a victory for liberty over tyranny

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > a victory for liberty over tyranny

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Kazak_Hstan posted:

oh my oh no, jurors might consider the entirely predictable consequences of dozens of idiots running around with hundreds of guns and pointing them at people this is NOT FAIR

A: It may be a valid argument.
B: Lets move it to the Northern District of California. Hell, stip to it if they agree no Eureka court, it draws a few state of jefferson crazies, but mostly from the bay area.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 06:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 22:06

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; Can't post for 228 days!

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

"This court does not have jurisdiction over my person," the defendant pronounced, "for I am the Moon."

It was true, the judge decided. The defendant was the Moon. Who has jurisdiction over the Moon? God could judge the Moon. Celestial objects were subject to the authority of gravity and time. The Supreme Court of the United States of America would later uphold the reasoning that justices of the United States of America, being neither the Supreme Being nor arbiters of the laws of nature, had no right or power to make rulings concerning the person of the Moon, nor the actions thereof.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 08:51

ScrubLeague: Feb 11, 2007; Nap Ghost

Mavric posted:

Boy I'm really starting to think this whole needing guns to fight off the tyrannical government thing is just code for I want to kill people I don't like.

bonus if you assume any government is tyrannical and you don't like everyone

# ? Oct 5, 2017 10:46

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Hodgepodge posted:

"This court does not have jurisdiction over my person," the defendant pronounced, "for I am the Moon."

It was true, the judge decided. The defendant was the Moon. Who has jurisdiction over the Moon? God could judge the Moon. Celestial objects were subject to the authority of gravity and time. The Supreme Court of the United States of America would later uphold the reasoning that justices of the United States of America, being neither the Supreme Being nor arbiters of the laws of nature, had no right or power to make rulings concerning the person of the Moon, nor the actions thereof.

Man, Sokka's gonna be pissed.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 13:24

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Nuke the moon

# ? Oct 5, 2017 13:43

xthetenth: Dec 30, 2012; Mario wasn't sure if this Jeb guy was a good influence on Yoshi.

Hodgepodge posted:

"This court does not have jurisdiction over my person," the defendant pronounced, "for I am the Moon."

It was true, the judge decided. The defendant was the Moon. Who has jurisdiction over the Moon? God could judge the Moon. Celestial objects were subject to the authority of gravity and time. The Supreme Court of the United States of America would later uphold the reasoning that justices of the United States of America, being neither the Supreme Being nor arbiters of the laws of nature, had no right or power to make rulings concerning the person of the Moon, nor the actions thereof.

However, NASA saw an opportunity to stretch its budget with a discount moon mission...

# ? Oct 5, 2017 13:52

CommanderApaul: Aug 30, 2003; It's amazing their hands can support such awesome.

xthetenth posted:

However, NASA saw an opportunity to stretch its budget with a discount moon mission...

Whereas defendant claims that he is part of the moon, and whereas all known lunar samples larger than 1g are determined to have come to Earth via the Apollo missions, and whereas USC states that all Apollo lunar samples are the property of the US Government, defendant is remanded to the custody of NASA to be placed in storage or on display as NASA sees fit.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 15:54

Zerg Mans: Oct 19, 2006

chitoryu12 posted:

Man, Sokka's gonna be pissed.

That's rough buddy

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:44

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

zegermans posted:

That's rough buddy

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:54

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Mavric posted:

Boy I'm really starting to think this whole needing guns to fight off the tyrannical government thing is just code for I want to kill people I don't like.

It wasn't back when it was written because they'd just done exactly that (with help from the French, among other factors).

Today the 2A would do nothing to stop a tyrannical government. Not just because most of the 2A nuts would be actively supporting it since they're a bunch of white wing assholes and there's a significantly higher chance* of any dictatorship in the US being right wing, but because even if there was a tyrannical government that the militia movement stood against en masse their success relies entirely on mass defections from the military (and for the defectors to steal anything not nailed down). Otherwise the militias would just get taken out with one of numerous means of superior firepower. The irony is that the more effective groups would basically be fighting the military the same way ISIS does.

* Anyone who disagrees, look at the Democrats and various insignificant left wing parties (or spoilers like the Greens) and tell me you see politicians competent enough to form any sort of tyrannical government that wouldn't rip itself apart long before then.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 17:56

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

in the wake of the Charlottesville attack, the FBI is focusing their resources on violent racist extremists who spew anti-government rhetoric

by which I mean they're targeting BLM, which they have redefined as "black identity extremists" :downsgun:

# ? Oct 7, 2017 02:13

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Main Paineframe posted:

in the wake of the Charlottesville attack, the FBI is focusing their resources on violent racist extremists who spew anti-government rhetoric

by which I mean they're targeting BLM, which they have redefined as "black identity extremists"

quote:

�They are grouping together Black Panthers, black nationalists, and Washitaw Nation,� said the former homeland security official. �Imagine lumping together white nationals, white supremacists, militias, neo-Nazis, and calling it �white identity extremists.��

IDK who this person is but they're really loving dumb or they were intentionally loving with the reporter. Literally all of those movements are white identity movements. The possibility of a couple irrelevant militia groups not being a bunch of white wing assholes doesn't change that. :psyduck:

There's a bunch of 'shocked' people in that article who are absolutely smart enough to not be shocked by the idea that the FBI under Trump (and Jeff Sessions) is ramping up the racism.

quote:

�To hear there is a new initiative targeting black identity extremists is surprising given that shift,� said Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law.

Like, there's nothing surprising about this at all. Someone at loving Georgetown should not be surprised that after Trump decided to cut white extremist investigations that he'd ramp up the investigations in to black people. gently caress all these 'shocked' assholes.

# ? Oct 7, 2017 04:23

Casimir Radon: Aug 2, 2008

Hmmm, maybe letting crazy white supremacists run wild could feed into black separatist movements and eventually lead to violence on their part. Naaaaaawww.

# ? Oct 7, 2017 04:38

Prokhor Zakharov: Dec 31, 2008; This is me as I make another great post

Good luck with your depression!

Main Paineframe posted:

in the wake of the Charlottesville attack, the FBI is focusing their resources on violent racist extremists who spew anti-government rhetoric

by which I mean they're targeting BLM, which they have redefined as "black identity extremists"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement/

quote:

But even if there aren't hard statistics, the problem of racial bias among police isn't new. In fact, it's been a concern of the FBI for at least a decade. Exactly 10 years ago this week, the FBI warned of the potential consequences — including bias — of white supremacist groups infiltrating local and state law enforcement, indicating it was a significant threat to national security.

In the 2006 bulletin, the FBI detailed the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating police in order to disrupt investigations against fellow members and recruit other supremacists. The bulletin was released during a period of scandal for many law enforcement agencies throughout the country, including a neo-Nazi gang formed by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who harassed black and Latino communities. Similar investigations revealed officers and entire agencies with hate group ties in Illinois, Ohio and Texas.

Much of the bulletin has been redacted, but in it, the FBI identified white supremacists in law enforcement as a concern, because of their access to both "restricted areas vulnerable to sabotage" and elected officials or people who could be seen as "potential targets for violence." The memo also warned of "ghost skins," hate group members who don't overtly display their beliefs in order to "blend into society and covertly advance white supremacist causes."

# ? Oct 7, 2017 17:33

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

https://mobile.twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/922524735803674624

and the case grinds toward its ultimate underwhelming conclusion

# ? Oct 23, 2017 19:38

Owlbear Camus: Jan 3, 2013; Maybe this guy that flies is just sort of passing through, you know?

Evil Fluffy posted:

It wasn't back when it was written because they'd just done exactly that (with help from the French, among other factors).

Today the 2A would do nothing to stop a tyrannical government. Not just because most of the 2A nuts would be actively supporting it since they're a bunch of white wing assholes and there's a significantly higher chance* of any dictatorship in the US being right wing, but because even if there was a tyrannical government that the militia movement stood against en masse their success relies entirely on mass defections from the military (and for the defectors to steal anything not nailed down). Otherwise the militias would just get taken out with one of numerous means of superior firepower. The irony is that the more effective groups would basically be fighting the military the same way ISIS does.

* Anyone who disagrees, look at the Democrats and various insignificant left wing parties (or spoilers like the Greens) and tell me you see politicians competent enough to form any sort of tyrannical government that wouldn't rip itself apart long before then.

To your first point about 2A nuts actually being the authoritarian fanboys, look at how the NRA had to flip the script to help gun manufacturers not take a bath after the Trump upset (since they couldn't bang the drum of Dems Gonna Make Buying Guns Illegal anymore) with stochastic terrorism in against those who profane the name of the Furher.

# ? Oct 24, 2017 15:00

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Kazak_Hstan posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/922524735803674624

and the case grinds toward its ultimate underwhelming conclusion

quote:

Since the maximum prison sentence is one year and they've spent longer than that in jail awaiting trial, their likely sentence is probation.

I don't know federal criminal law here, but generally if you've done the maximum, you don't get probation, you get a terminal disposition and go home with nothing but a conviction. Unless there is a credit waiver.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 07:41

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Evil Fluffy posted:

It wasn't back when it was written because they'd just done exactly that (with help from the French, among other factors).

Today the 2A would do nothing to stop a tyrannical government. Not just because most of the 2A nuts would be actively supporting it since they're a bunch of white wing assholes and there's a significantly higher chance* of any dictatorship in the US being right wing, but because even if there was a tyrannical government that the militia movement stood against en masse their success relies entirely on mass defections from the military (and for the defectors to steal anything not nailed down). Otherwise the militias would just get taken out with one of numerous means of superior firepower. The irony is that the more effective groups would basically be fighting the military the same way ISIS does.

* Anyone who disagrees, look at the Democrats and various insignificant left wing parties (or spoilers like the Greens) and tell me you see politicians competent enough to form any sort of tyrannical government that wouldn't rip itself apart long before then.

nah, back when it was written it, like most of the beta version of the bill of rights, was supposed to prevent the creation of a national government powerful enough to ever imperil slavery

more specifically in the second amendment's case, "look, in Virginia, Maryland, and the Deep South our solution to the problem of national defense is the richest guy around pays for a bunch of armed soldiers to go tell the indians to gently caress off in between fugitive slave hunts. this works great so far."

while not the most abject failure- that belongs to the Tenth, which originally read the opposite of what it reads now- the Second was a miserable failure by mid-Adams Administration, at which point it became clear that whoops, the Well Regulated Militia's solution to the problem of the French attacking American ships could be best summed up as "lol"

# ? Oct 25, 2017 16:37

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

yeah, the reason behind the 2nd amendment was that originally there was going to be no national military. the Continental Army was completely dissolved, and from that point on it was expected that if the states were in trouble they'd just raise a militia as-needed and beg the other states to do the same if they needed reinforcements. they needed p much everyone to have guns and be capable of using them because their entire military plan was "recruit or conscript the nearest gun owners and point them in the direction of the nearest uppity non-whites". the point wasn't to protect individuals from a tyrannical government, it was to protect the states from the possibility that the federal government might have more power than they did. the president couldn't even call up state militias without Congressional approval

that turned out to be an impressively bad idea for a whole slew of reasons. the states were generally uncooperative and unwilling to send militia troops outside their own borders, state governments tended to value nepotism over qualifications when choosing people to lead the militias, states weren't much interested in paying their troops, militiamen tended not to be very disciplined or competent soldiers, and so on. after several disastrous campaigns in which US militias suffered repeated humiliating defeats at the hand of native armies, the outraged Congress decided that maybe the federal government needed some military force of its own after all

# ? Oct 25, 2017 18:09

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

Pretty sure the original intent behind the second amendment was to fight the tyranny of country music.

# ? Oct 25, 2017 22:25

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

Yeah the constitution doesn't contemplate a regular army and that's why it makes repeated, explicit references to one.

# ? Oct 29, 2017 05:49

TotalLossBrain: Oct 20, 2010; Hier graben!

Heh

https://twitter.com/Vanessa_Murphy/status/925099157513175040

# ? Oct 30, 2017 23:05

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Ogmius815 posted:

Yeah the constitution doesn't contemplate a regular army and that's why it makes repeated, explicit references to one.

the constitution does. the bill of rights was pushed incredibly hard by a terrified southern aristocracy that wanted to nip that bullshit in the bud, c.f. the original Tenth Amendment: "Government shall be understood to have no powers not explicitly laid out in this document."

the bill of rights was a miserable failure at what it was intended to do. that it ended up producing a viable democracy was an unpleasant surprise to everyone involved in the fight over getting it written.

# ? Oct 30, 2017 23:26

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/925110181150822402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

# ? Oct 30, 2017 23:54

byob historian: Nov 5, 2008; I'm an animal abusing piece of shit! I deliberately poisoned my dog to death and think it's funny! I'm an irredeemable sack of human shit!

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/925110181150822402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

yeah this so fukked up d~~eath~~onald torumps america

# ? Oct 31, 2017 00:09

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/925110181150822402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Louisiana, ladies and gentlemen.

# ? Oct 31, 2017 00:18

Zil: Jun 4, 2011; Satanically Summoned Citrus

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/925110181150822402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Yeah that is going before the US Supreme Court.

# ? Oct 31, 2017 00:20

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

quote:

�if y�all think I did it, I know that I didn�t do it so why don�t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what�s up.�

I don't speak redneck but seems pretty clear to me.

# ? Oct 31, 2017 00:46

CaptainSarcastic: Jul 6, 2013

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/925110181150822402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I dunno, makes sense to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shaggy_D.A.

# ? Oct 31, 2017 00:51

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Zil posted:

Yeah that is going before the US Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 ruling...

# ? Oct 31, 2017 01:42

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

the caselaw on invoking the right to counsel is not great

# ? Oct 31, 2017 03:36

Pingiivi: Mar 26, 2010; Straight into the iris!

# ? Oct 31, 2017 06:09

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Kazak_Hstan posted:

the caselaw on invoking the right to counsel is not great

It isn't, but this is probably a bridge too far for the supremes. Probably, I think.
Weirdly, if Scalia was still on the bench, it would probably be an insta-overturn. He was an rear end in a top hat and didn't care if you were innocent, but if you hosed up some crim pro, god help you.

# ? Oct 31, 2017 06:28

Zerg Mans: Oct 19, 2006

Evil Fluffy posted:

In a 5-4 ruling...

MOre like in a 9-0 ruling the court strikes this down with the 5 conservative justices offering a concurring opinion that reads in its entirety "you're saying the quiet parts too loudly"

# ? Oct 31, 2017 15:31

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

zegermans posted:

MOre like in a 9-0 ruling the court strikes this down with the 5 conservative justices offering a concurring opinion that reads in its entirety "you're saying the quiet parts too loudly"

You give them too much credit. The LA court's ruling reads like something Gorsuch would write.

# ? Nov 1, 2017 03:31