I'll believe that the moment I see it. Seems to me like most of the 2nd amendment crowd is more likely to cheer on the destruction of freedoms than defend them. There are a whole lot of freedoms being violated in the US right now including violations of people's first amendment rights. You can even go on youtube and find countless examples, but somehow all the bullets seem to be mostly going into suicides, school children, and gang members.
I'm not even saying that shootouts are a good way to handle the situation, or that people should be trying to put things right by shooting other people but the idea that the 2nd amendment is protecting us from violations of our freedoms or the abuses of government is clearly pure fantasy.
It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option.
Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical.
But on deeper reflection I would hope that we can acknowledge that violent revolution is not an impossibility, it's merely an improbability. And anybody who tries to tell you that hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight is uninformed, to put it lightly.
The fact that the current level of rights abuses (which I would agree is much too high and climbing!) has not lead to a violent revolution is a feature, not a bug.
> It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option.
Mutually assured destruction is what makes the literal nuclear option a valid deterrent. That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc.
Violent revolutions are a part of our history, but back at a time when having muskets was enough to get the job done. It's completely unrealistic to expect that to work out in today's environment and the government knows that. Hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight when you're fighting against planes and drones that can drop bombs while flying higher than bullets fired upwards can ever reach.
That said, while the success of outright revolution (at which point the constitution doesn't really matter) can be reasonably debated, what can't be argued is that the 2nd amendment has been effective at protecting our rights. Our rights are routinely violated. The 2nd amendment is total failure when it comes to protecting our rights and when it comes it preventing violations of those rights. The government does not fear the people and that becomes increasingly clear as the mask slips away and they stop even pretending to be anything but openly corrupt.
Tanks and planes require logistics and people. You don't shoot at the tanks directly, you shoot at the people loading them, or the refinery towers that fuel them, or the people that have to eventually get out of them.
What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics and economy that is supporting them? An insurgency is not like a nation state war, it is asymettrical warfare where even telling who the enemy is is incredibly difficult and many exist among your own personnel.
> What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics
They've already got planes and tanks. They can also be strategic about what they target, protecting what's important to them while targeting what's important to the population. The people flying the planes and drones won't have homes in the communities they bomb. Our government has already opened fire on Americans, already dropped bombs on American cities. Like I said though, how well they'd do in a revolt is theoretical. What isn't theoretical is the failure of the 2nd amendment to protect our freedoms.
> That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc.
I don't want to be too blunt, but this is the "uninformed" I was talking about. The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ability to level cities is not actually that helpful when the goal is to control the population. Modern revolutions don't involve standing armies that you can kill will tanks.
> outright revolution (at which point the constitution doesn't really matter)
It doesn't matter beyond the point of revolution. It matters a lot that it was in effect before the revolution.
> what can't be argued is that the 2nd amendment has been effective at protecting our rights. Our rights are routinely violated.
I'm not sure if you just don't understand the concept of a last resort or if you actually think that we're at the point of last resort already, in which case my only question is: Do you own a gun yet?
> The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Those also occurred overseas. The government didn't already have control over the population like they do here. They didn't have massive amounts of data on every last person there, and everyone those people knew. They hadn't been tracking all of their movements. If the founding fathers had tried to gain independence while still in Brittan the fight would have been much much harder.
We can argue over how well a revolution might go in theory, but the second amendment's failure to protect our freedoms isn't theoretical. Our freedoms are being violated all the time. It failed. That means that having the "last resort" option doesn't prevent our government from violating our rights. The second does not protect the first.
A last resort isn't effective at defending our freedoms under the government we have. It just maybe gives us a very very small chance to throw the old system away and replace it with something new that would restore our rights.
Personally, I'd like to think that it's still possible to vote our freedoms back, but there's been a lot of efforts made to reduce or prevent our ability to accomplish that and recently voter suppression efforts appear to be escalating alongside talk of "third terms" and election canceling. It's certainty not encouraging. In my case, under an absolute worst case scenario, the most effective use of a gun would be suicide. At best it might save me from looters. I can't imagine it being any use against a drone strike.
Your acceptance criteria for a last line of defense is pretty strict. Governments break the rules, a lot. If we tried to overthrow every government that broke the rules we'd be in a permanent state of violent revolution.
You don't seem like a violent person; quite the opposite. Most people are like that, myself included. I'm mad at the government. Steaming mad, even. But killing? Not even remotely close.
I get that it's easy to discount low-probability futures as meaningless, but I won't do that either. Maybe the insurance policy that is the 2nd amendment has paid out $0 so far. I don't think that's the case, but for the sake of argument let's say it's so. Even if it were so, history and current events indicate to me that we should keep paying for the policy. We think we've got it bad now, but our guy is an absolute kitten compared to some of the tyrants our species has cooked up.
Weird how the NRA party is currently trampling on freedom of the press, freedom of expression and protest, but America's well armed patriots are just sitting around polishing their barrels about it.
No. I'm talking about the current administration, which has done far worse in attacking first amendment rights than Obama ever did by any sane measure.
If you're going to do a whataboutism at least try to make it work. America's gun owners were practically chomping at the bit to start shooting over Obama's imaginary Marxist revolution, as much as they couldn't care less about Trump's actual authoritarianism today.
A lot of the value of these domains stems from the popularity of sites they may have been attached to in the past, or search terms that relate to them.
So these people are literally making money off of the back of others’ work whilst providing no benefit themselves, probably not that much even to their advertisers.
Such squatting sites are, at best, an annoyance to web users as well.
I was a pilot for many years. It's a profanity laden profession. You don't do difficult and dangerous flying of any kind without a few f-bombs here or there. As is tradition.
The F-35 is the best stealth aircraft you can have in a war against china. But it alone is not going to win that war. I wouldn't say it's the wrong jet for that war just because of that.
If you put the f-35 along all the rest of the us military, the war can be won and the f-35 plays a critical role in that win.
There is no in winning a war between the US and China, even assuming it doesn't go nuclear. There would only be losers all over the world. It would make the current Iran conflict look like a tiny speedbump (albeit one which is likely to cause malnutrition and starvation for millions of people in subsaharan Africa within 6-12 months).
There is a win condition achievable in a US-China war. You leave the army in shambles and take over the political power structures, like with nazi germany or any other conventional country in the world.
It'd be hell, for sure, but it is a war that can end in victory for either side.
First, in a war with China, China would be in the (more) morally just position. Second, as you can see in Iran, in Korea, in Vietnam, etc (and that's just US wars), aircraft only inflict pain, they do not win. US imperialists would really really like for that not to be the case, but it is just not. You would need a boots on the ground, and a draft, and will still probably lose and maybe cause our own government to topple. The Vietnam war was lost not because we didn't have fancy toys, but because the revolutionaries fought so hard and well that the U.S. army about on the verge of rebellion.
China very successfully built a rich economic system that is the factory of the world while eroding our own domestic capacity. In a war they can cut us off. We are not even as strong as we were during the Vietnam war, though we have fancier toys. Good luck!
The thing about the article is that the new patent is basically the same as the almost 20yo design that the author got when a lab closed shop and he asked nicely to have it.
He also says that the "original" design was also not so original as there are previous publications with similar designs.
The antenna itself is just an antenna that works well over a very broad RF spectrum.
You are always going to find fringe users that would pirate everything no matter what. Hours of search, bad quality, bad audio? They don't care, they rather watch that shit than pay a buck for it.
But they are fringe, an anomaly. Most people will happily pay for stuff if it's confortable enough. Don't focus on the tail end of the human behavior distribution. Steam makes a lot of money, the devs publishing there, too. Spotify makes a lot of money. Netflix makes a lot of money...
Piracy is easily reduced to anecdotical as soon as you don't offer absolute shit service for a lot of money, as LaLiga does.
reply