Trying Again: being necessary to the security of a free State

[Lonewulf]

Today, yes. But it is rabidly moving in that direction

From the article I linked to above:

Hm...

While intriguing and admittedly very useful and dangerous enough, it isn't quite comparable to being able to launch nuclear weapons by remote; which requires the capability to use the system in the first place, much less being able to break into it.

Still, you bring up a good point. However, having the tools at hand isn't the same as actually using them. Just try using a firearm to shoot a soldier or police officer here in the U.S. and see the consequences; stealing DOD resources would probably carry similar results.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Today, yes. But it is rabidly moving in that direction

From the article I linked to above:

The US has spent about 30 years in an attempt to craft and achieve information spectrum superiority, in the global battlespace, and dominance in a local battlespace. It has been partially successful in doing so. In this pursuit of an advantage, the US has created strategic vunlerabilities, just as using fuel for all of your weapons system creates a strategic and operational logistic vulnerability based on the supply and movement of fuel. The vunlerability is the dependence of the entire Command and Control network on certain physical and software architecture.

The Chinese have noted the advantages of superiority and dominance in the informational spectrum that the US has exploited, and have undertaken to emulate it, or improve upon it.

They are the enemy, but not stupid. Most certainly not stupid.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

However, having the tools at hand isn't the same as actually using them. Just try using a firearm to shoot a soldier or police officer here in the U.S. and see the consequences; stealing DOD resources would probably carry similar results.

I agree and in no way am I advocating either hacking or using a firearm against someone or some institution.

What I am saying is that I see very definite parallels starting to form, especially in the context of the second amendment. I'm starting to agree with those who say the second amendment is antiquated, but not in same way as is normally thought.

 

[Upchurch]

While intriguing and admittedly very useful and dangerous enough, it isn't quite comparable to being able to launch nuclear weapons by remote; which requires the capability to use the system in the first place, much less being able to break into it.

I just put together what you were saying here.

I am not claiming that there is any danger of hackers launching nuclear weapons by remote. I'm certain there is no way that would be possible without on-site access, which excludes the type of attack I'm talking about. I agree that that is 100% Hollywood and always* will be.




* contingent upon there not being a colossally stupid person ever introduced to the situation

 

[DanishDynamite]

Hope the US soons finds out what its basic laws, written 100's of years ago, actually mean.

These laws are apparently revered and one must refer to the stiffs who wrote these laws a zilliion years in capital letters as "The Fathers".

Amazing.

 

[Upchurch]

These laws are apparently revered and one must refer to the stiffs who wrote these laws a zilliion years in capital letters as "The Fathers".

Did I?

...and I don't know if you noticed or not, but if the second amendment is revered, I'm committing heresy by suggesting that it should now mean something else.

But, please, do not derail this thread with off-topic issues. I've already had to restart the topic once already. If you have another issue you'd like to discuss, please start a new thread.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Did I?

...and I don't know if you noticed or not, but if the second amendment is revered, I'm committing heresy by suggesting that it should now mean something else.

But, please, do not derail this thread with off-topic issues. I've already had to restart the topic once already. If you have another issue you'd like to discuss, please start a new thread.

Sorry.

My post was not in reference to you. Perhaps it was just a knee-jerk reaction?

Carry on.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hope the US soons finds out what its basic laws, written 100's of years ago, actually mean.

These laws are apparently revered and one must refer to the stiffs who wrote these laws a zilliion years in capital letters as "The Fathers".

Amazing.

"hundreds of years ago" != "zillions of years ago". Basic arithmetic. Don't they teach it in Denmark?

Anyways, it's an intriguing "knee-jerk reaction" you have there. Anything remotely american comes up and you insult it...

Sheesh. And to think I was happy that I'm going to be visiting Europe this summer. Not anymore, if other Europeans are even remotely like you.

 

[Lonewulf]

I agree and in no way am I advocating either hacking or using a firearm against someone or some institution.

What I am saying is that I see very definite parallels starting to form, especially in the context of the second amendment. I'm starting to agree with those who say the second amendment is antiquated, but not in same way as is normally thought.

Well, I consider it an intriguing idea. But we employ computer security and forensics personnel in both state and national levels, I believe. And someone that knows how a system operates is the one that's most likely to be able to crack it by exploiting bugs and the like.

Seriously, if you don't bow down to your Sysadmin, you obviously don't know what he's capable of.

 

[skeptifem]

Original derailed thread



I won't completely restate what I said in the first thread, but to summarize:

After a brief discussion a few days ago, I was introduced to the idea that the word "arms" might be too narrowly construed to just mean firearms. In the modern day and age, the internet and information is just as much an armament in protection of a free state as guns and bullets are. More so, imho.

If this alternate view of "bearing arms" has been discussed before, could someone direct me to it. If it hasn't, what do you think?

There werent many kinds of arms when it was written, so I assume they mean firearms. Especially considering the context.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Today, yes. But it is rabidly moving in that direction...

Rabies!

That's a virus!

So if a crazed but revolutionary breeder loosed a pack of rabid Yorkshire terriers down Pennsylvania Avenue, is he and/or she covered by the 2nd Amendment?!?

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock."
Mark Twain

 

[clarsct]

There werent many kinds of arms when it was written, so I assume they mean firearms. Especially considering the context.

Yes, but should we assUme that?
I mean, people still did carry sabers and whatnot, didn't they? Aren't they arms?

I do believe that the movie 'Hackers' is fiction, though Angelina is still hot. However, there was a line in there about moving away from a world of haves and have nots to a world of knows and know nots. I think we're approaching the cusp of that fairly quickly.

Our Constitution is a living document, but our technology is moving faster than our politicians.
(Who here is surprised? Show of hands?)

A thought provoking question.

ETA: Given my above statements, if there were a revolution of sorts and the knows took power, would WE know? How would we even fight them?

 

[Lonewulf]

ETA: Given my above statements, if there were a revolution of sorts and the knows took power, would WE know? How would we even fight them?

Last I checked, pimply-faced computer geeks can't take a bullet to the face.

How exactly would they "take power", anyways?

 

[clarsct]

Hmmmm.

I dunno



I realize it sounds like the plot to a movie, but if someone were sufficiently smart enough to say...manipulate the stock market?

Is it outside the realms of possibility?(probability?)

I am simply asking questions, here.....

 

[Lonewulf]

I realize it sounds like the plot to a movie, but if someone were sufficiently smart enough to say...manipulate the stock market?

It's possible, if you're on the inside, but stock trading does have quite a few failsafes I'm sure. No one puts up their assets without being ready to protect those assets.

Is it outside the realms of possibility?(probability?)

On a small-scale level, it's probably possible. On a macro-scale global domination level, improbable. That's my layman's opinion, I'm no expert on computer systems or economics.

I am simply asking questions, here.....

Of course.

 

[strathmeyer]

What do you want us to admit to you, that the US Constitution allows citizens to posses nuclear weapons, but the Supreme Court won't let us?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What do you want us to admit to you, that the US Constitution allows citizens to posses nuclear weapons, but the Supreme Court won't let us?

No, that we are allowed to wear short sleeved or sleeveless shirts.

DR

 

[Daylight]

Keeping with the theme of the citizens ability to “overthrow” the government.

In this modern era, wouldn’t a simple “American Idle” type vote by the citizens to throw out the government be a modern “right to bare arms”?

 

[Crossbow]

Original derailed thread



I won't completely restate what I said in the first thread, but to summarize:

After a brief discussion a few days ago, I was introduced to the idea that the word "arms" might be too narrowly construed to just mean firearms. In the modern day and age, the internet and information is just as much an armament in protection of a free state as guns and bullets are. More so, imho.

If this alternate view of "bearing arms" has been discussed before, could someone direct me to it. If it hasn't, what do you think?

Upchurch:

Hello there!

It seems to me that your question has not really been answered to your satisfaction, so please allow me to offer an answer.

Essentially, the courts have ruled that Second Amendment applies to an actual state militia which is run by the state and funded by the state. And by state, it means the state government in which the militia is based.

You may recall from earlier US military history, each state supplied its own armies which would then be controlled by a commander designated by the President.

Now things are quite different. State militias are no more, and while each state does have a reserve or guard units, which are officially sponsored and commanded by the individual state governments, that is still a far cry from what they were originally. None the less, since the topic is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, the courts still give it considerable deference.

As for the personal ownership of arms, the courts have pretty much allowed the Federal and state government to make their own rules about them. Basically, if the authorities have not made a certain weapon for a person to own, then that person may own it.

For example (now alluding to your question about alternate arms),
if someone were to have say a class 3 phaser rifle that was capable of shearing off the top of a small mountain in just a few seconds, then as long as there were no laws expressly forbidding the personal ownership of such a weapon, then it would be all right with the US Supreme Court for someone to have that weapon.
However, if the state were to ban the personal ownership of this weapon by citing that is really a military weapon as opposed to a personal weapon, then the US Supreme Court would essentially uphold the law and cite how the Second Amendment does not apply to the personal ownership of arms.

I hope this helps!

 

[CFLarsen]

Upchurch:

Hello there!

It seems to me that your question has not really been answered to your satisfaction, so please allow me to offer an answer.

Essentially, the courts have ruled that Second Amendment applies to an actual state militia which is run by the state and funded by the state. And by state, it means the state government in which the militia is based.

You may recall from earlier US military history, each state supplied its own armies which would then be controlled by a commander designated by the President.

Now things are quite different. State militias are no more, and while each state does have a reserve or guard units, which are officially sponsored and commanded by the individual state governments, that is still a far cry from what they were originally. None the less, since the topic is explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, the courts still give it considerable deference.

As for the personal ownership of arms, the courts have pretty much allowed the Federal and state government to make their own rules about them. Basically, if the authorities have not made a certain weapon for a person to own, then that person may own it.

For example (now alluding to your question about alternate arms),
if someone were to have say a class 3 phaser rifle that was capable of shearing off the top of a small mountain in just a few seconds, then as long as there were no laws expressly forbidding the personal ownership of such a weapon, then it would be all right with the US Supreme Court for someone to have that weapon.
However, if the state were to ban the personal ownership of this weapon by citing that is really a military weapon as opposed to a personal weapon, then the US Supreme Court would essentially uphold the law and cite how the Second Amendment does not apply to the personal ownership of arms.

I hope this helps!

You do not have a constitutional right to arms, then.

So, what's the hubbub about?