Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 10th Dec 2010 14:28 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes I know that there's a number of readers who don't like it when OSnews covers political topics, I'm one of them. These political upheavals however spell danger for operating system hobbyists and so I dedicate this article to framing the political news within the context of what we are here to read about: operating systems.
Thread beginning with comment 453193
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

There is a large part of the OSNews readership that lives in places where there is no need to have 'The right to bear arms'.
They all get along just fine.

That is not to say there there are places on this planet where this right is needed, right now, today.
Equally, some of the places that don't have this right(?) once did and their society evolved into one that no longer needed it so they gave it away. Is there something so fundamentally wrong with that? IMHO, is no there is not.
If you put your self back in time to when that Ammendment to the US Constitution was passed then the US had no standing army. So the ability to raise a militia from the population was essential.
Do those conditions still hold sway today?

This is all part of evolution. Sometimes evolution takes a wrong turning and ends up in a dead end. (Madagascan Lemurs for example, have very primitive body temperature control. Other primates don't have this problem). Nature corrects itself. It is so wrong for a society to admit that they 'got it wrong' and make efforts to put it right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

There is a large part of the OSNews readership that lives in places where there is no need to have 'The right to bear arms'.
They all get along just fine.


After Dunkirk, the UK was critically short of small arms. America's NRA asked it's members to donate weapons to be sent to the UK for defense. Over 120,000 weapons were sent.

Reply Parent Score: 1

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

That was in time of war and those weapons were not distributed to the public. They went to the Army (who left most of their's behind in France) and the Home Guard (aka Local Militia)

This is not 1940. This is 2010. There is no movement to get laws enacted to give us the right to bear arms. The general public do not feel the need for them.
90% of Police Officers also go about their daily business unarmed.
My one brush with the law in Rural MA, the officer who stopped me for speeding wrote me a ticket had initially approached me with his gun drawn. I later found out that was SOP for that particular Police Dept.
Guess where I feel safer?
I am not anti gun. I used to shoot .22's competitively when I was younger and my partner was an accomplished Biathlete in her youth. We both used guns in appropriate places.
We don't feel the need to drive around with a rack of rifles/shotguns behing the driver. Sorry but we just don't.

Reply Parent Score: 3

kcorey Member since:
2007-11-06

There is a large part of the OSNews readership that lives in places where there is no need to have 'The right to bear arms'.
They all get along just fine.
[...]
If you put your self back in time to when that Ammendment to the US Constitution was passed then the US had no standing army. So the ability to raise a militia from the population was essential.
Do those conditions still hold sway today?
[...]
this problem). Nature corrects itself. It is so wrong for a society to admit that they 'got it wrong' and make efforts to put it right?


Ah, you misunderstand. I mentioned "taking guns" because to many US citizens having guns is a symbol of our ability to fight against oppressive governmental control and over-regulation.

If you live in a country where the right to bear arms is not a symbol of your ability to fight and rail against government, (and you're happy with that), then wonderful. Let's hope you always feel that way, because you've precious little choice.

My post was to say that corporate-driven big government is intruding more and more on people's lives. China, Iran and Iraq have had a reputation for being restrictive. Venezuela just announced that they will close down 'net access to their country. It's got to be just around the corner for most countries in the world as governments struggle to get control of things.

This will end in tears, as the nature of the internet is to allow free and open discourse across borders. In some countries, I'd be disappeared for writing this email. Should I, a US citizen, be disappeared because this post is illegal in China?

As a US citizen, I've always felt (rightly or wrongly) that my country's political system was superior because it was the will of the people, run by the people.

After observing the actions of the US, I can no longer feel that way, as the US is becoming more and more a crazy country of radical factions vying for control of the government. Tea party? Moral Majority? Blech.

That's bad enough, but the worst part, perhaps, is that the country is schizophrenic enough not to see what it's becoming, and still claims to be "open", and representing the "voice of freedom". http://its.ec/jmt

Now to your question: does the need exist today for US citizens to be able to raise militias to fight governmental oppression? Well, that depends entirely on your point of view.

Me? I feel that government has become strictly a tool of the mega corporations, willing to whore itself out to the highest bidder. Perhaps I'd feel differently were I that bidder.

Finally: is it wrong for a society to admit they 'got it wrong'? Absolutely not. That organic growth is a critical part of a functioning country. In fact, I fully expect that what I see as this governmental over-regulation and corporate greed machine will in the end be seen to be 'wrong'.

Historically though, governments are not good at admitting they 'got it wrong', and are even worse at removing unnecessary parts of themselves to get it right. They reorganise, making themselves bigger, and more expensive until they're simply too top-heavy to maintain.

That's where the right to change the government comes in. To a US citizen, that's represented by the right to bear arms.

Did that make it more clear? I wasn't calling for violence, just keying on a symbol to communicate more effectively.

-Ken

Reply Parent Score: 1