21–30 of 71 posts
Why is reporting on this so terrible? I actually don't have a problem with requiring age restrictions on certain content online I just have no confidence that it will be implemented securely and anonymously when there are no competent journalists to hold politicians to a high standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this response being downvoted? I don't actually know very much about the situation so I really don't have the tools to evaluate what is wrong (or right) with this comment.
Because it's an incredibly stupid claim that firearms would somehow improve the situation? I mean, we had a live-fire slow-burn civil war in the UK for decades (1970s-2000). It didn't help.
I don't see it being applicable in the case of the UK where the attitude seems to be to condone or ignore invasive paternalistic government in all cases when it doesn't directly contradict one's personal interests.
Edit: I'm not talking about armed resistance here, I'm talking about the fact that it's much harder to normalize the use of government action to just steamroll over groups you disagree with when each misdeed carries a risk of bloodshed and provoking outcry. Recall the recent cattle grazing on federal lands standoff fiasco. While I haven't looked into the merits of either side that kind of standoff would not have happened and the public would never have known of the issue in a country where there is not both freedom of the press (as a byproduct of the 1A) and the right of citizens to bear arms. Even Waco (while tragic and a failure of society to check the power government in a million different ways) is a success story for the 2a and the 1a because the government was not able to mistreat people without public knowledge and scrutiny of their misdeeds.
How are websites going to get blocked? DNS filtering? Asking the sites operators to block all traffic from the UK by default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an incredibly stupid claim that firearms would somehow improve the situation? I mean, we had a live-fire slow-burn civil war in the UK for decades (1970s-2000). It didn't help.
Knowing that if you abuse people enough eventually you'll run into someone who shoots back is a massive check on abuse of power. Checking abuse of government's power to enforce its will with violence makes it much more likely to be careful deciding what it's will is. It gives the slippery slope some friction if the will of the government strays too far from that of the people. I don't see it being applicable in the c…
Can someone explain to me, what exactly is wrong with the UK? Where did it all go so wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an incredibly stupid claim that firearms would somehow improve the situation? I mean, we had a live-fire slow-burn civil war in the UK for decades (1970s-2000). It didn't help.
Knowing that if you abuse people enough eventually you'll run into someone who shoots back is a massive check on abuse of power. Checking abuse of government's power to enforce its will with violence makes it much more likely to be careful deciding what it's will is. It gives the slippery slope some friction if the will of the government strays too far from that of the people. I don't see it being applicable in the c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an incredibly stupid claim that firearms would somehow improve the situation? I mean, we had a live-fire slow-burn civil war in the UK for decades (1970s-2000). It didn't help.
Knowing that if you abuse people enough eventually you'll run into someone who shoots back is a massive check on abuse of power. Checking abuse of government's power to enforce its will with violence makes it much more likely to be careful deciding what it's will is. It gives the slippery slope some friction if the will of the government strays too far from that of the people. I don't see it being applicable in the c…
I think the gun control debate is interesting for a different reason than guns-preventing-tyranny, though: in the UK you see the police tweeting to brag about finding the kind of knives you eat with and still struggling with very high murder rates. In the US there are politicians who openly admit that their gun control proposal will do nothing and is largely symbolic, but they still think they're justified in simply banning the ownership of certain items with no compensation to their legal owners. Even if that's not getting rid of the means of opposing tyranny... isn't that already tyranny? There's a big difference between a blanket, retro-active ban and licensing / regulating / buying-back but that seems largely lost in the other ideological aspects of the debate.