Somone is going to make a Johnny Cab. I can feel it.
Of course, there are already (manned) taxi services named Johnny Cab, so it's only a couple of steps for them to automate their cars and install an animatronic half-mannequin chatbot into the driver position.
Plenty more than two, but conspicuously the last two right in a row. Right when we were desperate for the new guy to be different than the old guy. He wasn't.
Fun story: Sometimes it happens in reverse. Chester A Arthur was notorious for being an owned man (by Roscoe Conkling). But when Garfield was assassinated and Arthur took office he grew a conscience (maybe visited by the Ghost of Thomas Becket of Canterbury) and pushed the civil service reform agenda which was totally contrary to the will of his patrons. Kinda like Wheeler today in the FCC.
I'm actally pretty sure the folks at the polling sites are honest.
My complaint is that we've had two presidents in a row whose administrations veered widely from their original campaigns.
That strongly suggests we can't trust our candidates to do anything close to what we voted them in to do (e.g. UNDO EVERYTHING THE LAST GUY DID!)
And my complaint is all of our representatives are owned by the lobbyists of their contributors, so very often their position is totally opposite of what the people want.
This is why we can't stop the torture program.
This is why we can't stop the surveillance program.
This is why we can't stop police overreach and brutality, nor can we serve justice to those who gun down unarmed innocents.
These are my complaints.
Regarding the revolution, one generally needs the support of about 5% of the population (which is huge and yes, hard to achieve). But one starts a revolution the way one eats an elephant, one bite at a time.
I've mentioned before that were I writing a script for a moving featuring some kids engaging in partisan activity, they might first start by sabotaging the stationary cell-phone spoofing towers, which is technology that law enforcement doesn't even want to admit they have.
Kinda like sap gloves with knuckles filled with fine shot.
To be fair, I may be in similar straits, as I said I don't trust others to decide for me what is or isn't too dangerous. That credit was blown with AD&D, Rock-&-Roll and Video Games being instruments of Satan.
It might reduce the problem. But we don't know how much, and it will widen the portal for further bans of other allegedly dangerous materials (e.g. video games mentioned above, though gay-friendly children's books are a big target, as are contraceptives)
And I'm pretty sure your standards for enjoyment are not up to par with the standards that gun enthusiasts have. Many of the other commenters think that enthusiasts should be content with computer simulations, or rented guns or slingshots. It's avoiding the issue that you're still invoking your will on their liberties.
And you're doing so based on distrust, so it's only fair that we distrust you right back. What's to stop you from expanding your regulations beyond your original mild restrictions or beyond guns to other devices? What's to stop you from using these laws to implement your religious morality on people who don't share it?
A look into recent history (The Hobby Lobby affair, The FBI's shit-flipping over practically-impenetrable cryptography, countless challenges of countless books and this freaking article right here) shows that none of this is hypothetical either.
So, yeah, I appreciate your concern, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people who do not respect the risk that comes with owning a gun. And I agree that the NRA has become something of a bag of dicks that does not represent the gun community well at all. But in the long game, gun control is not the answer, especially so as the age of 3D printing approaches and custom gun parts can be prototyped locally, rather than by a major manufacturer.
And I relentlessly distrust anyone pushing for more gun control in this convesation to not, once their agenda is furthered, wipe their hands of the Charleston massacre deciding okay we did something. That's what O'Reilly is trying to do by accusing video games. That's what Obama is trying to do by pushing gun control.
The Charleston Massacre is not another rampage killing to be swept under the rug like so many others. And blaming guns here is being used to do exactly that.
"The remarkable success that nonviolent resistance has had recently"
Oh do tell me more about his remarkable success of nonviolent resistance. Have we been able yet to cease our torture program (which is still going on, it's just classified and doesn't use waterboarding anymore) or our mass surveillance program (also still active) or our systemic police brutality and legal overreach through non-violent means?
History has shown us that when it comes to really big issues such as slavery, systemized genocide and immense wealth disparity violence has become necessary.
To be fair, I didn't read Cl. Dunlaps treatise, nor do I trust him as an authority. I have read numerous COIN experts who point out that insurrections are hard to put down when the people have a legitimate grievance.
(I've also noted that guns serve as an auxiliary function when it comes to revolution or other asymmetric theaters, which depend on sabotage, mischief -- or in many cases, terrorism -- to further their ends. Ideally, such methods are achieved more quietly than modern guns allow)
And in the US I think they have a few legitimate grievances, starting with their own representatives refusing to listen to them.
And as I pure liberty is just cause to have no restrictions on guns. So far, the government, the press, the moral guardians have all been poor judges of what is good for the people and what isn't. Why should I trust them to decide regarding guns when they've failed so many other times?
Jim Jefferies doesn't know what an assault rifle is?
But he is right about one thing: I like guns is a valid reason to allow for people to own guns.
Now I don't own a gun, and nor do I particularly want one. but we get a lot of people (like Mr. O'Reilly, above) telling us what we should be allowed to have and what we shouldn't.
To Hell with them all.
I don't trust anybody, including Bill, including you, including Mr. Jeffries to tell me what I can or cannot have. Even if you are terrified of guns, I can assure you there are people equally terrified of video games or violent movies or rock-&-roll or AD&D or psychotherapy. More so, actually.
So no. Much that I know that I still have freedom of speech by seeing that far more offensive things are being said without arrests being made (or not, as has been recent history), I can similarly expect that they're not going to take away my video games or my music or my mocha lattes or my computer on the basis that they aren't collecting guns yet.
You don't have the expertise nor, thankfully, the authority to decide what is dangerous or not or what people in a liberty-minded nation should or should not be allowed to have.
Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.
If we're going to ban guns on the premise that humans cannot be trusted to use them responsibly, then there are countless other things that should also be banned.
We should limit not only human access to swimming pools and power tools, but also rough terrain (e.g. national parks), motor vehicles, many home appliances and bathtubs.
And if the average citizen cannot be trusted with firearms, how can we trust the police or the military? I suspect that the homicide per capita for law enforcement is way higher than it is for civilians, even when you include rampage killers.
What's more interesting to me, though, is that homicides in general are way down while we seem to be having a lot of rampage killers. That doesn't sound like guns are the problem, since we have more guns than we did, say, in the seventies when homicides were up.
(Honestly, I haven't looked up to confirm if our current rate of rampage killers has been high in the last few years compared to other eras. Does anyone have any data on this?)
Using frangible or expanding ammo is much less of a war crime when chosen to do so by an individual soldier, rather than when such bullets are general issue. And yeah, in tactical situations where you don't want overpenetration, such bullets are justified.
But the point of such regulations is not to stop bullets from being less lethal, but for the lethality of war machines to not cause undue suffering.
It's fuzzy logic from the study of Jus Bellum, and yeah, it fails to recognize that war is such a big ball of suck that it's hubris to try and regulate suffering within it.
On the other hand, we've seen flamethrowers in action in WWII, and we know that that kind of thing is way to cruel and horrifying -- but not enough to stop us from using napalm in Vietnam.