Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on May 23, 2002, 11:25:15 AM
-
When he talked about trading liberty for security....
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,52739,00.html
What do you do when it apears that your entire legislative branch is corrupt? What do you do when a large portion of them view the constitution as an obsticle? What do you do when you have 600 tyrants in control of your government?
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said "the tree of liberty must be fed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time"? Is it getting time for a revolution here? Since 9/11 all they seem to have done is throw money at problems and chip away at our liberties.
Anybody else getting tired of this? I am and I don't see it getting any better......
-
I normaly don't get involved in these discussions but I concur 100%. I felt this way a few weeks after 9/11 when they started with adding new Depts to the government as well as increasing the power able to be wielded by politicians, law makers, the military and enforcement/intellegence agencies.
Has my life changed? Not all. But one small data processing error on some Gov't employees part (ss# typo, name or address error) and that could change drastically.
Westy
-
USA PATRIOT Act
'nuff said
-
Do what we in Canada did to the Progressive Conservative Party. Vote them out. By the end of that election they were left with only 2 seats in the House of Commons.
Of course now we've been left with a Liberal Party dynasty that doesn't seem to want to end.
-
We need to go back to the lowest common denominator, giving as much control to local and state goverments as possible. Too many of us feel we have zero influence on the federal goverment.
The absolute worst thing most of us do, is to tell our children that ALL politicians are crooked, this makes it acceptable, and our children grow up expecting nothing more.
And so as the Gun Control lobbyists ask for more legislation, we can gain a glimpse as to why the founding fathers were so adament about perserving our Right to Bear Arms.
It was thier way of insuring that the PEOPLE had the ability to change the goverment by force if necessary when petitions and discussion had failed.
-
you're right on target there Udie
-
Originally posted by milnko
And so as the Gun Control lobbyists ask for more legislation, we can gain a glimpse as to why the founding fathers were so adament about perserving our Right to Bear Arms.
It was thier way of insuring that the PEOPLE had the ability to change the goverment by force if necessary when petitions and discussion had failed.
You wouldn't last 5 minutes against the local PD, not to mention the US army.
There's good reasons for owning guns, fighting the government isn't one of them.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
You wouldn't last 5 minutes against the local PD, not to mention the US army.
There's good reasons for owning guns, fighting the government isn't one of them.
Ever heard of militias? They stockpile weapons for something... and it ain't duck hunting.
Check out the midwest, I'm sure that given the reason to unite they wouldn't give it a second thought regarding an uprise.
-SW
-
Make them all live like the osbournes on a reality tv show.
Kanthy
-
Originally posted by milnko
And so as the Gun Control lobbyists ask for more legislation, we can gain a glimpse as to why the founding fathers were so adament about perserving our Right to Bear Arms.
It was thier way of insuring that the PEOPLE had the ability to change the goverment by force if necessary when petitions and discussion had failed.
roadkill... your pistols and semi-automatic weapons aren't going to change the government. This argument is so tired.
Militias... LOL
I imagine that the Taliban/Al-Queda were probably better equipped than any militia (i use the term loosely) in this country. Look how well they're doing. :rolleyes:
-
there are many reasons for the right to bear arms, and war against the gov't is the main one. actually the right of the people to bear arms is one of the few things that keep those in power from completely disregarding the rights of the average guy, there are few things scarier than an armed man with nothing to lose.
i also believe our gov't has become structured upside-downfor a democracy, any organisation that is structured from top down is not going to represent the average member.
the federal gov't should only get involved in afairs that your state can't handle (nat'l deffence, inter-state disputes, ect), the state should only get involved in issues the county can't solve, and the county only involved where the city can't hadle it. that way you have a much better chance of knowing the people who have the most power over your life. so you know the people who hadle most of your everyday issues personaly or at least by reputation, as it is with the federal gov't controling everything exept what they choose not to bother with you don't really know anything about these politicians, just what their pr guys say about them.
-
most of the US army is over-seas defending "US intrests"
-
What about the FBI? Interstate commerce? Transportation? The list goes on and on. A strong central government has become a necessity. I have yet to read any info from a militia that was worth the paper it was written on. Just wackos with "my gun is bigger than yours" complexes.
I wonder how involved some of you actually get. Especially those who are berating the process.
-
Udie,
You do not have enough sympathisers to elect the right pople into office. Why do you think you will have enough to have a revolution?
You do need a majority for that, you know - otherwise even if you won, you would be a dictator! But if you had majority, you would not need to fight, just vote...
Our government may be corrupt but I think it accurately reflects the people it represents.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Udie,
You do not have enough sympathisers to elect the right pople into office. Why do you think you will have enough to have a revolution?
You do need a majority for that, you know - otherwise even if you won, you would be a dictator! But if you had majority, you would not need to fight, just vote...
Our government may be corrupt but I think it accurately reflects the people it represents.
miko
I don't think a revolution is possible, not an armed one anyway. I do believe that the system was not designed to be run they way it is today and I think it will fail because of that. Try and stand a pyramid on it's point and it will fall over every time. Power is supposed to flow up from the individual to the federal government through local, county and state politics before federal. It's almost 100% the otherway around now. I call it highway blackmail or highway robbery. They force laws on the states by the threat of not giving highway dollars. That's freakin extortion the way I look at it and that's the way the Feds work on everything.
We need some sort of revolution but I am not holding my breath. I don't have much faith in the wisdom of the average American. And I have less faith in mankind as a whole. IT just really pisses me off to see our elected officials piss off rights and liberties that so many have died or lived mangled lives for....
-
I wonder how many of you people actually believe I was serious. I was proposing that as an argument to what I quoted.
Of course, most Americans are sheep... the guvment are the sheepherders... sheep trust the sheepherders even when they really shouldn't.
Or maybe more appropriately... Americans are cows... big brotha is the cowboy rounding 'em up... and edging them ever so slowly to the slaughter house.
Does anyone actually trust the government? These guys could, and so far some do, get away with murder.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
roadkill... your pistols and semi-automatic weapons aren't going to change the government. This argument is so tired.
Militias... LOL
You know, I imagine the British King and Parliament thought much the same thing when they sent troops in to squash the colonial rebellion.
What makes you confident that the Army or Police would open fire on thier own citizens?
When the coup leaders in Russia tried to oust Gorbachev they sent in troops to disperse the crowds in Moscow, the coup leaders received a rude shock when the troops refused to fire on the citizens.
Exactly what reason do YOU believe the founding fathers had in mind when including the bearing arms while drafting the Bill Of Rights?
Repelling invasion?
Self protection from hostile Indians?
Let's look at the exact wording of the Amendment;
(On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, ten amendments which became the Bill of Rights. (http://www.constitutionfacts.com/cons.shtml))
Amendment II.
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.
Hmmmm, it's interesting that the words MILITIA, NECESSARY, SECURITY and FREE STATE should all be used in the wording of the Amendment when outlining the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, don't you think?
The founding fathers having just fought a war for Independence were well aware that as regretable as it may be, there are times in mankind's history when protests, discussions, implorments, and petitions have all been fully exhausted, a time when only force of arms will protect Rights and Liberties.
Do I advocate a violent overthrow of the US Goverment? The answer is NO!
Do I believe that a violent rebellion to overthrow the US goverment would succeed? The answer is NO!
However, it's my belief that the Right to Bear Arms was secured to give pause to the standing goverment, to insure those in power think twice and think hard in when contemplating the disposal of free elections, and disregarding of the expressed will of the people to whom they serve.
-
I will tell you what the problem is.
When US was just created and it did not have many laws or government, people had to exercise their own power - practice democracy so to speak.
If they did not like foreign country, they did not buy their stuff. If they wanted to support native industry, they bought the prodicts.
It was not really like that, but much closer then what we have now.
Then they found it too much of a hasle and gave some more power to the government - to save their children the trouble. So teh children grew up in a democracy but they were not practicing democrats themselves - they never had a chance or reason. It went downhill from there.
We have a democratic country but practicaly no democrats - people willing to exercise their judgement.
That is why we ended up with a whole load of laws restricting ourselves. What is the point? If we do not want to do it, we do not need laws. If we want to do it, we do not want laws...
Anyway, once power got concentared, it became much easier to subvert - under the best pretexts. All those nuicance laws protecting us against ourlesves - seatbelt laws, bycicle helmet laws, concensual crimes (drug use), prohibition.
If a father wants to raise a good child, he does not shield him from teh difficulties he encountered himself. Otherwise that child will be complete opposite of the father. You cannot do everything for the people - at least not if you wish them good.
miko
-
Just kill all the democrats and we will be free.
-
Originally posted by milnko
You know, I imagine the British King and Parliament thought much the same thing when they sent troops in to squash the colonial rebellion.
What makes you confident that the Army or Police would open fire on thier own citizens?
When the coup leaders in Russia tried to oust Gorbachev they sent in troops to disperse the crowds in Moscow, the coup leaders received a rude shock when the troops refused to fire on the citizens.
Exactly what reason do YOU believe the founding fathers had in mind when including the bearing arms while drafting the Bill Of Rights?
Repelling invasion?
Self protection from hostile Indians?
Let's look at the exact wording of the Amendment;
(On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, ten amendments which became the Bill of Rights. (http://www.constitutionfacts.com/cons.shtml))
Amendment II.
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.
Hmmmm, it's interesting that the words MILITIA, NECESSARY, SECURITY and FREE STATE should all be used in the wording of the Amendment when outlining the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, don't you think?
The founding fathers having just fought a war for Independence were well aware that as regretable as it may be, there are times in mankind's history when protests, discussions, implorments, and petitions have all been fully exhausted, a time when only force of arms will protect Rights and Liberties.
Do I advocate a violent overthrow of the US Goverment? The answer is NO!
Do I believe that a violent rebellion to overthrow the US goverment would succeed? The answer is NO!
However, it's my belief that the Right to Bear Arms was secured to give pause to the standing goverment, to insure those in power think twice and think hard in when contemplating the disposal of free elections, and disregarding of the expressed will of the people to whom they serve.
Where is this "well-regulated militia"?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Where is this "well-regulated militia"?
It's south of Cleveland, about 20 paces, turn left then dig.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Just kill all the democrats and we will be free.
Two options...
1. Kill the conservatives. We'll all be free.
2. Kill the liberals. We'll all be safe.