A terrible, terrible tragedy.

[ima_nerd]

(coffee has a very narrow pricerange set by the government)

:blink:

<3 big brother

[Rhydderch Hael]

No, actually. I know next to nothing about the American Civil War.

But just off the top of my head, I would imagine that, in the most tense political atmosphere your nation has ever faced, after a brutal war that many saw as a murderous reconquest, it might have seemed slightly impolitic to just hang southern leaders from the highest tree. An example of at least moderate tolerance does go a long way towards reconstructing the fiction that democracy has been restored.

I suggest you read up on the Reconstruction, and then tell me that the Radical Republicans wanted to avoid seeming a little impolitic in the eyes of the South.

Try again. Look deeper.

Though the decision on secession was decided by military and economic means, that was simply the way the hammer fell. Legal recourse was not an option because there is no clause, in overt legal terms or in the abstract philosophy of its writing, in the Constitution that expressly prohibits the right to revolt or even secede from the Union. That matter was decided on a battlefield, not the capitol(s). A clear-cut example of "might makes right", but that still does not satisfy sublime adherence to the word of law.

Pragmatically, this is the way of the world. Ideally, there's still this nagging suspicion that "might makes right"— really ain't right. Do the ends justify the means? No simple answer to that.

I don't have the easy answer, right or wrong. I bear the supreme disadvantage of not have been involved in any way (seeing as the whole mess ended over a hundred years after I was born). Ending slavery = good thing. Forceful assertion of centralized authority = not so chipper.

[Occhidiangela]

Oh mai....you really are not sure if Italy uses euro's?

Well 'we' do.........and 75 ct (or 3.847 dollarinchoz/ fahrenheit in the US) buys you a small cup of caffe (coffee has a very narrow pricerange set by the government)

I am aware that Italy has adopted the Euro, what I wasn't sure about was whether or not lire were still accepted. When I was in Italy, a cappuchino in Bella Napoli typically cost 2000 lire, which was slightly over a dollar, and an espresso, non correto, was 1500 lire. With a dram of zambuco or amaro, it was 3000 lire at stand up cafes, and 5000 lire for sit down.

.75 ct of a euro would be about a dollar at the moment.

Is the IVA still 19%, or has it changed?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Well, I can honestly and safely say that my experience will not ever live up to your own, so I suppose I should take your judgment over my own personal beliefs.

Security work wasn't my primary, it was a task I had to work into the other work I did, so I am not as well grounded as a cop. Take my input with a grain of sea salt, as that is what coarses through my veins. :whistling:

I don't know what to think, Occhi. Like all of us, I wish there was something we could have done "different" to change things, to have prevented it or lessened it. I'm pragmatic and realistic enough to know that's not entirely possible, but screw-ups do happen, and I wonder whether or not it happened here.

I recommend this study a study by the FBI as a point of departure. Some good stuff.

Worth noting, from the introduction of the fifty page monograph:

The School Shooter Phenomenon and Threat Assessment
Adolescent violence in general, and homicides in particular, have decreased since l993, but
that hopeful trend has been somewhat obscured in the nationwide wave of concern over school
shootings of the type examined in NCAVC's study. This recent form of adolescent violence is in
fact quite rare. But the sudden, senseless deaths of teenagers and teachers in the middle of a
school day, for no comprehensible reason, is far more shocking and gets far more attention than
the less extreme acts of violence that happen in schools every week.

Under the intense spotlight of national media coverage, a tragedy such as the Columbine
High School shooting spreads horror, shock, and fear to every corner of the country. Educators,
mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement officers, parents, students, and the rest of
the public all share a sense of frustration and helplessness and a compulsion to take some quick
action that can prevent similar incidents in the future.

Though understandable, this impulse can lead communities to forget the wisdom of H. L. Mencken's aphorism: "For every problem, there is a solution which is simple, neat, and wrong." In a knee-jerk reaction, communities may resort to inflexible, one-size-fits-all policies on preventing or reacting to violence.

As I said, I may just be colored by my small-town mind. I can only guess at how difficult it would be to lock down such a large location, so any opinions I have on the matter of what should have been done are going to be just that: opinions, based on nothing more than a whim, really. I freely concede that.

The "lock down" meme / sound byte seems to me tailored to prisons and single building schools or locations. That campus is hardly a good model.

Maybe everything was done right, and there was absolutely nothing that could have been done to lessen or prevent this disaster once the ball got rolling. I'm sure there were plenty of things that could have been done beforehand, in the months leading up to all this, but even that is asking a great deal.

What could have been done is that kid could have just shot himself if he was that depressed. What an arsehole, to take thirty people down with him in this lame Gotterdamerung. :( Maybe a little too much rap and emo framed his world image, or too much Wagner, too much Nietzsche, or a synergy of all that, encouraged a transition from iconoclasm to hatred to misanthropy. Maybe not. Maybe he reacted oddly to the anti depression meds he was on.

As always, your insight is an eye-opener.

The bigger eye opener to me was the news that he had been counselled for some odd behavior, but no one felt empowered to detoxify this guy more thoroughly.

There is a very fine line here, the whole 'Minority Report" conundrum, on how much authority anyone has to save someone else from his or her own inner demons. Having never been a loner, I have reached out to people who box themselves off, and find that I often have trouble reaching them, of establishing common ground. It may be that few people found the effort of trying to reach this guy worth their time, and at the same time, the current idea of "give people their own zone to be weird in" was a rational reason not to pry.

No one likes nosey neighbors, do they? I don't think most of us want to be busybodies.

Occhi

[eppie]

I am aware that Italy has adopted the Euro, what I wasn't sure about was whether or not lire were still accepted. When I was in Italy, a cappuchino in Bella Napoli typically cost 2000 lire, which was slightly over a dollar, and an espresso, non correto, was 1500 lire. With a dram of zambuco or amaro, it was 3000 lire at stand up cafes, and 5000 lire for sit down.
.75 ct of a euro would be about a dollar at the moment.
Is the IVA still 19%, or has it changed?
Occhi

1. nono juts euro's now...maybe you can still exchange the lire at the bank, nbut I'm not sure. Funny though that in Holland two months after we went from gulden to euro everybody talked in euro. In Italy after 5 years still most people talk in lire. This country is in many social and ethical aspects very very oldfashioned.

2. did you read the new book about Napoli and the camorra? Gomorra. Viaggio nell'impero economico e nel sogno di dominio della camorra
Autore Saviano Roberto
Napoli, very bella as a historic city...not very bella to walk around anymore.....
3.IVA should be 20 % but it gets paid directly (so included in the price you see in europe) furthermore I think coffee is without IVA because it is a primary neccesity to survive.
The dollar is now worth around 1500 lire (or 0.75 euro) in your time (I'm not sure exactly when that was it was probably different.

[Occhidiangela]

1. nono juts euro's now...maybe you can still exchange the lire at the bank, nbut I'm not sure. Funny though that in Holland two months after we went from gulden to euro everybody talked in euro. In Italy after 5 years still most people talk in lire. This country is in many social and ethical aspects very very oldfashioned.

2. did you read the new book about Napoli and the camorra? Gomorra. Viaggio nell'impero economico e nel sogno di dominio della camorra
Autore Saviano Roberto
Napoli, very bella as a historic city...not very bella to walk around anymore.....
3.IVA should be 20 % but it gets paid directly (so included in the price you see in europe) furthermore I think coffee is without IVA because it is a primary neccesity to survive.
The dollar is now worth around 1500 lire (or 0.75 euro) in your time (I'm not sure exactly when that was it was probably different.

I was very aware of La Comorra while I lived in Bella Napoli. Right before we moved into our house, in 1995, a guy who was freelance drug dealing in our local area (via San Nullo near Licola, a bit north of Naples, near a waterpark called "Aquaflash") was executed by the old 9mm to the back of the head. While we were there, we'd get briefs from the NCIS guys, who worked hard with the Carabinieri and the Italian Federal police, and La Guardia di Finanza, to curtail American involvement in the local drug scene. A big bust in 1996 found 12 Americans distributing (called the White Horse ring) drugs in coordination with local mob persons.

When we left in 1998, there was already some trouble in Naples over the drug trade in the Campagnia Regione. The old school Camorra families were generally against casual use of murder and execution, except in certain cases, and ascribed to a complex code of honor. They were running into new gangs encroaching on their territory who were not so traditional. The frequency of gun crime and violent crime was on the rise, after it had gone down for nearly a decade. There were some Albanian gangs who, thanks to mass migrations (illegal) from Albania after The Wall came down, and Albania fell into chaos, slowly infiltrated Southern Italy to challenge La Camorra in the drug, prostitution, and illicit garment trade.

It appears that the Grand Crown faction from Puglia may be moving north and west.

It is nearly ten years later, and I see that Naples is once again a playground for the underground, and La Camorra is having trouble staying on top. How sad. Bella Napoli has so many nice parts to it, I am sorry to see it regress. :(

Occhi

[Jester]

Rhydderch Hael,

As I said, that was merely a guess off the top of my head. My cares about the American Civil War are few, and History is so large and interesting that there doesn't seem much reason for me to dive into it. I'm sure it would sharpen my understanding of how these things were interpreted a century and a half ago.

However, as to your argument, what you're saying is that, despite every example of rebellion, including the American Civil War, having been crushed by military force rather than accepted as being a constitutional right, the fact that they only threw Jefferson Davis in the slammer for a couple years, rather than killing him, is an indication of the right of rebellion in the USA?

Also, that the "right to rebellion" that, unlike everything else in the bill of rights, including the right to bear arms, is "implemented" (as Ashock says) through the fact it isn't explicitly banned, despite having been in the declaration of independence?

I think that's a little bit of a stretch. Clearly the Union thought so too, 'cause they whomped the South on the battlefield then put them back into the USA by force. At the very least, if you maintain the notion that the south was "right" and the north was "might", that still means that, de facto, there is no "implemented" right to rebellion. From where I stand, it would make it kind of a joke, the right you can excercise freely if you don't mind being slammed by the full force of the US military.

And, I would think, this whole issue would speak only as to whether a state of the union has the right to seccede, under the strong interpretation that *anything* not explicitly earmarked for the feds is the right of the states. This power would not devolve to individual citizens in any case.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

And, I would think, this whole issue would speak only as to whether a state of the union has the right to seccede, under the strong interpretation that *anything* not explicitly earmarked for the feds is the right of the states. This power would not devolve to individual citizens in any case.

-Jester

Why has "the right of rebellion" been conflated with a societal insurance policy against the rise of tyrants here?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Consider the necessity to safeguard {freedom} the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the language I swore, that the Congressmen and Senators all swear, and in the oath of office of the President, and his cabinet officers. That language is in the Constitution, the requirement for an oath

From Article II:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

See also the oath of office of a Senator:

Upon taking office, Senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected Senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_...ts/Oath_vrd.htm

The second amendment is parsimonious with language, for sure, but there is, as you otherwise note, quite a bit behind it. The South's right to secede, or so many of them saw it, was identical to the original right of secession from England enacted by the Colonies versus King George. That a war was fought over it, and one side won or lost, does not change the principle involved. It only shows that might makes right, and that blood and iron draw borders.

It also points out, as Ben Franklin was heard to quip one fine day, that

Force s.h.i.t.s on Reason's back.

Tyrants tend to use force to compel obedience. Note the strong reaction to AG Janet Reno's move on the Branch Davidians in some libertarian and conservative circles. It is harder, but more Constitutionally correct, to undertake the more lengthy process of legislation and consensus building than merely say "do it because I said so." That expected norm is still causing GW Bush a lot of political trouble, thanks to his penchant for the "do it because I said so" strand of behavior.

The idea of defending the Constitution against enemies domestic includes, among other things, shooting the bastards when you catch them in the act.

I edited to clear a few things up and to reorganize the links.

Another edit:

I am trying to see how the militia arming themselves against a tyrant who breaches the Constitution is guilty of treason. Said tyrant would be, de facto, an enemy, domestic, and logically required to resign or make war against himself, or in Hillary's case, herself. :wacko:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Occhi

[Jester]

Why has "the right of rebellion" been conflated with a societal insurance policy against the rise of tyrants here?

The claim was made, by Ashock, that this idea of the people not relying entirely on the government and being able to resist it should it come to tyranny, is unique to America. I said it is not, that this is a much older concept that goes back through Locke to who-only-knows-where. Roland seconded him, claiming that the right exists, it just hasn't been used yet. I argue that it doesn't, and that it is a matter of national mythology, and not constitutional rights, that Americans believe the 2nd amendment somehow protects them from tyranny.

If the argument is that the right to bear arms is an insurance policy against tyranny, then it must be noted that, while there is a guaranteed right to bear arms, there is no corresponding right to use them against the government. There is no clause (except in New Hampshire!) that allows for, even in the case of tyranny, an armed rebellion. If you believe you have that right, it is because you granted it to yourself by historical analogy, not because it has been in any way "implemented" by the government. If you don't believe you have that right, then your right to bear arms is somewhat irrelevant, since you must go outside the law to overthrow the government anyway. What does it matter that you're wanted for firearm violations when you're already wanted for treason?

The second amendment, if it is in fact a shield against tyranny and not merely a way to save money on a standing army, it lacks a sister-clause that would justify their use against the government. The French, for instance, have the rule that a government that does not respect the rights of man has no constitutional authority, that the people can overthrow it and replace it with a democratic one. Nothing equivalent exists in the USA. If the government wants to react with harsh military force to rebellion, they are fully within their rights to do so, as far as I can see.

If you wanted to overthrow your government because it had turned to tyranny, you would be in the same position as anyone else in the world. There is no special case for America, not in your history, not in your constitution, and certainly not in practice.

-Jester

In response to your edit:

I am trying to see how the militia arming themselves against a tyrant who breaches the Constitution is guilty of treason. Said tyrant would be, de facto, an enemy, domestic, and logically required to resign or make war against himself, or in Hillary's case, herself.

And the judge of that tyranny is... who? The legal authority would the Supreme Court, I think. Feel free to hire a lawyer and challenge the government in court, but you can do that in any free nation. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone but the government itself the power to decide who is or is not a de facto domestic enemy. This is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, that says that the people (rather vaguely) have this natural law right to "alter or abolish" if the government turns against the "consent of the governed." The Constitution, whose framers knew full well what the Declaration said, does *not* say this.

[Occhidiangela]

The claim was made, by Ashock, that this idea of the people not relying entirely on the government and being able to resist it should it come to tyranny, is unique to America. I said it is not, that this is a much older concept that goes back through Locke to who-only-knows-where. Roland seconded him, claiming that the right exists, it just hasn't been used yet. I argue that it doesn't, and that it is a matter of national mythology, and not constitutional rights, that Americans believe the 2nd amendment somehow protects them from tyranny.

If the argument is that the right to bear arms is an insurance policy against tyranny, then it must be noted that, while there is a guaranteed right to bear arms, there is no corresponding right to use them against the government. There is no clause (except in New Hampshire!) that allows for, even in the case of tyranny, an armed rebellion.

If you believe you have that right, it is because you granted it to yourself by historical analogy, not because it has been in any way "implemented" by the government. If you don't believe you have that right, then your right to bear arms is somewhat irrelevant, since you must go outside the law to overthrow the government anyway. What does it matter that you're wanted for firearm violations when you're already wanted for treason?

You seem to miss the point of the US Constitution. All powers are reserved to the citizens and states that are not explicitly delegated to government. You thus do not need a right to throw the bastards out if they have violated their Constitutional limitations. It is inherent. Granted, due process is a good first avenue for remedy. (In the interest of splitting some hairs: this is not mythology, it is political philosophy. You are correct that it comes from multiple origins.)

The Government does not grant rights, nor does the Constitution, other than in the generally negative sense, where a right is specified, agreed to, spelled out, and codified. See the Ninth and Tenth amendments for clarification on that score.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

You are erroneously assuming that a citizen (or a group of them) exercising his/their sovereign rights as citizen and free men (woman) is being treasonous. Apprehending criminals is not a criminal act, nor is fighting treasonous tyrants treason. If you note the "them" language from article III, it is the states that are being warred against that makes for treason, or all of them, or one of them, while the person/cronies/faction of the tyrant is not so protected by the language.

I do not understand your assumption.

Occhi

[Jester]

That would be fine, if these were powers not doled out by the consitution to the federal government. The authority for the state to supress insurrections and the responsibility for maintaining republican government are both explicitly granted to the Congress. If they fail in this, as in anything else, there is no legal remedy except the courts. If the courts interpret the constitution "wrong," then you're up the creek.

If the claim is that these powers devolve to the people themselves should the government fail in these responsibilities, then that's philosophy, not law, as there is no provision for where these powers go if the Congress and the courts collude to oppress.

My assumptions are that the constitutional powers the federal government has are its own to exercise, and that the only legal check is the constitution itself, as interpreted by courts. Nowhere does it say that the people have any right, within the law, to take these matters into their own hands through force. Except in New Hampshire.

Alright, that's enough going around in circles for one week. It's been nice chatting, as always.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

That would be fine, if these were powers not doled out by the consitution to the federal government. The authority for the state to supress insurrections and the responsibility for maintaining republican government are both explicitly granted to the Congress.

Yes, and much other power is encoded in statute. That doesn't make resisting unlawful government treasonous. It rather makes it pratiotic.

If the claim is that these powers devolve to the people themselves should the government fail in these responsibilities, then that's philosophy, not law,

Wrong, though half right, as it is a case of both philosophy and law. See 9th and 10th amendment.

My assumptions are that the constitutional powers the federal government has are its own to exercise, and that the only legal check is the constitution itself, as interpreted by courts.

There are some checks between Legislative and Federal, but yes, that's roughly right, for those powers so enumerated.

Nowhere does it say that the people have any right, within the law, to take these matters into their own hands through force. Except in New Hampshire.

The Constitution does not HAVE to say it, Jester, see again, 9th and 10th.

It's been nice chatting, as always.

-Jester

Likewise, consider a Guinness to be coming your way.:)

Occhi

[Swiss Mercenary]

Wrong, though half right, as it is a case of both philosophy and law. See 9th and 10th amendment.

I can't say I understand the 9th amendment, but the 10th seems to be more concerned with residual powers.

[Occhidiangela]

I can't say I understand the 9th amendment, but the 10th seems to be more concerned with residual powers.

The idea behind it is the idea of limited governance, in that only those powers and rights explicitly and specifically granted to the government are within the government's domain, and that all rights are reserved to the people, and the states, unless explicitly granted to, or agreed to be limited by, the government.

So, any right you can come up with is yours, unless you and your fellow citizens agree that the greater good is served by limiting a right. For example, the drinking right is agreed to be limited to those who are of a certain age, or to those (formally) who won't be driving home.

To illustrate rather crudely, you don't need to have the right to masturbate to pictures of Rose McGowan spelled out. It is inherent in your being.

Occhi

[Swiss Mercenary]

To illustrate rather crudely, you don't need to have the right to masturbate to pictures of Rose McGowan spelled out. It is inherent in your being.

Occhi

Oh, right. Freedom from / freedom to distinction. However, I don't think that helps anyone make the case that treason is a constitutionally enshrined right. After all, as you've demonstrated, the constitution says nothing about underage drinking, yet it's still illegal.

[Delc]

Oh, right. Freedom from / freedom to distinction. However, I don't think that helps anyone make the case that treason is a constitutionally enshrined right. After all, as you've demonstrated, the constitution says nothing about underage drinking, yet it's still illegal.

Drinking age is a state law, as federal laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

As for the right to overthrow the government, I don't see what difference it makes if the government you are overthrowing says its ok or not. I'm pretty sure England had laws saying that what the founders did was illegal, but they still felt they were right to do it.

[kandrathe]

Yup: I just want to add my agreement with you here 100%. I have no problem with flaming clueless idiots, but reasoned and civil disagreement is another matter. The bullying, dissmissive, and insulting tone of a number of the responses in this thread (and others) is not particularly pleasant.

eppie strikes me as a saint (or, possibly, a cappuchino-drinking, freeloading, lily-livered european whose presumed lack of military training ill-suits him for the coming post-apocalyptic age, especially since his entire country is likely to be under water at the time; you can choose).
Curiously, polls seem to show that the majority of people in the US support stricter gun control laws; but the people that oppose them are so passionate about it (whatever the cost), I don't believe it will ever happen.

Your poll data also shows that support for gun control has dropped dramatically from (69% to 52%) 1998 to 2004.

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, right. Freedom from / freedom to distinction. However, I don't think that helps anyone make the case that treason is a constitutionally enshrined right. After all, as you've demonstrated, the constitution says nothing about underage drinking, yet it's still illegal.

I have not argued that the Constitution recognizes treason, that was Jester who argued that rebellion is equal to treason, which it most certainly is not (strictly speaking) On the other hand, the Congress has the power to maintain order. If the government behaves unconstitutionally, the people either put up with it, or get rid of it by whatever means necessary.

If it comes to rebellion, the niceties of Constitutional language tend to be overlooked in the short term, as Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus showed. :P

Therefore, the people need to be armed against that case of a threat to their freedom.

Occhi

[Doc]

I have not argued that the Constitution recognizes treason, that was Jester who argued that rebellion is equal to treason, which it most certainly is not (strictly speaking) On the other hand, the Congress has the power to maintain order. If the government behaves unconstitutionally, the people either put up with it, or get rid of it by whatever means necessary.

If it comes to rebellion, the niceties of Constitutional language tend to be overlooked in the short term, as Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus showed. :P

Therefore, the people need to be armed against that case of a threat to their freedom.

Occhi

Yes. And for that, we need armor piercing rounds as well as firearms (and ammo) capable of stopping tanks, helicoptors, or whatever may come along to suppress our rights to freedom. Look at Waco and the flame thrower tanks... I have stuff that would have blown those tanks in to itty bitty chunks of scrap metal. I have rounds that would have blown right through that armor plating and through the drivers inside. Or look at Ruby Ridge... Our government has no problems breaking the law to harm us... We have a right and a responsibility to make sure they pay with the lives of men should they overstep their bounds. I hope and pray to God that I never need to use the arms I keep against my own government, I'd rather use them against invaders or for societal breakdown / civil unrest.

Waco was a failure because the folks had some hardcore firepower but didn't use it. They used small arms fire and machine gun fire to speak for them when words failed. Had they used a couple of those RPGs or bazooka rounds they had stashed away, I dare say the Feds would have ran off like scalded dogs and verbal negotiations would have took place. You can lose a few lives, or you can lose a little hardware, but you start taking heavy loses of hardware and lives and there is just to damn much paper work to fill out. Beaurocracy takes over and a whole different negotiation process kicks in. How cost effective is it to root you out?

[eppie]

Yes. And for that, we need armor piercing rounds as well as firearms (and ammo) capable of stopping tanks, helicoptors, or whatever may come along to suppress our rights to freedom. Look at Waco and the flame thrower tanks... I have stuff that would have blown those tanks in to itty bitty chunks of scrap metal. I have rounds that would have blown right through that armor plating and through the drivers inside. Or look at Ruby Ridge... Our government has no problems breaking the law to harm us... We have a right and a responsibility to make sure they pay with the lives of men should they overstep their bounds. I hope and pray to God that I never need to use the arms I keep against my own government, I'd rather use them against invaders or for societal breakdown / civil unrest.

But why would your government produce so much weaponry, and also sell it to its own civilians while there actually trying to harm you?
If I would want to control the people I would not give them any weapons...or is that a strange thought?

Anyway, it is interesting to see that there are also non rightwing extremist (one man) groups that want to fight against the government.:)