Based on his correspondence at the time, it is pretty certain that Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Bill of Rights, believed that facilitating insurrection was central to the purpose of the Second Amendment.
All other implications aside.
Feudalism was the usual government at the time, and civil war and insurrection were both regarded as necessary evils. And both Jefferson and Madison spoke to the notion that our new form of government wasn't designed to be perfect and permanent, but to prolong the system's viability (before it inevitably failed).
And when it failed, they wanted the people to be ready to stand against tyranny. They talked a lot about tyranny and and how it was the ultimate threat.
Because those are natural things for a current regime to outlaw, especially since both are about taking up arms against the country.
If the US system worked ideally, an armed populace would only have to make their representatives nervous. The presumption was that if it was easy for an angered populous to overthrow a current administration violently that they might tread carefully.
We can't say this notion doesn't work. Our current government doesn't feel threatened by the people at all, whether they feel the people are unsuitably armed to make an effective uprising (in contrast to law enforcement and the National Guard), or they feel the people are easily swayed. Or maybe they regard the people as too disinclined yet to resort to violent insurrection.
But of course any regime doesn't want to be overthrown and is going to have statutes against treason or sedition against them, even if they agree that some regimes are bags of dicks. It's very similar to the way an administration can approve of the general idea that whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing deserve protections, but they don't want to see those protections for whistleblowers who expose its own wrongdoings.
...because the person they robbed it from would rather suicide by cop, and get some reprisal, rather than face the consequences of showing up to his destination empty handed.
Last I checked, if you are carrying money for the mob (any mob) and the amount doesn't balance, they feed you to the factory's tooling machines unless the sharks are peckish.
So when the person set free comes back with a gun or a bomb and kills the seizing officer (or someone at random in the precinct) that's how they'll know they actually used the civil forfeiture laws for the purpose for which they were intended.
Most of their monster budgets go towards arranging for their next monster budget, whether bribing / extorting representatives or facilitating enhanced revenues. There may be some efforts towards doing work to justified its purpose beyond that.
So yeah, every dollar they get goes to a massive infrastructural army whose primary purpose is to stop what you are suggesting from happening.
It's not just a lot of fire, it's a massive conflagration.
I do think Jeremy Lyman indirectly makes a valid point, which is that franchise owners should be held to some degree of responsibility (if not legally than socially) to the proper care, feeding and respect of its fanbase. That is to at least put effort to sustain a standard of quality-of-product, to treat the diegesis with the same respect that the fans would, and then to offer it at reasonable, affordable prices.
I'd also argue that bonus content for re-purchasing old material is taking advantage of fan enthusiasm, much like the LOTR DVD editions being followed with expanded versions of the movie that had to be purchased again. (The digital video industry is awful about taking advantage of fan loyalty.)
Companies are quite fond of disregarding their loyal customers as anything but walking wallets, so, yeah we get Horse Armor caliber content for the cost of an entire standalone game. And the only way that is justified from a marketing perspective is squeezing the loyal fanbase for their lunch money.
Lately I've heard nothing of drug dogs except how they are used to justify suspicions when there are no reasonable grounds. In the Gorman case, the dog signaled countless times, but failed to find any drugs. (I assume it wasn't trained to find money).
It raises some concerns about the reliability of dogs for sniffing contraband at all. Certainly the dog in this case should be retired. His nose sucks. Or the handler sucks. Or both.
Here we go. The Wikipedia article on detection dogs notes a report brought up in a New South Wales case saying that under test conditions, only 26% of tests in which the dog signaled positive there were drugs.
In Chicago 2011, it was noted that 46% of positive signals yielded drugs, but when the target was Hispanic, only 8%.
So yeah, these dogs are serving more as trick pony dogs, signalling when the handler wants it to, not when it's actually found something.
There should be punitive damages for false positives. In the spirit of the forth amendment, any detection system that has more false positives than false negatives should require a warrant.
Won't happen in this America, but a good tip for the next iteration.
Just to clarify AC, it sounds like you're suggesting a new state-endorsed mass-execution program that did not include amongst its intended victims people culled for their Jewish heritage would not count as a holocaust. I don't know if you're being sarcastic.
Regardless, it most certainly would be a holocaust. We differentiate the Jewish Holocaust from, say, the Armenian Holocaust or the American Indian Holocaust or a hypothetical nuclear holocaust.
And yes, not only could it happen here, it could already be happening within the nation's penal system, given how long it has taken to see other crimes against humanity surface from within our prisons (such as the recently uncovered gladitorial fight rings). I expect that, like the Snowden revelations, a Vernichtungslager program in the US will stay quiet until revealed by a whistleblower, and then it can be several years after such a program has been in operation.
We've already seen countless other specific similarities between US society and Germany circa 1929-1939. We've already seen numerous signs of state agencies regarding the people as an occupied enemy and law enforcement recognized as a privileged caste to whom ordinary law does not apply. Extermination camps are only step or two down this same gently sloping path the US has long been trekking.
I wonder if the wardens of such facilities sleep well at night knowing as they authorize the the massacre of countless convicts that at least the Jews are safe.