Government as a proxy for corporations. Even the "bastion of liberal democracy" the European Union (taking over from the USA) is run by lobbyists. Secret meetings to force TTIP, ministries of transports lobbying to keep lax emission testing rules so car manufacturers can cheat, the guy who was president of the tax haven of Luxembourg being president of the European Commission.

Seems like we're returning to feudalism with the little people being serfs, while in the palaces the 1% enjoy their riches. Terror in Europe (and the export of fighters from that continent to the middle east) is borne out of little people not seeing any future and being easily influenced by talk of joining some "great" cause of Jihad...

Jihad or Nationalism. The centrists (e.g. May/Macron/Merkel) fear and yet benefit from both - they can sacrifice freedoms to sell corporatist agendas.

Meanwhile populists across the spectrum are tarred and feathered as helping the extremists (or "not being strong enough against them").

I have watched ISIS recruitment videos. They have pretty catchy music and are well produced, actually.

I've watched GPY stuff, older Taliban stuff, all that.

I'm not even religious and it wasn't even scholarly. I was just curious about the debate and like to see things for myself.

I'm not sure I'm going to do well in a dystopian future.p

Anyhow, freedom is not something given once. It's something constantly defended. How you do that is up to you, I suppose.

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

As a European I am jealous of your Bill of Rights (specially the 2nd). If only it wasn't being trampled on and used as toilet paper...

Addendum: Regarding the inevitable issue of gun violence, it has actually decreased since the early 90's https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-...

Don't say "European". The rights may be bad in the UK, but here in Germany we have rights as strong as the Bill of Rights.

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are.

To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question know that they are likely to face armed resistance.

EDIT for clarity: I of course do not mean that any one individual would be able to defend their home against a powerful government dedicated to destroying them.

I'm just saying that all else equal, a government considering whether to attempt to wipe out some particular group is more likely to think twice if there are likely to be costs involved in doing so.

That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon.

The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.

The US army are nearly losing two wars to people with small arms and IEDs.

So, ya, isn't this post about making terrorism illegal? I feel like we've come full circle at this post.

This whole subthread is about states being heavyhanded and our options in responding.

Also, terrorism is kind of illegal already.

In a thread about prosecuting people for watching terrorism videos, we have gone on about how the 2nd amendment gives Americans the tools to fight against the therapy of their government, and then it was pointed out the USA military is much better armed than civilians can be. Finally, the comment was made that the military could be faught with ambushes and IEDs, probably just as explained in those terrorism videos.

I just think it is really ironic.

Exactly, do people even engage in critical thought or is all their thinking done for them via identity politics and media.

Please see my comment in response to TheSpiceIsLife.

Of course you are correct that any one individual person could not effectively defend their home against a more well armed government dedicated to defeating them, but that in no way refutes my point.

If there will be a group of armed people actively opposing government agents, then it will become a band of criminals. And if there will be larger united group of people (a whole state or region for example) then there will be a civil war.

I can say even more: if an armed group of people can influence the decisions of the government or Congress or any other institution then something is very wrong (or you are living in Somalia). There cannot be two authorities.

You can remember American Civil War for example. There were people opposing the government, they had weapons but it didn't help them.

There may be cases when weapon can be necessary: for example if you live in a remote uninhabited area. But I don't think people should have a long range weapon when they are in a densely populated city.

Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar.

Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.

I didn't say or imply that an individual person would be able to fend off a government dedicating its entire resources to invading their home.

Having more force is irrelevant if it can't be properly applied. Easy when a few yahoos take over an abandoned building on federal land, a little harder when an insurgency of thousands has metastasized throughout a society.

See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

pp is not on the wrong track. The first is clearly under assault from several quarters. Without the first we cannot even question authority much less dig in and speak about it. The second seems meant to shore up the first. I guess you have to try to think a little like a man that has only just gained his freedom and whose aim is hold and maintain that freedom for all of his and on equal footing. How would you proceed?

Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train.

The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies.

First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

-- probably Isoroku Yamamoto

So we can participate in Swiss-style militias in defense of our country?

No, so we can resist and overthrow a totalitarian government

Ah, so the 2nd amendement is not about militias at all?

Please be straightforward so we can communicate without ill will

James Madison says in the Federalist Papers no. 46:

"To [the standing federal army composed of 1/100 of citizens at most] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Unfortunately, we don't have standing militias. I think we should. But the intent is obviously that an armed population can resist an oppressive government if need be.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Guns shouldn't be used at one's discretion. They are for private self defense and to vest ultimate power in the people. They should be tracked and approved by local governments.

I replied in the negative because the 2a was never meant to be a swiss-style defense against foreign invasion.

The 2nd amendment is worthless without the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th, 7th and 8th.

I would say they are all necessary, and none sufficient without the others. The fifth and fourth prevent the government from arbitrary prosecution, which they may be inclined to do if you exercise your rights under the first in some manner they don't like, and so on.

And yes, I'm one of those that believe the 2nd is the ultimate fail-safe when the government throws the rest out the window. The technology of connectedness that has enabled the world's unprecedented run of peace and prosperity in the last century has also allowed governments an even more unprecedented power to surveil and control their populations, and it may well take a credible threat of retaliation to make them back down.