother ate carrots for years and eventually died" proves that carrots are toxic.

This very same anti-gang law has been enacted in many places, including Fort Worth, Texas. The local authorities of Fort Worth, Texas did not crack down on gun-control before passing this legislation. And the people of Fort Worth, Texas, the majority of whom are gun-owners, have not arisen in armed rebellion to preserve their civil liberties.

As to whether or not the law itself is a good idea, I'd say it seems to me to be pretty much the same thing as laws that make it illegal for known pedophiles and drug dealers to hang out at playgrounds. In a way it makes sense, in another way it could be the first step (or second, or thirteenth) down a slippery slope.

Frankly, if I lived in a neighborhood that was being overrun by gang activities I'd be a big supporter of a law like that, because I'd be pretty well convinced that a gathering of gang members on a street corner was in no way a peacable assembly. I would get upset, though, at any misuse of the law to break up a gathering of peaceful war protesters on a street corner. This is why judges have the right to interpret the police force's application of laws, though -- to correct misuse. And why judges are elected by the people -- so the people are ultimately in charge.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

You are a geek gang member. I will swear to it in court as an orificer of the slaw!!! You will be detained for interrogation should you violate these areas. Verstehen Sie die Frau?
;)

Contrary to popular belief Texas is less free than several eastern and western states.
I have no idea what squirrels are in their brains but hope not to become infested.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Contrary to popular belief Texas is less free than several eastern and western states.

I'll believe it. Witness the way the local authorities have swooped in and disrupted the lives of all those Mormon families in Eldorado. Some 450 kids separated from their parents! If anyone had tried to take my kids from me, and on so little grounds, I would have seriously considered armed rebellion myself.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That is both alarming, and sad.

It all starts when we decide to place ANY restriction on what is allowed. Once we can start to restrict bad forms, it is a very small step to restricting what I don't like, because it is bad. This inhales strongly.

So . . .

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

If pro-gun Texas passed a law that was against right of assembly, would that be a sign that guns are bad for human rights? I know of at least one law like the Massachusetts one passed for similar anti-gang reasons.

(I'm not anti-gun, but that part doesn't make sense to me.)

As someone who is passionate about second amendment rights, are you bothered that the latest Iraqi conflict, with several hundred dead, is over a government order that the Sadrists unilaterally disarm?

Re: So . . .

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

The outrage meter regarding Iraq is already pinned. It's difficult to get "more angry" at this point.

But yes, I object to such an order. I hate the IRA, too, but I think they shouldn't give up their guns.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

The "man on the street" (which also includes the woman on the street, in most cases) thinks the Bill of Rights is subversive. All of it. They're not even sure Amendments 13, 14, and 15 are a good idea...

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I'm dead certain 16 and 17 weren't...

[koyote.livejournal.com]

not to mention 10

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

The 9th circuit ruling is nothing new. The Federal government's always been allowed to search anything at a border crossing without probable cause as part of its tariff powers (airports are considered a border crossing for these purposes of international flights). This long standing rule was the basis of wiretapping anything that crosses from outside the US into it that hits any US switch or server located in the US even if the final destination is outside the US. No probable cause or anything's ever been required for normal border crossings.

The only thing this ruling did was say 'Ya know that thing we've always done? Computers aren't any different.'

A related, interesting case from a few months ago was the guy who got busted for kiddie pr0n on this computer while crossing the border from Canada. He had it all encrypted and helpfully typed in the key for the border patrol. After seeing the pr0n, they arrested him and turned the machine off. They never got the encryption key from him, however.

The Feds went to court to try to get a court order to get the guy to tell them the key. The counter argument was that it violated his 5th amendment rights to compel him to tell them the key. Unlike a standard lock, his knowing the key would be usable against him in establishing that the pr0n in question belonged to him, so forcing him to reveal it was effectively forcing him to testify.

At the time, the ruling was that the Feds could try to hack it all they wanted, however. I never heard if it was appealed.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

A related, interesting case from a few months ago was the guy who got busted for kiddie pr0n on this computer while crossing the border from Canada. He had it all encrypted and helpfully typed in the key for the border patrol. After seeing the pr0n, they arrested him and turned the machine off. They never got the encryption key from him, however.

Yeah, the back-and-forth on that has been interesting. If nothing else, IMHO the guy shoulda been busted for "felony stupid".

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

The laptop searches is annoying. They have the right to keep out or let in what they want. I'm pretty sure they completely control any legal access to this country from any foreign land.

I don't particularly like it and would remove and dispose of the harddrive since I can't be sure they'd not put something on it for a raise.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There's a thought. Bring your laptop into the country with a replacement hard drive containing a vanilla installation of a commodity OS, with nothing of importance on it, having already mailed yourself under separate cover the REAL hard disk, formatted under a completely different OS (and with any partitions containing sensitive data encrypted).