Lawrence Lessig: The Man You Have Never Heard Of Who Should Be Running In 2016

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

If no one starts a revolution how does it come to you? Does a ghost start it? Magic? God? People start revolutions so if you want one start it.

People start revolutions when the situation calls for it. If you want a history lesson, read a book. Right now, America is just not bad off enough for a revolution. But, I do believe we're on the edge. Radical gun laws would be the straw.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

So I think I should get a nuke

There's no domestic entity with a nuke with a problem that another's AR-15 can't solve. There are domestic entities with problems that a another's pistol can't solve.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Hehe. So can you tell me the exact point at which you would revolt? You're clearly very unhappy with our country but you aren't revolting. So what's the exact point when the camels back breaks?

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

I skimmed. He mostly talked about America

Well, in case you missed, he's an Australian, who, apparently, knows more about what it takes to be an American Patriot than you.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Huh? Can you elaborate on what a patriot is?

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

Hehe. So can you tell me the exact point at which you would revolt? You're clearly very unhappy with our country but you aren't revolting. So what's the exact point when the camels back breaks?

Attempted confiscation of my weapons.

I am not "very unhappy" with our country. I'm very unhappy with the attempt of the government to take power away from individuals. But, I think we still have a lot of individual power and I still have hope for a civilized future where we can be free individuals.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

Huh? Can you elaborate on what a patriot is?

Someone that wants American citizens to be prepared to defend other Americans from enemies foreign and domestic and who will exercise that power when the time comes that it is necessary.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

reasonable limitations

Limits on high capacity magazines and restrictions on certain types of assault weapons (like the semi-automatic AR-15) is far from reasonable.

are being serious...?...correct me if i am wrong here but you have a problem with this guy because his stance is that high capacity magazines and assault rifles are unnecessary ?

a reply to: smithjustinb

Well, in case you missed, he's an Australian, who, apparently, knows more about what it takes to be an American Patriot than you.

Thank you kind sir, but I consider myself as simply a lover of freedom of humanity.

I fear (and hope) that America will eventually be the last hope of freedom. The way it is looking, it could be Russia as well. Lol.

The 2nd is freedom's last resort.

P

a reply to: smithjustinb

So should we give you tanks too? If we should be prepared why not grenade launchers and RPGs and anti air missiles? You realize the government you suggest fighting has the strongest most advanced military in history. You can't fight the US military with an AR-15 . Just ask all the third world nations. They have tons of assault rifles. It sure didn't help them.

a reply to: Hefficide
I'm a little insulted by the title. Never heard of eh? Lessig is my favourite IP law professor...

I dont think his PAC to end all PAC's will work tho... that is what this is about right? I didnt click the link and just posted this without further thought as you clearly miss-judged the knowledge of your fellow ATSers.

Love ya work tho

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

So because he wants reasonable limitations on guns he's a tyrant. He's quite far from a tyrant. Maybe you should look into him more. He seems like an all around nice guy. He has done nothing but try to fight for democracy and the little guy.

Frankly, if he wants limits on constitutional amendments, he has absolutely NO business touting himself as a 'constitutionalist', because he ain't.

Wolf in sheep's clothing, trojan horse...take your pick.

a reply to: MysterX

Lol. Which politician doesnt wanna limit the constitution? His main focus is getting money out of politics and returning the power to the people.

Way to pick one thing and invalidate the entire person . He's not gonna take your guns just your assault rifles which have no place in civilian society. They didn't exist when the constitution was written so don't say the founding fathers wanted it :p

a reply to: tavi45

just your assault rifles which have no place in civilian society. They didn't exist when the constitution was written so don't say the founding fathers wanted it

When the 2nd was enacted, private citizens were able to own warships so that just buries your argument.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

OK so build yourself a warship. Private citizens can be trusted with weapons of war right? Let's give an assault rifle to everyone. You're fine with Muslims and blacks having em too?

a reply to: tavi45

Because he is selling himself partly on that one, quite important thing, that's why mate.

If i were a charity worker, and helped people, but kept on nicking the donations to live it up...would you ignore that one thing because i helped people?

How about a paramedic or firefighter who comes to your aid, but goes through your pockets and steals your valuables?

Should we then ignore that one thing too, because he or she came to your aid?

If he's selling himself as a 'constitutionalist', and given that the constitution is a fairly important subject for most Americans, claiming the constitution as a cherished entity and then on the other side of the cheek wants to limit aspects of it, doesn't say 'constitutionalist' to me.

It says to me, he is mouthing what he knows people want to hear, but out of the other side of his pie hole, saying the opposite.

Trojan horse still stands. There's no better place to create damage, than from within.

a reply to: tavi45

Let's give an assault rifle to everyone. You're fine with Muslims and blacks having em too?

Some countries happily give their citizens assault rifles without any concern and yes, the US constitution allows all citizens to be armed regardless of race, color or religion.

Do you have a problem with Muslims and black people being armed?

P

a reply to: tavi45

You OK with the police, the civilian police with their less than shining record of killing Americans mind you, to have assault weapons firing stockpiled hollow point rounds at civilians and battle tanks running around all over the neighbourhood and leave the civilians with pea shooters to defend against a potential out of control and oppressive police force?

This is exactly the reason the 2nd is there.

If the Police have them, the 2nd dictates that the people should be able to defend against them if the need should ever arise...with luck, the need should never ever arise, but if it ever did, the people cannot take on on tanks and assault rifles aimed at them with pea shooters and pistols.

a reply to: MysterX

Uh the constitution is meant to be changed. It's in the constitution. Anyways how is an assault weapon ban awful but the patriot act is fine? Tons of politicians signed that :p

Regardless his main goal is getting money out of politics and returning power to the people. You could vote to stop him.

He's not selling himself on gun control at all. You guys are. He has a stance. That's not the same as a goal.

Do you know his story and background? He seems genuine as hell to me. You picked a single point on gun control and call him a Trojan horse. Go read up on his background and history then come back. His record shows his primary and only focus is getting money out of politics. He's obsessed with it.

The ones to watch out for are Clinton and Bush and the ones already in power not this guy.

a reply to: tavi45

Didn't mention he was selling himself on gun control, i said he's selling himself in part on being a faithful 'constitutionalist' while aiming to limit the terms of the constitution.

Ergo, he's a liar and a hypocrite IMO...and there's far too many of those in DC as it is.

Not that it really concerns me, being a Brit, but i will say it like i read it and in the first few paragraphs of reading anything at all about this guy, i read blatant hypocrisy on one of the most cherished subjects an American has...that's enough for me personally to make a judgement, snap though it may be, first impressions count.

And when i get the impression that someone seeking power over others is a liar and talking out of both sides of his face at once, i say it like i see it.