• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

YAMST - Santa Clarita, CA High School

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,177
4,068
146
The problem with refining nuclear material is in how illegal it is to do and basically every country on the planet will work at stopping you if you try. If America should suddenly decide that it is okay for private citizens to do some company would be willing to do it and sell it. In just a few years they could probably get it down to somewhat reasonable prices.
Nuclear arms are kind of a silly thing to bring up in these discussions due to the complications of manufacturing. Refining nuclear material up to weapons-grade takes large-scale facilities that the average person wouldn't be able to do. Something that would bring this more in line with reason is outlawing the refinement of nuclear material, but not outlawing the weaponry itself. It's still in the realm of absurdity to be discussing it but again, per the 2A, it shouldn't be outlawed.
It has never worked that way. Always what happens is they just increase the pace. If you are not developing the next big weapon then you can be assured your enemy is.

Open it up to the public and you will create a new corporate arms race. It will become about creating the smallest cheapest weapons that can create the most destruction. We already saw that with firearms. The 'saturday night specials' was just such firearms. I used nuclear weapons as a extreme example but the real thing we would have to worry about would be stuff like surface to air missiles and anti-tank weapons that could be in the affordable range of common people.
You think a school shooting is bad now, just wait until they can load up their pickup with hellfire missiles and level the entire building in 10 seconds.
I'm aware of the above, just pointing out that as long as we continue to build more capable weaponry, the more that weaponry is going to be in the hands of the average citizen anyhow, one way or another. We're due for a game-changer on the personal armament front, and while I'm not sure what that will be just yet, I'm sure it will be something that kills a lot better than an AR-15 does.
Tell that to Bernard-René de Launay.
Fascinating history. Worth noting that he capitulated due to the threat of violence, not due to people voting that he capitulate. Literally what I was referencing, fear. Not sure what point you were trying to drive on that one.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,144
2,722
136
It's still in the realm of absurdity to be discussing it but again, per the 2A, it shouldn't be outlawed.
I agree that the nuclear weapons argument is not productive, and I'll drop it. The argument for other weapons are far more interesting.

I don't think this is what the founding fathers intended. I think that the 'well regulated militia' clause was supposed to be taken seriously and not hand waved away as meaning the same thing as 'People'.
What I think the real intent of the 2A was to make sure that the government did not centralize power into a national army. I think it was intended to make sure that states and cities could maintain their own garrison.


I'm aware of the above, just pointing out that as long as we continue to build more capable weaponry, the more that weaponry is going to be in the hands of the average citizen anyhow, one way or another. We're due for a game-changer on the personal armament front, and while I'm not sure what that will be just yet, I'm sure it will be something that kills a lot better than an AR-15 does.
Those game changers are well past. We have them. We have just been mostly successful at keeping them out of the hands of most people. Chemical weapons that can fit in the palm of your hand and kill hundreds of thousands were invented near the end of WW1 and are easy enough and cheap enough to mass produce. White phosphorous ammunition makes even flesh wounds fatal, and sometimes can manage to kill the doctors that work on them. We have automatic weapons that can fit in a glovebox and can spit out a dozen of those bullets a second. We don't need anything to make us more deadly, we have it all already. Kill-o-Zap guns might look cool, but they can hardly be more fatal than a paintball gun with sarin filled balls.

Fascinating history. Worth noting that he capitulated due to the threat of violence, not due to people voting that he capitulate. Literally what I was referencing, fear. Not sure what point you were trying to drive on that one.
Yes, the point is that he people were hardly armed. The threat of collective is that large numbers of motivated people win over well armed people, especially since the well armed people are almost always are reluctant to fire on their own people.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,177
4,068
146
I don't think this is what the founding fathers intended. I think that the 'well regulated militia' clause was supposed to be taken seriously and not hand waved away as meaning the same thing as 'People'.
What I think the real intent of the 2A was to make sure that the government did not centralize power into a national army. I think it was intended to make sure that states and cities could maintain their own garrison.
An interesting thought experiment, we can probably agree generally that giving things like high power munitions and/or advanced weapons platforms (CIWS, patriot missiles, shit like that) are probably not a great idea, how would people consider things if these were in the hands of actual, no-kidding 'well regulated militias'? Even if you back off the notion of 'militia = person' as we've discussed at length on this forum, would most people even find it acceptable for a small group of 'militants' to have access to this kind of hardware? Would it be better or worse for something that dangerous to be in the hands of a group of like-minded people, rather than 'chaotic' individuals?

Those game changers are well past. We have them. We have just been mostly successful at keeping them out of the hands of most people. Chemical weapons that can fit in the palm of your hand and kill hundreds of thousands were invented near the end of WW1 and are easy enough and cheap enough to mass produce. White phosphorous ammunition makes even flesh wounds fatal, and sometimes can manage to kill the doctors that work on them. We have automatic weapons that can fit in a glovebox and can spit out a dozen of those bullets a second. We don't need anything to make us more deadly, we have it all already. Kill-o-Zap guns might look cool, but they can hardly be more fatal than a paintball gun with sarin filled balls.
I'm sure some very smart person said the same thing about muskets when we found out we could massacre armies of trained swordsmen with them. Pretty sure those advancements won't end until we evolve socially.
Yes, the point is that he people were hardly armed. The threat of collective is that large numbers of motivated people win over well armed people, especially since the well armed people are almost always are reluctant to fire on their own people.
I mean, they were armed well enough to kill the guy after he surrendered. They did actually shoot him too, incidentally... so at least one of them was armed.

My point still stands, 'collective action' didn't apply here, 'mob threatening violence' plus 'internal agents refusing to let him commit suicide' was what ended that siege. I've yet to see dramatic change in societal norms that didn't come with some kind of violence.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,144
2,722
136
An interesting thought experiment, we can probably agree generally that giving things like high power munitions and/or advanced weapons platforms (CIWS, patriot missiles, shit like that) are probably not a great idea, how would people consider things if these were in the hands of actual, no-kidding 'well regulated militias'? Even if you back off the notion of 'militia = person' as we've discussed at length on this forum, would most people even find it acceptable for a small group of 'militants' to have access to this kind of hardware? Would it be better or worse for something that dangerous to be in the hands of a group of like-minded people, rather than 'chaotic' individuals?
We have that already. There are any number of mercenary groups out there that has military grade weaponry. Several corporations have full fledged militaries including air support. They are basically governments, and can be dealt with in a similar manner. Yes, they are trouble, and I would rather they not exist, but outlawing them might cause even more problems.. ISIS is basically one such group. But they are a very different problem, and one that I think the Constitution takes into consideration.

I'm sure some very smart person said the same thing about muskets when we found out we could massacre armies of trained swordsmen with them. Pretty sure those advancements won't end until we evolve socially.
I'm sure. All I'm pointing out is that we don't need to wait for some yet-to-come deadly weapon. They are here. Sure, they will get worse, but we know that. So, how much does it really matter? How about we plan for that now. Why are we waiting? How much blood is too much? My point is we are already at the point where it is too much, and it would only be a good thing to prevent it from getting worse.

My point still stands, 'collective action' didn't apply here, 'mob threatening violence' plus 'internal agents refusing to let him commit suicide' was what ended that siege. I've yet to see dramatic change in societal norms that didn't come with some kind of violence.
Collective action can be violence. My point is that it is not the weapons that make that possible, it is the will for the people to change things or die trying that makes the difference. You don't need weapons to affect change. You just need the anger.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,177
4,068
146
We have that already. There are any number of mercenary groups out there that has military grade weaponry. Several corporations have full fledged militaries including air support. They are basically governments, and can be dealt with in a similar manner. Yes, they are trouble, and I would rather they not exist, but outlawing them might cause even more problems.. ISIS is basically one such group. But they are a very different problem, and one that I think the Constitution takes into consideration.
Sorry, I meant American ones, operating on American soil. Basically unsanctioned standing armies (depending on your scale for the word 'army').
How much blood is too much? My point is we are already at the point where it is too much, and it would only be a good thing to prevent it from getting worse.
Good question, and I don't have an answer. My personal belief is that there's no such thing as too much, but then I see authoritative governments as an existential threat. I do not see terrorism, or random acts of violence as such.
Collective action can be violence. My point is that it is not the weapons that make that possible, it is the will for the people to change things or die trying that makes the difference. You don't need weapons to affect change. You just need the anger.
Again though, in the example you gave, anger didn't force Bernard-Rene to abandon the prison he had taken refuge in, the threat of, and ensuing violence did.
Unlike Sombreuil, the governor of Hôtel des Invalides, who had accepted the revolutionaries' demands earlier that day, de Launay refused to surrender the prison fortress and hand over the arms and the gunpowder stored in the cellars.[2] He promised that he would not fire unless attacked and tried to negotiate with two delegates from the Hôtel de Ville, but the discussions drew out. A part of the impatient crowd started to enter the outer courtyard of the fortress after a small group broke the chains securing the drawbridge.[3] After shouting warnings the garrison opened fire.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The besiegers interpreted this as treachery on the part of de Launay.[4][5][6][7] The ensuing fighting lasted about four hours, resulting in about 100 casualties among the exposed crowd but only one death and three wounded[8] amongst the well-protected defenders firing from loopholes and battlements. With no source of water and only limited food supplies within the Bastille, de Launay decided to capitulate on the condition that nobody from within the fortress would be harmed.[9] In a note passed out through an opening in the drawbridge he threatened that he would blow up the entire fortress and the surrounding district if these conditions were rejected.[10] De Launay's conditions were rejected but he nevertheless capitulated, reportedly after members of the garrison prevented him from entering the cellars where the gunpowder was stored. At about 5pm firing from the fortress ceased and the drawbridge was suddenly lowered.[11]
Emphasis mine. There was a literal gunfight between his defenders and the crowd, resulting in multiple casualties. Further violence was expected, along with him either being starved out or meeting a violent end to the crowd. That is *not* collective action, unless you also consider war to be a collective action. That was a violent riot including people with guns.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY