Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
    Well the way I look at is:

    The palestinians are trying to stop Isrealis invading their land and all firearms (& rockets) are doing is giving the Isreali's a half arsed excuse to continue to do it....

    Look at Bielski Partisans (the jews in Nazi occupied Poland), they were used as an excuse to ounish all Jews...

    I can keep citing examples... At the end of the day the US government can do almost anything as long as it get the propaganda right...

    Remember the US Citizen would be up against the most heavilly armed force that has ever existed, paid for by them...
    The problem is, this isn't the Gaza strip or the West Bank. Nor is this occupied Poland. You cannot honestly compare those locations with the United States today because there are far to many differences.

    You do have a point about getting the propaganda right. Any revolution or rebellion would need just as an effective PR infrastructure as it would need a fighting one.

    Lastly, and I have said this before, in such a rebellion/revolution scenario it is foolish to think that the entire US Military would side with the government.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

      Originally posted by Good1 View Post
      Because we implicitly approved of those tyrranies?
      Sadly I suspect that is the answer. As long as the US government persecuted or oppressed groups that people mistrusted or were ambivalent about I have a horrible feeling that nnobody at all would rise up and defend them, march on washington or form an armed cordon around the homes of those being oppressed in order prevent their persecution. History rather painfully seems to suggest the while notion of an armed populace preventing oppressive government is just a piece of myth making in the USA. It's never stopped an injustice in the past that I can see and I doubt it would in the future.

      (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

      Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
      Here's a better question:

      Does an unarmed populace prevent a tyrannical government?
      Probably not but I don't see anybody trying to say that here, do you ?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        Yeah, in hindsight it seems disgusting. At the time, with america being attacked and not knowing if we were gonna be speaking japanese or german it was a reaction. It's not like these americans were treated inhumanely, although I understand how it was against the constitution.
        Well the ones who were killed seem to have been treated pretty inhumanely, also the ones ones who died in the camps due to poor treatment by guards, lack of medical attention etc etc

        .The topic of this thread shows an ignorance of our history and how we have changed over time. Not many americans early on would have killed another american with their guns because he owned slaves. Not many would have pulled out their black powder guns to defend the indians, as many americans died at their hands as the indians fought back to retain their land and existence. .
        Ignorance in what sense ?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

          Originally posted by Good1 View Post
          Because we implicitly approved of those tyrranies?
          Which seems to be the point we're approaching with the 2nd Amendment.

          When the majority of Americans, including many who own simple hunting-type rifles, shotguns, and handguns, all begin to agree that semi automatic/high capacity/M4gery type/"assault" rifles are no bueno they've effectively approved of a tyrrany.

          And if it was cool for the gov to get its tyrrany on in the past because the people abdicated responsibility for defending the Constitution then I have a hard time seeing whhat's going to stop the gov this time.

          Sure, the 5% of gun owners who actually own AKs, ARs, and other mil knockoffs (or straight up mil grade) might decide to put up a fight, but that didn't work out too well for the slaves, the redman, or the Japs when big brother came for them.

          Originally posted by Agentorange View Post
          As long as the US government persecuted or oppressed groups that people mistrusted or were ambivalent about I have a horrible feeling that nnobody at all would rise up and defend them...
          Kinda the position that the "from my cold dead hands" crowd is beginning to find itself in.

          Soccer Mom and Bob the Accountant don't have any great deal more affinity for gun owners who believe (mistakenly, in my opinion) that their gun ownership is keeping the government in check than their forefathers had for the minority groups we're otherwise discussing. Many, and I mean M.A.N.Y., of my life-long, Catholic school, never have and never will vote for a Democrat, friends are getting on board with this call to ban "scary" guns. I've had my Facebook page erupt into bedlam with these folks arguing with my old Army buddies (many of whom own "scary" guns) over this issue. These are folks who agree on nearly everything politically but many average, social conservative/fiscal conservative, white collar, Republicans just cannot get behind the call to defend ALL guns.

          As we're beginning to see, the gov isn't going to come for ALL the guns at once. It's going to come for the "scary" guns first and it's going to tell everyone else, "No, no, no don't you worry. Those 30/06s, the .22s, the handguns, the scatterguns, them's all cool. We only want the "evil" guns. The guns that kill the children. If you don't keep those types of guns we're cool with you, you go right ahead and hunt your turkeys and your 'coons. You're the "good" gun owners, the "good" people. We only want to take the "bad" guns from the "bad" man. You don't want the "bad" guns out there, they kill the children. You don't want to associate with the "bad" man. His guns kill the children."

          Instead of the "War on Drugs" it'll be the "War on Guns" and AR owners will take on the role of crackheads and junkies.

          Cuz the gubmint man said they were bad.

          95% +/- of the American people are sheep, you know this. And the vast majority are stupid and gullible.

          Folks are gonna roll over and the next thing you know the ATF is going to be going all Ruby Ridge up in this here motherfucker.
          Last edited by soot; 01-03-2013, 02:44 PM.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

            Originally posted by Agentorange View Post
            Sadly I suspect that is the answer. As long as the US government persecuted or oppressed groups that people mistrusted or were ambivalent about I have a horrible feeling that nnobody at all would rise up and defend them, march on washington or form an armed cordon around the homes of those being oppressed in order prevent their persecution. History rather painfully seems to suggest the while notion of an armed populace preventing oppressive government is just a piece of myth making in the USA. It's never stopped an injustice in the past that I can see and I doubt it would in the future.
            We could say those events were tyrannies against those groups but certainly not over all a tyrannical government.

            And I firmly believe an armed populace is key to reducing the probability of a tyrannical government.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

              Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
              We could say those events were tyrannies against those groups but certainly not over all a tyrannical government.

              And I firmly believe an armed populace is key to reducing the probability of a tyrannical government.
              At risk of sounding nit picky surely if a government behaves in a tyrannical fashion it is by definition a tyrannical government ?

              I take your point though. I think that maybe an armed population reduces the chances of a totalitarian government.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                Here's a better question:

                Does an unarmed populace prevent a tyrannical government?
                Good question.


                A well armed populace may very well deter a government from imposing tyrannies.

                But I think an even better question is: What is the chance that the US Government would become a tyrannical government?


                Regardless of the checks and balances in the US Government to prevent this from happening, it seems so culturally unAmerican that I don't know where enough Americans who want to tyrannize their fellow Americans would come from to effectively make it happen.

                Not only that, but who wants to be a tyrant anyways? What's the appeal?

                Sure George Washington did a very noble act and set a great precedent by stepping down after two terms. And I am sure he was sincere about it. But I just bet part of him also thought, "This president gig kind of sucks, I just want to go back to my farm and chill the fuck out."

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                  Originally posted by Agentorange View Post
                  Sadly I suspect that is the answer. As long as the US government persecuted or oppressed groups that people mistrusted or were ambivalent about I have a horrible feeling that nnobody at all would rise up and defend them, march on washington or form an armed cordon around the homes of those being oppressed in order prevent their persecution. History rather painfully seems to suggest the while notion of an armed populace preventing oppressive government is just a piece of myth making in the USA. It's never stopped an injustice in the past that I can see and I doubt it would in the future.

                  (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ



                  Probably not but I don't see anybody trying to say that here, do you ?
                  Well of course you completely missed the point. You just admitted that an unarmed populace "probably could not" stop a tyrannical government. So here's the point in the form of a question: Which one has the best chance of stopping a tyrannical government, an armed or an unarmed populace? Again we are just talking odds; it may very well be that neither can realistically, but that's not the question. Which one has the best chance of preventing such a thing?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                    Good question.


                    A well armed populace may very well deter a government from imposing tyrannies.

                    But I think an even better question is: What is the chance that the US Government would become a tyrannical government?


                    Regardless of the checks and balances in the US Government to prevent this from happening, it seems so culturally unAmerican that I don't know where enough Americans who want to tyrannize their fellow Americans would come from to effectively make it happen.

                    Not only that, but who wants to be a tyrant anyways? What's the appeal?

                    Sure George Washington did a very noble act and set a great precedent by stepping down after two terms. And I am sure he was sincere about it. But I just bet part of him also thought, "This president gig kind of sucks, I just want to go back to my farm and chill the fuck out."
                    The US is already a tyrannical government, just not all the way. It's getting there, slowly but surely. Turn off the media, use the internet, pay attention to a lot of these bills and executive orders being passed/signed that the media never tells you about and you will get the idea. Heck, look at the executive orders on the books now. Look at the complete set of powers the US government claims to have. As for who wants to be a tyrant, heck it seems like plenty of people do considering that thousands of people in human history have gladly taken on that role. Again, look at all the powers the President claims to have and in theory has in the books via executive orders. All it would take is a declaration of martial law by the President (any President) and then implementation of those executive orders, and technically the Federal government would control EVERYTHING. I mean every lake, river, road, forest, house, car, plane, property, EVERYTHING.

                    And even minus that, the US government has overstepped the Constitution to such a degree, that for all intents and purposes the thing might as well not exist.

                    That is tyranny.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                      Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                      The US is already a tyrannical government, just not all the way. It's getting there, slowly but surely. Turn off the media, use the internet, pay attention to a lot of these bills and executive orders being passed/signed that the media never tells you about and you will get the idea. Heck, look at the executive orders on the books now. Look at the complete set of powers the US government claims to have. As for who wants to be a tyrant, heck it seems like plenty of people do considering that thousands of people in human history have gladly taken on that role. Again, look at all the powers the President claims to have and in theory has in the books via executive orders. All it would take is a declaration of martial law by the President (any President) and then implementation of those executive orders, and technically the Federal government would control EVERYTHING. I mean every lake, river, road, forest, house, car, plane, property, EVERYTHING.

                      And even minus that, the US government has overstepped the Constitution to such a degree, that for all intents and purposes the thing might as well not exist.

                      That is tyranny.

                      Do you seriously feel oppressed?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                        Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                        Do you seriously feel oppressed?
                        In some areas, yes. Especially in the area of so many people suggesting we infringe on the 2nd amendment.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                          Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                          Do you seriously feel oppressed?
                          As far as LIBERTY is concerned, perhaps, but it depends on the situation. Try to do what ever you want with your home, your person, and your property and find out really quick just how "free" you are. You don't have to believe me, hell just THINK.

                          Want to smoke a joint in your own house? Can't do that.

                          Want to grow a vegetable garden in your front yard. In many places, you can't do that.

                          Want to drive 100 miles an hour on the interstate? Can't do that.

                          Want to use incadescent light bulbs, well here in a few weeks when they all run out, can't do that.

                          Want to not wear your seat belt in a car? In many places, can't do that.

                          Want to keep your kids at home and not send them to school. Can't do that.

                          This list could go on forever pretty much. Keep in mind that I am not saying all of these things are Federal laws; many of them are local or State laws. Also, keep in mind I'm not advocating for being able to drive 100 mph on the interstate, nor am I advocating for smoking a joint or saying that "no laws are necessary" or even that some of the laws implied above are not necessary; I'm just refuting the notion that you have liberty. You do not. The government controls much more than you may know or perhaps want to admit. The Federal government is tyrannical. And it will only grow from here.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                            Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                            As far as LIBERTY is concerned, perhaps, but it depends on the situation. Try to do what ever you want with your home, your person, and your property and find out really quick just how "free" you are. You don't have to believe me, hell just THINK.

                            Want to smoke a joint in your own house? Can't do that.

                            Want to grow a vegetable garden in your front yard. In many places, you can't do that.

                            Want to drive 100 miles an hour on the interstate? Can't do that.

                            Want to use incadescent light bulbs, well here in a few weeks when they all run out, can't do that.

                            Want to not wear your seat belt in a car? In many places, can't do that.

                            Want to keep your kids at home and not send them to school. Can't do that.

                            This list could go on forever pretty much. Keep in mind that I am not saying all of these things are Federal laws; many of them are local or State laws. Also, keep in mind I'm not advocating for being able to drive 100 mph on the interstate, nor am I advocating for smoking a joint or saying that "no laws are necessary" or even that some of the laws implied above are not necessary; I'm just refuting the notion that you have liberty. You do not. The government controls much more than you may know or perhaps want to admit. The Federal government is tyrannical. And it will only grow from here.
                            Those were some great examples of tyranny.

                            But why stop there?

                            Want to kill somebody? Can't do that.

                            Want to rape somebody? Can't do that.

                            Want to steal? Can't do that.

                            Want to dispose of your used motor oil in a river? Can't do that.

                            Want to sell crack? Can't do that.

                            Want to drive drunk and impair your ability to drive and possibly kill other motorists? Can't do that.


                            Man, this society is so oppressive.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                              Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                              Those were some great examples of tyranny.

                              But why stop there?

                              Want to kill somebody? Can't do that.

                              Want to rape somebody? Can't do that.

                              Want to steal? Can't do that.

                              Want to dispose of your used motor oil in a river? Can't do that.

                              Want to sell crack? Can't do that.

                              Want to drive drunk and impair your ability to drive and possibly kill other motorists? Can't do that.


                              Man, this society is so oppressive.
                              Yes, this society is oppressive, to a point. And sometimes that point is totally unnecessary. The government should be there to insure that if we try to exercise a liberty beyond what is the purview of another we have erred.

                              Beyond that, so long as we do not encroach on the rights of any other individual we should have that liberty.

                              Important to that point is, we should be allowed to keep all of the money we earn beyond what it takes the government to accomplish all of the constitutionally authorized activities and the government should be held strictly to the limits of the 10th amendment.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

                                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                                As far as LIBERTY is concerned, perhaps, but it depends on the situation. Try to do what ever you want with your home, your person, and your property and find out really quick just how "free" you are. You don't have to believe me, hell just THINK.

                                Want to smoke a joint in your own house? Can't do that.

                                Want to grow a vegetable garden in your front yard. In many places, you can't do that.

                                Want to drive 100 miles an hour on the interstate? Can't do that.

                                Want to use incadescent light bulbs, well here in a few weeks when they all run out, can't do that.

                                Want to not wear your seat belt in a car? In many places, can't do that.

                                Want to keep your kids at home and not send them to school. Can't do that.

                                This list could go on forever pretty much. Keep in mind that I am not saying all of these things are Federal laws; many of them are local or State laws. Also, keep in mind I'm not advocating for being able to drive 100 mph on the interstate, nor am I advocating for smoking a joint or saying that "no laws are necessary" or even that some of the laws implied above are not necessary; I'm just refuting the notion that you have liberty. You do not. The government controls much more than you may know or perhaps want to admit. The Federal government is tyrannical. And it will only grow from here.
                                In my younger days I would have said that to be truly free anarchy is the only solution. My favorite saying used to be "there's no government like no government". I don't think that's feasible, practical or desirable. Limits to liberty are inevitable if we are to live in a mututally beneficial society.

                                It's not an easy or simple balance, but that said, your list is pretty small potatoes stuff and I think we should pick more meaningful battles. Even you disavowed many of them just after listing them. Further I don't see one party being any better than the other, they just choose different freedoms to limit based on the morals and desires of their constituents.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X