Do you believe our government will take over the people by tyranny?

1. 84

   peoplepower73posted 12 years ago

   I watched Piers Morgan's show twice, once with Alex Jones as his guest and then again with Ben Shapiro as his guest.  Both of these people believe that is necessary for citizens to have high capacity assault weapons, like AR15's to protect themselves from the eventual tyranny of their own government. 
   
   They both state that all countries end up with a tyrannical government and history will repeat itself in this country as well.  When asked when they believe this will happen, they said it could happen within the next 50 to 100 years.  Does that justify arming the citizens of today for something that could happen way in the future...or maybe not happen at all?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sarra Garrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is coming sooner than we all think.  America as we know it is gone.  Maybe not in our life time but I feel sorry for my son and his children.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Skarletposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am relieved to see a sensible comment here.
         You are right. People who are smiling and saying, "its all okay", or "you are an extreme nut", are just asking for it. My friend (who's country turned communist) stood next to her father while the "new government" armed with guns that were banned for the average citizen, broke into her fathers store and told him to hand over his keys because his store was no longer his. She has said that the whole country was smiling stupidly just as Americans are now doing. What makes Americans think that this time its different?

         replyreport
      2. 60

         MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Every generation has those that believe the country is going to hell in a handbasket...  Those individuals are generally the ones most frightened of change or the ones that stand to lose something if the change occurs.
         
         Those poor white people that said it about civil rights...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Cant agree with that statement !

            replyreport
            1. 60

               MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Of course you can't... It is your beliefs that society is moving away from.  From your perspective that means that we are in a state of decline.  However society is moving towards the beliefs of others... to them that means that things are getting better.
               
               Society is changing... like it always does.  That pisses some people off and makes others happy.  Both emotions are relative to personal opinions.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  What I find people of your mind set miss is that the current form of government, and society is UNSUSTAINABLE, do you know what that means? It means that eventually it is going to cause more problems than it fixes. For example do you think someone in their thirtees now is going to have social security available to them? How long do you think the increasing unemployment can be supported by those still working? All of these liberal programs, and in fact even the economic system itself that we have in this country is mathematically doomed to fail, so if being pissed off by that kind of change is UnAmerican than I must not be very American because I am very pissed that so many sheep think that this is all for the good of all.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You make good points and then say "liberal" and "sheep"...Our society is unsustainable, this is true. First a capitalistic society such as ours only works when people and government spend irresponsibly, as far as the ss issue there are "fixes" For one the accounting error that stops collecting at the $100,000 mark, lift this cap and voila...As for unemployment it has dropped, the housing market and new construction are up and so is the stock market...we are in recovery...We must learn to nation build, our infrastructure is a mess, and we must learn to be more fiscally responsible, but not to the detriment of society as a whole...I have seen many posts from both sides of the isle with common sense cuts that will not hurt people. One of the biggest problems in this country is the negative propaganda being pumped out 24/7 by the media outlets that are owned by big business. Big Business wants to take over our government and uses the very sound ideology behind conservatism to sell this "small government" proposal to the people. Big Business does not care about society, America, Humanity....Big Business cares about profit margins. We need to come together in this country and realize we do not want a huge government that squashes business nor do we want business to big to fail that strangles government.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Tammy even the band-aids called fixes are pointless, one thing that can never lie is mathematics, when every quotient of a problem is present the sum of the equation is undeniable. The only reason you are seeing a slight upswing to the economy right now is the recent QE3 (quantitive easing), the first two times the federal reserve did it we saw a slight upswing followed by crashes far worse than what the starting point was, remember the bailouts? Those were the long term effect of QE2. Sorry if I sound angry when I say liberal or sheep, but much like primpo I worry about the country my children are going to inherit, all of these socialist programs are not they focus on those that need help now, and worry about the future as a cross that bridge when we come to it ideal. The greatest patriotism is an old man who plants a seed knowing he will never eat from that trees fruit. "That" ideal is gone from our society now, all everyone seems to worry about now is "What about me?" When I say unsustainable I am coupling facts with my opinion that our current form of government has no interest in the people's survivability, what do they care the lobbyist, banksters, and big corporations are making them rich anyway, so that is who's interest they are protecting at all cost. So we completely agree in that perspective the question is how do we fix it?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           We agree on the societal problems 100%, and I wish I had answers. I wrote a hub recently about the Empires of old and how we are following the same path. We have a poor class that has become comfortable with welfare rather than fighting for jobs that are being given to a "slave" class of illegal immigrants and chinese employees, we have had a middle class that pays for the bottom welfare as well as the corporate welfare that is the top tier elite class that legislates to the betterment of themselves. We have a culture of materialistic narcissm. Our media propaganda machine, owned by 5 or 6 people has been brain washing our society to ensure we think we need bigger and better...charge it...but when the bills catch up you are frowned upon as irresponsible, Our government fought two wars on a credit card and now those same legislators are crying foul...
                           
                           I agree that many in government are as corrupt as Big Business, the ones pocketing the money from Lobbyist who represent the big corporations. Others may even have frightening agendas. From what I have read and what I see, I believe our only hope is to be involved. We need to raise awareness, sign and create petitions, march....whatever it takes to take our country back.For what it's worth, I like Obama, I like his ideas, but there is always room for improvement and a strong left needs a strong right in order to move forward...We must quit tearing one another apart and get to work.
                           
                           Check out the forum about Warren Buffett, that is a capital idea and I thnk you will agree

                           replyreport
                  2. 66

                     primpoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I have to whole heartily believe in that statement.  I am 45 , in school full time because I cant get a decent job and my husband is 50 and hasn't had a job in 3 years.. things are bad, getting worse and with all the laws they are making how are we going to sustain?  have to buy healthcare, yet no one has a job.  natural disasters keep happening and people are on more medication than ever and the gun laws >?  I can't even begin to comment on them.  I'm scared for my kids, I hope I could help them before I die.

                     replyreport
   2. 60

      tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As with all political conflict there are exremist opinions on each side of the isle in order to propagate fear to the people and to then make sales...I believe in our Constitutional rights, but also believe it is unnecessary for civilians to be able to purchase military weapons. I believe the opinion that we will need to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government is an extremist view that insures gun sells.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you.  It also raises the question, how does one determine what and when there is tyranny?  Do you leave it up to each individual as to when a person or a group is a tyrant or do we ban together to fight these tyrants with our assault weapons?  I just don't think this is thought through very well and people are just reacting to what has been fed to them by right wing media.  They also use the second amendment as the excuse for protecting themselves against this hypothetical tyranny. The word tyranny is miss used just like socialist, communist, fascist, etc.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            PP, Have you noticed that now every google search for a political purpose will include a link for the Heritage Foundation, as if these are facts. This lobbyist organization of the right must be swimming in dough...I have always found it interesting that citizens will believe that the LEFT is the political ideology to fear for losing constitutional rights and civil liberties. It seems to me the left has always fought to protect the rights of the many vs. the rights and power of the few.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               A Driveby Quipperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Independents know better. The left and right are both dangerous to freedom.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree that corruption exists amoung all, has no party affiliation and holds no loyalty to country or mankind.

                  replyreport
            2. 75

               cynthtggtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               PeoplePower, the Left believes in "collectivism" as Obama has stated.  "Collectivism" is an idea that if everyone were "materially" equal, all would be well.  The infantile dream-state of the mass man is so unrealistic that he never thinks to ask who is paying for this paradise.  The balancing of accounts is left to a higher political or social authority, which welcomes the task, for its power is thereby increased; and the more power it has, the weaker and more helpless the individual becomes.  In the United States, where the individual fought and died to believe what they wanted freely, and where the material needs of the unfortunate were provided without bringing down the whole of society (my mother was sick her whole life that if she got that way today she would not have survived) and where the United States was dubbed "the land of milk and honey" for its ability to employ, feed and house more people than any country in the world - because of its emphasis on individuality - is being lost to a "collective" ideal that has not worked in the entire history of mankind.  It is better to correct those things that have aroused emotions within the framework we had before "collectivist" ideals usurped "individualist" ones, but all of it is being destroyed because "capitalism" is based on a Christian precept.  It is therefore "emotionalism" that is destroying the whole of our society.  No government is perfect; but it is entirely falacious to say that we are NOT heading down a path to our own destruction, when we are seeing the same elements that destroyed other countries being repeated once again.  With respect to a revolution of some kind, I would not be surprised if it happened, for if the government were to be given absolute power, what sort of life would be left?  I marvel how the left thinks it can resolve all problems by neglecting the "inward life" of an individual, requiring us all to meet them with extroverted "evidence" of truth, when we all know that what appears to be good or bad belies the interior self of man as he truly is.  By all accounts, we are destined to repeat horrors with "collective" philosophies and remedies.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Pure fiction... with a side order of BS

                  replyreport
   3. 75

      LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Saw that bit with Alex Jones. I had to watch it on YouTube because I missed the broadcast. By playing it back I noticed Jones made a point of giving a particular look to the camera as it zoomed in on him. This was just prior to the interview.
      
      All I'll say here is the guy isn't stupid he knows what he's doing. I suspect he'll be the next Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Also if you check his facebook page you'll find he's a Ron Paul supporter.
      
      
      
      I think in the next ten to fifteen years every household will have the equipment to print any three dimensional object that household cares to create. Since there is already a project under way to "print" an AR15 style firearm, there's really no telling what will be available for download in that ten to fifteen year time span.
      
      By the way, I know this sounds crazy so I'm supplying a link from Forbes magazine to show that this is no bull.
      
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe … gun-video/

      replyreport
   4. 59

      ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is exactly how the United States of America came to being.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well after watching Alex Jones' rather brilliant act I'm pretty sure it's all about the Kwan for him. He deserves an Oscar.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ib:  What does that mean?

         replyreport
   5. 58

      logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      We are already under the thumb of a tyrannical government and most do not realize it.
      We are eavesdropped on, videotaped, satellites and drones keep an eye on us from above, the fruits of our labor are taken from us despite our protestations, we are told how we should think and if we do not comform we will be punished.  What part of tyranny do people not understand?

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Government worldwide is in self preservation mode.  They know that billions are aware.  History shows that leaders in this situation will do everything to suppress all forms of dissent.  The laws are all passed for a complete martial law system of government.  If the right catastrophe can be manufactured, complete authoratitive government would exist on a legal basis.  The current POTUS is drooling to end around Congress with an Executive Order and to get the people to plead for it, once that particular precedent is set, all is done.  Congress already kneels and accepts the eradication of their responsibilities, spineless bunch of pathetic slugs that they are, ALL OF THEM.  The peoples representatives?  Treasonous! They all need to testify before the people!
         
         This has all been done before, they know the procedures. The people are at a disadvantage as the government controls the education system, they teach not the law, nor do they educate as to the individuals proper place in society.  The individual is supreme, the highest authority, they are just not informed of this.

         replyreport
   6. 80

      Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      [rant]
      In my opinion corporations are the tyrants to be feared, not government. That tyranny doesn't involve guns though, it's much more insidious. It involves controlling through influence. The mass media and banks are owned by these powerful institutions, as is politics through lobbying. So they can frame the debate, deflect the debate, change the debate as they wish. More importantly they can influence the people who make laws. What's the overriding principle underpinning these institutions? Profit.
      
      Every aspect of our lives is dictated or influenced by these institutions. Gun control is just one. The only small difference is that it's easier to join the dots (the N.R.A. is not the most subtle of operators). In other cases it's much less obvious. Those warning about the threat of tyrannical government don't seem to understand that we are already subjected to circumstances and conditions shaped by these powerful institutions. Try buying a house, or a car, or some land without the involvement of some private corporation or other. Try getting a job without having a bank account. Try seriously entering politics without a corporate sponsor. Try living in a city without seeing messages telling you what to wear, what to think, what to say, how to feel, who to be. They call it 'advertising'. Its other name is brainwashing.
      
      No, there will be no tyranny by gun in the United States. It's unnecessary. There already exists a tyranny. Banks, insurance companies, media conglomerates rule our lives with absolute power, much more so than any government could even hope to. Firearms manufacturers are also able to bring their weight to bear, as can be seen in the gun control debate. For our part, have consented to be kept in a stupefied, sheepish trance with continuous injections of entertainment, advertising and fast food. Occasionally we have a red vs. blue team political debate, which makes us think we have a say, but that's an illusion.
      
      It's been so effective throughout the 20th century that people don't even realise it. They can't see that their 'rights' are no more than a means to profit by. That their 'individualism' is just marketing, and that their 'freedom' is the freedom to consume products and services. We live in a gilded cage.
      
      And this is not just a domestic matter. Some of the biggest sponsors of the N.R.A. are the likes of Benelli (Italy), Glock (Austria), Sig Sauer (Switzerland). There are no borders as far as the pursuit of profit is concerned. If that means dabbling with another nations domestic politics, then so be it.
      
      In short, we are a commodity. Our 'value' is our ability to consume products and services. So you are a 'success' if you have lots of money to spend, a 'failure' if you don't. Your worth is equal to your spending power. Likewise, the worth of the second amendment is its usefulness in maintaining the profit of firearms manufacturers. No more, no less. If the constitution threatened profit instead, then it would be worthless in the eyes of the firearms industry and its front organisation, the N.R.A, would be calling for it to be scrapped.
      
      We are already a people in chains having relinquished any freedom. Why? Because we have been duped into thinking the pursuit of profit is the same as the pursuit of happiness. The U.S. is not a republic, it is a monarchy where profit is king. The true battle for independence has not even been recognised.
      [/rant]

      replyreport
   7. 53

      whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No that doesn't justify arming the citizens, the constitution is the only justification we need. Thanks for playing.

      replyreport
   8. 76

      Jack Burtonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ever heard of the concept of a prophylactic?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ever heard of bat-poop crazy?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Jack Burtonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            best you can  do, eh

            replyreport
   9. 60

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The government will take over the people by tyranny is a belief by people that are stupid enough to believe it.

      replyreport
   10. 60

       Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well that is one of the most selfish statements I have seen so far. So what you're saying is let the government disarm the people now so if they do become tyrannical my children, and their children will have no defense against it? What you are saying is not only unAmerican it is the worst kind of socialist rhetoric I have ever heard. So let me put this real simple for you, there is NO WAY to protect people of any age from violence, not disarming, not threat of incarceration, not on threat of death, people are inherently violent animals. We have a society, and laws, a system for punishment of criminals, death penalties in some states, but does any of it deter violence? Think about it really hard. If your statement revolves around the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, while I empathize with the parents and loved ones left grieving I also wonder where is the outcry for hundreds of children killed every day in our government's unethical wars in the Middle-East? Why aren't the Democrats up in arms over that particular issue? Simple because it is "their guy" pulling the strings, what ever happened to Democrats and liberals being anti-war? You are just feeding off of the media, and because our media makes no mention of the atrocities being committed overseas in our name, it is a non-issue for you. If your going to babble this kind of rhetoric at least try being consistant across the board.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          ++++
          
          I speak as one who went on the UK anti-Iraq war march in 2003 (fat lot of good that did).
          
          Drones killing 3,000 people in Pakistan? Pah, it's not important because it's "our" man doing it.
          
          That's why I describe myself as a political atheist these days - all mainstream political parties are the same, barring one or two differences when it comes to policies on personal morality.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Amen Empress.

             replyreport
       2. 60

          tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I am a dem, have never been anti-war only anti illegal war, I think you may be thinking of libertarians, however, some dems are anti-war I am sure. I DO worry about the damage to the societies around the world, the damage and most especially the loss of human lives, civilians, breaks my heart. I have thought about this much as of late. If we are truly in wars that protect Americans and democracy then this is the unfortunate causulties of war, however, if we are merely invading in order to steal oil, land, or protect our status by making sure other countries can not function without us, well this is different.
          
          I am however, of the mind set that civilians have no need for military weapons. I do not believe a government take over would be preventable because of an armed people, in reality they would merely need to shut down our infrastructure, deprive us of water and light and power and all of our "things" we sooo worship. THEN an armed America would begin killing one another in order to survive(in our paranoid delusional minds that have been deprived of our creature comforts and basics needs) Ironically, those who are used to living this way would survive and the spoiled would perish. Just my two cents....

          replyreport
2. 83

   rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

   [/b] Exactly.  We choose what we decide to believe.  As long as people choose to listen to those who hold such extreme positions as to instill fear in a people, citizens no longer think for themselves.  I have great hope for the future because of my sons and the young people rising up to think on their own.

   replyreport
3. 74

   Skarletposted 12 years ago

   I think it may happen, but not in the immediate future. When I have talked about some of the terrible things that happen to my family members and friends who live in other countries, I find that Americans think that there is no way that these things can ever happen here.
   
   I have lived in other countries and have witnessed some very scary things that most Americans believe simply cannot happen in this country. The surest way to be caught off guard is to be arrogant to the point of taking our freedom for granted.
   
   Americans have the freedom to have guns, and that is a sign that the citizens are safe from the government. If the government is taking steps to disarm its citizens, then one has to wonder why.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You make good points, however, I have heard nothing of being raped of our guns. I have only heard of tighter regulations, such as stricter background checks, specifically as related to mental health capabilities of those wishing to purchase. I have also heard of a smaller capability clip, in hopes to mitigate damage I presume. Those spouting "our weapons are going to be taken away" are listening to extremist views from the right and of course, the NRA.

      replyreport
4. 83

   rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

   Can you please explain this philosophy?

   replyreport
5. 57

   A Driveby Quipperposted 12 years ago

   The government already took over with tyranny. Ask any Native American.

   replyreport
6. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

   Tyranny, in the beginning, is rather low key and insidious...just another guy with a new idea but over time the idea or ideas begin to undermine or erode the infrastructure which guards the process and the freedoms by which we are governed.  The tradeoff is made or rationalized on the basis of urgency, dilemma, "the good of the environment", providing for those in need, etc, etc, etc.  Immediate action is normally the call along with a request for more power to get the job done.  Eventually, the system begins to breakdown because the traditional processes are being ignored.  By the time most folks figure it out, it is too late and the "fundamental transformation" is in place.  We live in a nation in which far too many people absolutely believe "Oh that could never happen here...because it never has happened here and we are special".  Many believed that before 9-11 but it did happen right in front of their eyes.  Protecting our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, and, most of all, our freedom and liberties cannot be overstressed and every single American regardless of political slant should be on guard and quick to question the actions of any elected official who either suggests that we ignore our traditional process or that we just circumvent it.  Once that begin, we are on the road to tyranny, and for some, it feels good. ~WB

   replyreport
   1. 75

      LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good one Wayne. Typically societies fall apart when the contract between the governed and government is violated.
      
      I'm a liberal, but there are some things I'm not happy about. I'm not happy about the indefinite detention clause in the National Defense Authorization Act. I'm ambivalent about drone strikes. Granted they keep our soldiers out of the line of fire, but they've also been the cause of "collateral damage." The CIA admits there have been at least eleven children killed in these strikes.
      
      It also bothers me that there's a very real possibility of drone usage here in the U.S.
      
      There are times when I think the two party system just flat does not work.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I believe that people that want to take over this country are much more sophisticated than doing it by blatant tyranny. I'm more afraid of the banksters transferring the middle class wealth to themselves than I am of  having to protect my self with a weapon.  Look at what the financial meltdown did to our economy while wall street and the banks became richer.  I don't believe in conspiracy, but I do believe there is group of people who are very greedy and corrupt that want all the marbles in the game.  And Wayne Brown as far as insidious goes, that's what is really insidious.  We the tax payers are funding the fat cats. They are becoming richer and we are becoming poorer and they are not doing it with guns.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well said PP. When i learned our media was owned by about 6 people, I began to worry, when I learned our infrastructure was hacked into in 2007, I began to worry...todays real weapons are power and money, actually, it's always been this way. After the housing crisis i wondered what would happen if the banks all decided to call all notes due? I have noticed how more and more employers are requiring direct deposit of pay checks. I have noticed how many agencies are requiring online payments. There are many ways a government can control its people that will not be avoided because its people own guns or knives or bows and arrows.

            replyreport
7. 0

   Nancy's Nicheposted 12 years ago

   "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.  It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." ~Robert M. Hutchins, Great Books, 1954
   
   No truer words have ever been spoken. These are the very people and reasons our country is in grave danger of becoming a socialistic/communistic state. I am extremely disappointed in Obama and to give him a second term was unconscionable! Our elected leaders have become the puppets of the wealthy and corporate devils. The 1% who feel the world belongs to them and we are the slaves.
   
   Obama has set himself up as King through his abuse of Executive Orders. His stance on rewarding illegal immigrants with amnesty is just one example. What he wants, and can't get passed, ends up being an executive order. One of the worst he has signed onto is Agenda 21 with is now being introduced into state/city legislation's as well.
   
   Alex Jones is passionate because his fears are the same as mine and many other individuals. That fear is the type of world and future our children and grandchildren will be facing. They deserve better and so do we! He also has documentation to support his claims...
   
   http://www.prisonplanet.com/
   http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
   http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php
   http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-si … -agenda-21
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GykzQWlXJs (Please Watch This Video Explaining Agenda 21)

   replyreport
8. 60

   howtolearnmoreposted 12 years ago

   For a dictatorship to rise, you need two things:
   
   1) A power-hungry government
   2) Ignorant people who are willing to give away their rights

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You mean just like we have today? Sounds about right

      replyreport
   2. 61

      MentisLudosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      While we do have the first part of that to some extent, the second part isn't too concerning considering the things people have petitioned and rioted against in the past. The people didn't let SOPA/PIPA be approved and even when those two acts were coming back on a low-key, they were noticed and denied by the people. Corrupted officials, while they are still prevalent in the Senate, House, Congress et cetera... have been taken down.

      replyreport
9. 65

   Cody Hodge5posted 12 years ago

   I seriously doubt that people weren't saying "The America I grew up in is long gone...." after the Civil War, after the Great Depression and after Vietnam. I'm sure they said the same thing when Reagan was elected and Clinton after him.
   
   Why is that? Because things are always changing! Our country shouldn't look the same in 2013 as it did in 1913. If it were, THAT would be the scary thing.
   
   As for "government tyranny", consider the source of all the fear and paranoia. It isn't people who are scared of government tyranny. What they are afraid of is change that they don't like or understand. No one is going to take away your guns. No one is forcing you to get health care.
   
   Once we start to understand that, the sooner that the reasonable people in this country can start working to solve the real issues that we face.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I believe that yes , its happening and has for twenty or more years , Where we live ,high  property taxes , local controls , the controling unions of the NEA , municiple unions , state taxes on the rise , now federal controls  manifesting themselves .  And this isn't just about the fear of change , Every change we have seen ,especially lately is merely suffocating !

      replyreport
   2. 60

      howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That would be true, however...
      
      Here are some laws that were passed within 10-12 years
      
      1) The Patriot Act
      2) NDAA
      3) and some others
      
      You don't see people working on these issues. Or when you said "change," you also meant the bill of rights is allowed to change?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         See, that's just putting words in my mouth right there....
         
         I never said that the fundamental rights of citizens should change over time.....
         
         If you look at history, the Constitution has changed for the better in many cases.
         
         Slavery was officially outlawed, blacks and women were given the right to vote and citizens were allowed to directly elect senators. That last point may seem minor, but it does denote more access and control over who our representatives are.
         
         Personally, I don't live in fear of the government. I certainly question their decision making on a regular basis, but I feel too many political opinions are based on hype instead of substance.
         
         Moderates are out there, its just impossible to hear them when all you hear is Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party decrying the president as some socialist.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Personally, I don't live in fear of the government. I certainly question their decision making on a regular basis, but I feel too many political opinions are based on hype instead of substance. "
            
            That is true, there is a lot of hype. However, you can't deny that in 2001 your government has allowed law enforcement agencies to tap your phones, read your emails, etc. You are a smart guy, so i'm sure you've questioned the Patriot Act.
            
            So... now that you've questioned the law, what next? Will you (and your countrymen) accept that you've been screwed (and you have been screwed. War on terror... please ) or wait until the government takes away something that is dear to you?
            
            Please remember that Hitler did not take all the rights away in one day. At first he did it to one group of people, then the other... and then... well, you know what happened afterwards.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               An AYMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hitler also had the support of millions of regular people.  It's not like the government in charge just decided to try a new direction, pass some new laws and see if it'd work

               replyreport
            2. 84

               peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               howtolearnmore: Hitler did not take away guns.  In fact, he personally gave Lugers to the German Youth Corp.  He did not take away rights from the German people, only the people he thought were not of the Aryan race.  Remember he wanted to take over the world.  Do you think Obama wants to take over the world...or even this country?

               replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    For instance ?  The second ammendment ends with .............."will NOT be infringed "

    replyreport
11. 59

    movingoutposted 12 years ago

    Sorry, I don't live in fear! No need for a gun here. A fishing pole will do just fine! lol

    replyreport
12. 80

    Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

    The German Youth Corp was Hitler's Nazis in training.  That is hardly like giving the same Lugers to the German public. The point is that Hitler was in control...he decided who could have a gun and who could not. That is a place we never intended with the rights defined under our Constitution.  Even if we are not "taken over" as a country, if the Constitution is so undermined that we lose our structure and our heritage, they we certainly have become a victim of a form of tyranny.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was handed down to us by our forefathers with the intent that no man or group of men (or women for that matter) would impose their will on the people in lieu of those documents....that is tyranny in the making.  Our education system has failed our youth in that it no longer teaches any conscious awareness of the pitfalls of socialism or communism but rather embraces them as an effective alternative to our current form of government. That action is nothing less than one more insidious step taken in the form of tyranny. This is what people must understand...tyranny, in its development, is insidious in nature, occurring little by little. ~WB

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       What utter rubbish. Listen to yourself, harping on about "socialism" and "communism". It's 2013, not 1955 or 1935. You evoke the spectre of the past to fuel your paranoia about the future, and would have us sit stagnating in a rut of fearful paralysis instead of facing up to the challenges of the times we live in. The constitution is a piece of paper with the thoughts of sensible men on it. It's not sacred. It's been amended time after time. No reason it shouldn't be again. The constitution should be amended, as it always has, to correct shortcomings and errors. That doesn't mean the fundamentals must change, but it's a living document, not some irrelevant, ancient script. And you already are a victim of tyranny. The tyranny of fear. FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If people stopped worrying fearing imaginary events in some imaginary future, and focused more on getting things done right here, right now, we'd all be a lot better off.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Don W: Oh my God! Where have you been?  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  What you articulated is eloquent.  Each of your sentences has power and meaning. This is what I've been trying to say all along, but you put it all together in one forceful message.  If you don't mind, I would like to copy this and use it in my hubs.

          replyreport
       2. 60

          tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Bravo, so well said, I just read the enire FDR address yesterday, everyone should re-read, it could be read today and mean as much.

          replyreport
       3. 71

          Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The document has been amended 18 times.  Government does not follow its own laws, it legislates and adjudicates away our rights; but follow legal methods, not really!

          replyreport
          1. 75

             LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Amendments aren't legal? Do tell!

             replyreport
             1. 71

                Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Amendments would be the correct process to alter the law, unfortunately judges and legislatures set precedent without having to attempt to change the document.  Many of our rights are diminished, not through proper channels, but through an end around of beauracrats.
                
                Then the government refuses a redress due to "state secrets", "commerce", etc.

                replyreport
                1. 75

                   LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Democracy is a messy business. Suggest something better. How about fascism?

                   replyreport
                   1. 71

                      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Or, a great idea, what if the people held their representatives responsible for abiding by the same laws they are sworn to uphold.  If they want to disregard a law, they can go about changing the document for which their main purpose is to protect?
                      
                      Do you believe that the government does not have a responsibility to follow the law?

                      replyreport
                      1. 75

                         LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Why sure I do. That's not what happens though is it?
                         
                         When was the last time you wrote your representative of senator?
                         
                         I wrote my Rep. two weeks ago; my senator last week. This may not help, but it's not nothing.
                         
                         When did you last contact your representatives? By the way. I'm in routine contact with my council-member.  Not daily, but more often than weekly. How often do you talk to your city representative?

                         replyreport
                         1. 71

                            Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            I am in contact with members of my local government regularly.  I know the mayor on a first name basis.
                            
                            I have been blocked from my lying conservative senators FB wall for pointing out his hypocrisy.  I have no problem contacting those that pull strings.  Heck, I am even on a campaign for a city rep for 2014.

                            replyreport
                            1. 75

                               LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               Cool. Way cool. If we ever meet I'll buy you a beer. Seriously.

                               replyreport
                   2. 68

                      innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      I've got something better: voluntaryism. Spontaneous order. The universal acceptance of the non-aggression principle.
                      
                      Murray Rothbard debunks democracy:
                      http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm

                      replyreport
       4. 60

          Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The Constitution is the description of rights our founders considered to be unalienable, God-given, birthrights of all people. The only question I have is: how is allowing a corrupted federal government amend the description of how those rights are defined not a form of tyranny? If it were by popular vote amongst the people with a 2/3 vote to change, or amend I would be able to live with that, but I have no faith in those who are supposedly representing us in Washington. Lately it seems only lobbyist, big banks, and corporations are recipients of our elected officials "good intentions".

          replyreport
          1. 75

             LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Vote the bastages out!

             replyreport
             1. 60

                Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Glad there is something we can agree on, the problem we have is there is no more ethical fact based journalism, and too many Americans just soak up whatever the media's take on a situation is, and spout the same old rhetoric as if it was their own formulated opinion. Scary stuff, resembles mind control, but it's not it is just the laziness of people unwilling to educate themselves on any matters of importance.

                replyreport
                1. 75

                   LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   You know Mike. I've studied history a bit, I'm not claiming expertise mind you, but what I was looking for involved politics and the press.
                   
                   In a way our current society is much milder where the press is concerned. Back during the founding decades almost any paper could say almost any thing about any candidate.
                   
                   There were accusations of attempted monarchy, infidelity, incest, and so on. Any candidate was fair game and the accusations could be as wild and libelous as humanly possible. It all depended on who owned the paper and what their personal political views were.
                   
                   It's nothing new really.

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Mikeg422posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Very true Liam, what is disturbing now is that a great majority of our mainstream media outlets are owned by the same folks who "fund" our elected officials. It makes it kind of an uphill battle for any grass roots politically minded Americans because third party candidates, and independents are largely ignored. I'd rather see them get drug through the mud than be completely ignored.

                      replyreport
                      1. 75

                         LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Well, there's an old saying about "bad press is better than no press."
                         
                         
                         I don't think anyone can seek office these days without facing a good dragging through the mire.

                         replyreport
13. 60

    SpanStarposted 12 years ago

    The idea of citizens in America defending their rights and liberties is a noble idea but I'm not sure people are seeing things clearly. If the government should decide to take over the country by means of force even by having a lot of citizens with firearms doesn't mean they are any match for a train military units with devastating firepower many civilians have never seen. How exactly are citizens going to fight military tanks? Which is only one line of defense in the military arsenal.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You guys (assuming that you are an American) couldn't win against Vietnamese peasants and a bunch of cavemen in the Middle East. Do you really think it will be easier to shoot at your own people?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          howtolernmore,
          
          I have to be honest I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but when it comes to the Vietnamese people the Vietcong had been fighting long before American soldiers hit their shores. The tactics to combat American soldiers were not techniques used by farmers. These were well trained soldiers and that's why anyone who came up against them grew to respect them.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Yeah, you're right (my bad).
             
             My point was that U.S Soldiers (and others) aren't that great when it comes to fighting guerrilla warfare. It will be even harder to kill one of your own.

             replyreport
          2. 71

             Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             If the U.S. military was not restrained by their government, the Vietnam conflict would have concluded in a few weeks!

             replyreport
14. 59

    movingoutposted 12 years ago

    I theory many think they could. But in reality, many would freeze and have that same gun used against them. Many don't realize shooting a target and an actual person, are two different things. Even trained military personell have been known to freeze or have second thoughts when having to shoot at or kill an enemy.

    replyreport
15. 59

    movingoutposted 12 years ago

    Not exactly true howtolemmore. The Vietnamese government gave out a book, telling of ancient techniques to win over an enemy using boobietraps. The general population used these techniques not only against the French but us as well. Our troops were not formiliar with this type of attacks and gorilla warfare making us vulernable to mass loss of life and casaulties.
    .

    replyreport
    1. 60

       howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, that's true. The Vietnamese were skilled, but my argument is still solid:
       
       No country is great when it comes to fighting against guerrilla warfare. The fact that many soldiers donated money to Ron Paul, proves that your military is pro-people and the constitution.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          An AYMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          All I wanna do is "Lol".
          I'm sure many different soldiers donated money to many people.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             In the last election, Ron Paul got more money from soldiers that all of the other republican candidates + Obama combined

             replyreport
             1. 0

                An AYMposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                It's just so... silly and irrelevant, that fact.

                replyreport
                1. 68

                   innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   I think there's something interesting about the fact that Ron Paul, the only anti-war candidate, is the overwhelming favourite amongst the military. They, more than any other, must know what effect they are having.

                   replyreport
                   1. 75

                      LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      You know I went looking for that and couldn't find it. In fact, what I found was that Romney had overwhelming military support and I doubt that too.
                      
                      I think politically motivated reporters are just trying to float what ever they thought would stick.

                      replyreport
       2. 75

          Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I think you have a lot of it right. Look how our tanks and planes struggle in the middle-east, and how Vietnam went. The USSR couldn't do anything with Afghanistan either. Those guys then and now, had assault rifles. Just that. The fact that tanks and stuff can't easily wipe out a guerrilla force is the whole point. And I also agree that the US army is made up of Americans, and it COULD be hard to shoot at your own. However, the U.S. Civil war killed something like 600,000 Americans, so I'm not sure we can count on that in the end even if somehow we can stop the gutting of the Constitution going on these days.
          
          But as much as I think it's foolish, reckless and based in ignorance and fear that drives the run to ban "assault" rifles, which doesn't even mean anything, I think it's going to happen anyway. All the gun owners talk a great story, but nobody is going to start a civil war over the ban. They didn't in New York. They didn't in California. Every time something scary happens, we willingly give up a little more freedom. Not enough to incite the war, just a little. Then we let it calm down. Then we take some more. It's always in the name of safety and security. Often the taken freedom only affects other people, not us, so that's fine too. I don't like that freedom anyway, go ahead and take it from those guys. They are weird anyway. We do get mad when they take a freedom we like, but those other guys don't care since they don't use our favorite liberty, so "we" the collective country let freedom die.
          
          We won't go down in some glorious and tragic fight for liberty. Our democracy will die with a whimper in a flood of idiotic Facebook images pimping half truths and lies, and an endless flow of fallacious forum arguments.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             howtolearnmoreposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Great post, man!

             replyreport
16. 75

    junkoposted 12 years ago

    Jack Burton, when ever your words are expose as fear mongering or hogwash you reply, "is that the best you can do".  To keep from being redundent , maybe you should say "you may have a point, I never look at it that way"

    replyreport
17. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    The American military could never quell a revolution or civil war .  The military is made up of volunteer national guardsmen and women !  Our military has been reduced to ashes since the eighties !  I never have any fear of our government taking over my freedoms ! ........ Well......, they just aren't all that coordinated an entity [congress]!   Apathy however , can  and is ruining this country !  Eighty  five percent of Americans are more focussed on  football ,  the NBA ,  the shortest distance to the nearest mall !  Thier fat diets and  lattee' shacks.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The regular armed forces consist of over one point five million troops. A small percentage of that is National Guard. Reserve forces are eight hundred thousand. That's over two million troops. That's close to one percent of the population overall.
       
       That's a lot of soldiers to be called ashes.
       
       Then there is the ever increased push toward technology. The Navy is experimenting with rail-gun technology. A projectile the size of a clothes iron fired at over five times the speed of sound would devastate anything it hit without any explosives involved. The Army continues to experiment with robots for equipment transport along with powered exoskeleton suits for infantry. The air-force is rapidly switching to remote controlled aircraft instead of manned aircraft.

       replyreport
18. 61

    MentisLudosposted 12 years ago

    While I do believe there is corruption present in the U.S. Senate, House, Congress and such, I also believe we as people are making it into a hyperbole. There have been instances of corruption and there have been instances where people acted against the actions of the government. It is these instances that we focus on, causing us to skew our view of the government. As humans, we feel the need to blame the problems we are having on something else, even if it means stretching it to fit the criteria. Thus, these instances of corruption overtake the positive things. It is also the fault of positive things being passive and negative things being more active within the media. Since repetition dulls things down for us until it becomes a second-nature, we never really take all the positive things the government does for us into consideration.
    
       In a psychological sense, positive things are looked at and appreciated while negative things stick to us and never leave us because of the shock value of them. It's similar to trauma but less severe. This causes the shock to overshadow the appreciativeness, or positive aspects, because the positivity is more prevalent in our lives, whereas the negativity is usually in short bursts and thus more impactful. Using the popular quotation "Absence makes the heart grow fonder," we are able to assume that since this absence of something good makes us appreciate it more once it appears again, that inversely, the absence of something bad makes us hate it or shocks us more once it appears again.
    
    Overall, we shouldn't overexaggerate things simply because we feel the need to blame something for our troubles and take out our frustrations somewhere. This excerpt taken from the website governmentisgood.com may help you understand the basics of the situation:
    
    "You arrive at work and take the elevator. You just assume that the elevator is safe; and it is, thanks in part to the annual elevator inspections conducted by your state government. It is probably nothing you will appreciate until the next time the elevator breaks down with you inside, and that makes you think a bit more about the reliability of elevators."

    replyreport
19. 80

    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 years ago

    The problem is this: If a leader keeps halfstepping, we may not recognize what the whole step is actually adding up to.

    replyreport
20. 68

    innersmiffposted 12 years ago

    What is this business about the government going to be a tyranny? Corporate-fascist-imperialist America is the biggest tyranny the world has ever seen. NDAA, kill lists, drone strikes, the TSA, torture and excessive money printing are what we would all accept as signs of a tyranny if they were to happen in China, North Korea or Russia, yet the American people, despite being disillusioned by government and congress, still have a base 'trust' in it.

    replyreport
21. 71

    Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

    U.S. Military VS The people of the United States
    
    This will never happen.  Many misunderstand the role of the military.  They are not lapdogs to a president or a congress.  The government of the united states has law enforcement, (homeland security), and the states have their various national guard.  If these are used against the people, the military is neutral.  On the first instance of the federal government using the nations men/woman in uniform against its own people, it's superiors?
    
    
    That government would be rogue.  It is the militaries responsibility to organize the people.  Make the proper arrests, and secure the people's property back from a corrupt government.  There would be military tribunals, and the power would be given back to the people through legal elections. 
    
    
    Why is Homeland Security outside of the nations armed forces,  why does the government need them?
    
    "Where the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders."  wikipedia.
    
    
    
    "In December 1962, at the insistence of President John F. Kennedy's secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara, the navy initiated its special operations forces with the primary aim of accomplishing “limited counterinsurgency civic action tasks incidental to counterguerilla operations.”
    
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Special_Forces.aspx
    
    
    The military is not the threat,  it is the secret police that is what the people should fear.  And they are acquiring guns, ammo, and forming a military, for what purpose?  To defend the homeland?  Who's homeland, the governments?

    replyreport
    1. 75

       LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You might want to check that constitution again chief. Congress, the very body you claim has no power over the military, is the only body legally able to declare war. You can look that up if you doubt this.
       
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … onal_power
       
       Third paragraph from the link above.
       
       And the president's official title is "Commander in Chief." CiC of what? The military.
       
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._President
       
       First paragraph.
       
       
       
       
       Then George Washington's government was rouge because one of his first acts as president was to put down a rebellion against a whiskey tax. And yes, he employed the army to do that.
       
       You might also want to ask yourself how Lincoln managed to coordinate a four year war on American citizens that resulted in 650,000 dead.
       
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
       
       
       
       
       I'm still asking that question.
       
       
       
       See above. Your theory is riddled with holes.

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          John F. Kennedy and the Navy SEALS. 
          
          
          President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech
          
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
          
          
          JFK created the Navy SEALs.  Jus' sayin!
          
          
          The SEAL Creed
          
          
          "In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation's call. A common man with uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America's finest special operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life. I am that man.
          
          My Trident is a symbol of honor and heritage. Bestowed upon me by the heroes that have gone before, it embodies the trust of those I have sworn to protect. By wearing the Trident I accept the responsibility of my chosen profession and way of life. It is a privilege that I must earn every day.
          
          My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.
          
          I serve with honor on and off the battlefield. The ability to control my emotions and my actions, regardless of circumstance, sets me apart from other men. Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond.
          
          We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations.
          
          I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight.
          
          We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of our mission depend on me - my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete.
          
          We train for war and fight to win. I stand ready to bring the full spectrum of combat power to bear in order to achieve my mission and the goals established by my country. The execution of my duties will be swift and violent when required yet guided by the very principles that I serve to defend.
          
          Brave men have fought and died building the proud tradition and feared reputation that I am bound to uphold. In the worst of conditions, the legacy of my teammates steadies my resolve and silently guides my every deed. I will not fail."

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             RB,
             This says it all,
             "The military is not the threat,  it is the secret police that is what the people should fear.  And they are acquiring guns, ammo, and forming a military, for what purpose?  To defend the homeland?  Who's homeland, the governments?"

             replyreport