|
Post by brocktownsend on Feb 3, 2010 18:50:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Feb 4, 2010 5:24:04 GMT -5
I see more and more "fictional" articles and stories arising about this type of scenario.... Prepping the citizenry? The more the better, keep the fear brewing within the wanna-be masters.
The Feds had better wake up and learn their lessons quickly as the Founders were ingenious in the way they formed our founding documents... "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
|
|
|
Post by remyrw on Feb 4, 2010 9:29:48 GMT -5
I had this discussion with a young friend at work the other day. It started out with would people actually have a chance against the government and ended with how it would or would not be treason.
Short version boiled down to, "by the time it wouldn't be treason and enough people are ready and willing to act it's probable that a good chunk of the military will either be with them or unwilling to oppose them. And while the current government may consider it treason, by definition in our founding documents it is not. It would be if it was one single event or just a reaction to a short term thing, but the Constitution specifically provides for the overthrow and change of our government."
We talked about how you decide where that line is, and how it's probably less a solid or even straight line when discussing the population as a whole. Each person has their own point where they consider things to be too far. For some that will be when the government is trying to kill them, for others it was when the government instituted federal income taxes as more than a temporary measure.
We also discussed the dual purpose of that section of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. I am one who feels that the way it is written and phrased is meant to serve as a warning and brake on the tendency for governments to become oppressive. I feel that the goal was to avoid the need for a second revolution by making it abundantly clear that such a thing was legal and even expected. As we are seeing now, if enough people feel the government is pushing too far they start to make noise and object. Those sections of our core documents establish the protection and right to do so in the hopes that more direct activity will not be needed. Our founding fathers did not have any such documentation when they started their revolution and would probably not expect future generations to care either if it came to that. They simply made sure the government would not be able to stack the deck too far without having already crossed that line.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Feb 4, 2010 11:54:29 GMT -5
I had this discussion with a young friend at work the other day. It started out with would people actually have a chance against the government and ended with how it would or would not be treason. Short version boiled down to, "by the time it wouldn't be treason and enough people are ready and willing to act it's probable that a good chunk of the military will either be with them or unwilling to oppose them. And while the current government may consider it treason, by definition in our founding documents it is not. It would be if it was one single event or just a reaction to a short term thing, but the Constitution specifically provides for the overthrow and change of our government." We talked about how you decide where that line is, and how it's probably less a solid or even straight line when discussing the population as a whole. Each person has their own point where they consider things to be too far. For some that will be when the government is trying to kill them, for others it was when the government instituted federal income taxes as more than a temporary measure. We also discussed the dual purpose of that section of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. I am one who feels that the way it is written and phrased is meant to serve as a warning and brake on the tendency for governments to become oppressive. I feel that the goal was to avoid the need for a second revolution by making it abundantly clear that such a thing was legal and even expected. As we are seeing now, if enough people feel the government is pushing too far they start to make noise and object. Those sections of our core documents establish the protection and right to do so in the hopes that more direct activity will not be needed. Our founding fathers did not have any such documentation when they started their revolution and would probably not expect future generations to care either if it came to that. They simply made sure the government would not be able to stack the deck too far without having already crossed that line. If you win, your a patriot who saved his country and a national hero, if you lose your treasonous and bad (think Guy Fawkes here, He lost his war and his head, but was he really the villain history makes him out to be, While Robert the Bruce is a hero, Ask William Wallace about Bruces heroics ). History decides who was right and wrong, good and bad. History is written by the victors. Ergo, if you do not want this to be treasonous, win the war. But till its won, it is treasonous, at least to the party sitting in power.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Feb 4, 2010 12:32:04 GMT -5
We also discussed the dual purpose of that section of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. I am one who feels that the way it is written and phrased is meant to serve as a warning and brake on the tendency for governments to become oppressive.
Yes.
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Post by stoner44magnum on Feb 4, 2010 16:05:06 GMT -5
I was talking to a fellow employee the other night at work about the new rifle (AR) I am picking up this weekend and he asks me, "Damn, are you planning on starting a war?" I say, "No, but I am planning to be prepared if one should be started by our government." Even though this guy calls himself an independent conservative, he still doesn't believe the government will take it that far, nor that we citizens will have a chance if they do. I told him that I was glad he didn't know where I lived so I wouldn't have to worry about him knocking on my door when it does. The conversation ended rather abruptly after that.
It seems to me that a number of our citizens have lost their nerve, their sense of freedom, and their historical perspective of how and why our nation was founded.
I have to say, they may take me down, but it will not be without a fight. I can and will go to my grave knowing that I was standing up, not cowering on my knees while so many around me were suffering an even worse fate by living as the oppressed.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Feb 4, 2010 17:38:02 GMT -5
I told him that I was glad he didn't know where I lived so I wouldn't have to worry about him knocking on my door when it does. The conversation ended rather abruptly after that.
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Feb 4, 2010 18:41:15 GMT -5
You know what the sad part of this is, Using this statement made by Stoner :I told him that I was glad he didn't know where I lived so I wouldn't have to worry about him knocking on my door when it does. The conversation ended rather abruptly after that. - you would think that a smart person would 1) never believe that the government is there to help YOU. 2) do a little research and make his/her own mind up. But they never do, they believe the party line and lies spewed by Moabama, Gibbs and other talking heads at face value, despite all the news and reports coming out now about the lies, broken promises and treasonous agendas. None of that matters to liberals.
Stoner, next time you guys are talking, tell him that hes not a conservative and you demand he quit calling himself that. Hes a progressive liberal and should be put out of his misery, since he can not be enlightened to the truth. If he says Na uh, tell him even Fergus says hes a liberal. That should shut him up.
|
|
|
Post by philt on Feb 4, 2010 23:23:30 GMT -5
When I discover a co worker does not have the same outlook and vision as I do on the matters of fascism and oppressive government, I no longer have time for them. If they don't have a clue about what freedom and liberty really are, they are a threat to me and my family. I have no use for those kind of people once I determine they cannot comprehend Freedom 101.
I don't want them knowing where I live either.
|
|
|
Post by stoner44magnum on Feb 5, 2010 16:27:52 GMT -5
Until our most recent conversation I thought there was hope for this guy. He listens to the big 3 talkers and said he agrees with them. But I suppose even with that, some will just not get it. Maybe it's fear, maybe it's stupidity, I don't know. I have lost the ability to deal with these types. When they show their true colors, I move along and forget about them. The beauty of my job is that if I don't want to talk to a co-worker all I have to do is turn my CB radio off I only have to endure their company for a few minutes a night before we get on the road. I'll tell him what you said Fergus
|
|