LogFAQs > #887841274

foolm0r0n posted...

Let's say the government has a new policy that every house will have cameras installed in it. All they want is mass surveillance into every citizen's life, they explicitly DON'T want to declare war on their own citizens and murders thousands/millions of them. The 2nd amendment and the proliferation of arms among citizens makes it so, if people want to resist cameras in their home, the government has to decide whether it's worth starting a vicious murderous war just to get what they want. It's a simple decision. (which is why government goes for far more acceptable surveillance like Alexa/etc)

Well first of all this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and would be struck down in an instant by any court.

Second, citizens in this hypothetical would have a number of recourses short of armed rebellion, like breaking the cameras or applying tape over the lenses and microphones to obscure any information gathering.

Third, armies are made of human beings and while there are some people in any population who will blindly obey any order an authority figure gives them I have a hard time believing the military en masse will obey orders to essentially enslave and murder their countrymen, neighbors, friends, and family.

Fourth, actually executing this policy would immediately and irreparably trash the current administration's reputation both at home and abroad, so I hope they're ready to suspend elections (further destroying any shred of credibility the government had left) and live with economic sanctions roughly on par with what North Korea currently enjoys.

And finally, if the government doesn't want to murder millions of their own citizens they could always... just not murder millions of civilians? It's really not that hard, most U.S. governments to this point have come and gone without doing so!
---

Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb
I headbang to Bruckner.