Senate passes NDAA without indefinite detention ban, Sen. Paul calls it ‘abomination’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] Wow. Seriously? I think this is still one of the most retarded arguments for your Second Amendment. You live in a modern democratic country. You don't need guns to get your political stance across unless you're in a civil war. If a government crosses the line, people protest. And if enough people protest, shit changes. The Second Amendment was based on the idea that it would grant some kind of safeguard against the US turning into a dictatorship. I don't see how that could ever happen in modern day US, whether citizens have guns or not.

Good thing I'm considering leaving this country in a few years.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38930395]happened like a year ago and it's happening again this year because ndaa is a yearly bill [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] it sets military expenditure so it needs to be renewed every year otherwise the dod doesn't get any of it's monies[/QUOTE] It's kind of fucked up that we have to agree on new moral standards on the treatment of American citizens paired with an essential yearly military budget. [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Clavus;38931814]Wow. Seriously? I think this is still one of the most retarded arguments for your Second Amendment. You live in a modern democratic country. You don't need guns to get your political stance across unless you're in a civil war. If a government crosses the line, people protest. And if enough people protest, shit changes. The Second Amendment was based on the idea that it would grant some kind of safeguard against the US turning into a dictatorship. I don't see how that could ever happen in modern day US, whether citizens have guns or not.[/QUOTE] What happens when people protest and nothing changes? What happens when their voices are marginalized by the media to nearly nothing? With it's prisons, military, and police force, the US government could commit untold human rights violations before any nation would have the courage to do anything besides denounce it. I also don't think China would set up trade sanctions if our government adopted a similarly militaristic approach to the handling of the people, which means that there would be little to economically cripple the country and force the government to comply and end it's human rights violations.

Nice to see the US violating human rights. So I suppose they are far from being a first world country now?

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] The most advanced military, a police that has access to light military vehicles and weapons versus a bunch of goons armed with guns - no offense. Essentially the only chance an armed civilian uprising would have in the US, is if large parts of them ilitary don't participate or if they even defect.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;38931876]What happens when people protest and nothing changes? What happens when their voices are marginalized by the media to nearly nothing? With it's prisons, military, and police force, the US government could commit untold human rights violations before any nation would have the courage to do anything besides denounce it.[/QUOTE] Your media, military, prisons and police force is run by the same people that it's serving. In the end, protest, depending on the momentum, can change everything in a democracy. It changes opinions, which in turn changes leadership. You'd need one giant and ridiculously organized conspiracy to break that system from the inside. Your government is way too invested in having a democracy to actually hurt it. In the end, they have places like Guantanamo because they're frustrated with how little you can extract from a terrorist that has rights. They want information that could be vital to protect their citizens. This doesn't mean Guantanamo shouldn't be removed from the face of the earth, but it exists because some people up there think that they have to manoeuvre around human rights to protect the country, they want to avoid another 9/11 at all costs.

[QUOTE=KigJow;38930419]Things like this remind me why we have the Second Amendment here in the US. It's probably the only thing keeping the US Government from passing more laws like this (by this I mean indefinite detention). With the Second Amendment, we would at least have a fighting chance should the government step across the line.[/QUOTE] I'd love to see this. A bunch of ill-trained militias against the greatest war-machine in the world. [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doom14;38930672]Because the entire military is a single-minded, uninformed drone and will blindly follow any command, even those against citizens.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings"]Yeah.[/URL] [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Clavus;38931814]The Second Amendment was based on the idea that it would grant some kind of safeguard against the US turning into a dictatorship. I don't see how that could ever happen in modern day US, whether citizens have guns or not.[/QUOTE] The Second Amendment is about letting yeoman farmers own guns so that they are easier to mobilise at the time of war because the USA [B]does not have any standing army[/B] during her early days.