• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AZ Shooting: Tree of Liberty watering?

Should elected officials fear for their lives with regard to legislative efforts?

  • Yes, absolutely

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • No. Never.

    Votes: 13 61.9%
  • I'm on the fence... I'll explain.

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • They should fear Chuck Norris.

    Votes: 5 23.8%

  • Total voters
    21
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
187
Reaction score
71
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Forum Member said:
Rest assured that every member of Congress was shaking in their boots with a little warm trickle running down the inside of their legs this weekend, knowing full well that it easily could have been any one of them that took a bullet through the brainpan on Saturday morning. Now they're in a full-blown panic, and right at the start of the 112th Congress, too. I expect this Congress to be a lot more careful this time around. It's not good what happened at all, but I can see where the cavalier actions of our Congress over the years has made it necessary.

Forum Member said:
Exactly. IOW, they've been reminded they're not bulletproof like they always thought they were.

A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Anyone agree?
 
Last edited:
That is disgusting, that people are thinking about killing people just for the appeal of it. Damn, these are some twisted individuals that take joy in someone loosening their lives in a tragedy.

While, I post up more after I get home from work.
 
Disagree. This congresswoman was hardly a bloody-handed tyrant, nor a supporter of bloody-handed tyrants, nor does a lunatic shooting a congresswoman because of his lunacy have anything to do with this principle.

We are not currently in a condition of tyranny that would justify such an action in any case.
 
Yeah, just shoot a congressman every couple of months, just to make sure there's no tyranny. That's a good idea.

There is no reason for hyperbole here. The OP post a thoughtful discussion in my view. No doubt you'll come back and say I support the killing of congressmen along with skippy and RH. We ought to discuss what Jefferson meant by that statement, and when it is appropriate to defend one's rights.
 
There is no reason for hyperbole here. The OP post a thoughtful discussion in my view. No doubt you'll come back and say I support the killing of congressmen along with skippy and RH. We ought to discuss what Jefferson meant by that statement, and when it is appropriate to defend one's rights.

There's always reason for hyperbole. What I think Jefferson meant is that when your government has become tyrannical, violence should be the last resort, and the government should be aware of that.
 
A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Anyone agree?
i think you have seized on the silver lining of this dark cloud
thanks for sharing a profound observation
 
There's always reason for hyperbole. What I think Jefferson meant is that when your government has become tyrannical, violence should be the last resort, and the government should be aware of that.

No, what you did is paraphase a quote.
 
A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Anyone agree?

What forum was this posted on?

inb4 DownloadPolitics
 
As long as we have the freedom to vote our conscience without duress, and representative government, our lawmakers should have nothing to fear but the next election. Loughner's actions have nothing to do with patriotism or fighting tyranny.
 
Come on, man, all you need to do is "diagnose the problem", find a "second amendment solution", "lock and load" and "take out" the opposition.

and then you wag your sanctimonious little finger in the faces of anybody who might actually reject this sort of rhetoric while calling THEM the "political hack".
 
Anyone agree?

Seeing how it would require a significant stretch to claim that the government is a tyranny at this point, and specifically that this congresswomen represented such, I would hardly agree at all that this falls in line with what Jefferson was suggesting. I find it disturbing that anyone would find this to be a good or useful thing, whether they state it as such or whether their actions show their beliefs as such.
 
Seeing how it would require a significant stretch to claim that the government is a tyranny at this point, and specifically that this congresswomen represented such, I would hardly agree at all that this falls in line with what Jefferson was suggesting. I find it disturbing that anyone would find this to be a good or useful thing, whether they state it as such or whether their actions show their beliefs as such.

i don't think anyone is asserting that such action should be exercised by intent or design, but that the very result - making our representatives wary of the people who put them in office - confirms Jefferson's observations
 
i don't think anyone is asserting that such action should be exercised by intent or design, but that the very result - making our representatives wary of the people who put them in office - confirms Jefferson's observations

Except it doesn't. Jeffersons comment was focused much more on a societal fear; as in the leigitimate fear that perhaps the citizenry could cause significant problems for the government as a whole and thus assures freedom.

Random one off killings of officials does not promote liberty, nor a fear of "the people" as a whole as would be required for Jeffersons statement. This is evident in the attempts by a representitive currently attempting to stifle free speech and using this as a means of doing so...essentially removing liberty, not adding to it.

Large scale threats posed by "The people", the citizenry as a majority force, CAN be a way to keep liberty within the governmental system. However, such a large scale act would take an actual tyranny to be in place...which is not the case currently and why there is NOT a large scale revolt.

This kind of action, on a SMALL scale, actually works to reduce the amount of liberty available to us as over reaction to it is taken which typically revolves around vesting additional power into the government to "protect" them as such. This happens because, without the large scale movement of "The People" that comes about with a tyranny, individuals by and large REJECT the action of the lone individual and thus are more likely to go along with liberty-removing manuevers to "prevent" it in the future.

So no, I don't think this is at all or in any way similar to what Jefferson is advocating.
 
Except it doesn't. Jeffersons comment was focused much more on a societal fear; as in the leigitimate fear that perhaps the citizenry could cause significant problems for the government as a whole and thus assures freedom.

Random one off killings of officials does not promote liberty, nor a fear of "the people" as a whole as would be required for Jeffersons statement. This is evident in the attempts by a representitive currently attempting to stifle free speech and using this as a means of doing so...essentially removing liberty, not adding to it.

Large scale threats posed by "The people", the citizenry as a majority force, CAN be a way to keep liberty within the governmental system. However, such a large scale act would take an actual tyranny to be in place...which is not the case currently and why there is NOT a large scale revolt.

This kind of action, on a SMALL scale, actually works to reduce the amount of liberty available to us as over reaction to it is taken which typically revolves around vesting additional power into the government to "protect" them as such. This happens because, without the large scale movement of "The People" that comes about with a tyranny, individuals by and large REJECT the action of the lone individual and thus are more likely to go along with liberty-removing manuevers to "prevent" it in the future.

So no, I don't think this is at all or in any way similar to what Jefferson is advocating.
to accept your view one must recognize that the members of congress were not made more wary for their individual safety after that shooting
based on what i am seeing, such conclusion would be very wrong
 
to accept your view one must recognize that the members of congress were not made more wary for their individual safety after that shooting
based on what i am seeing, such conclusion would be very wrong

Incorrect.

To accept my view one must recognize that the members of congress are made more wary of taking action that restricts liberty.

Considering one immedietely ran forth to attempt and push legislation that ristricts liberty, and portions of a political party are using this as a means to push essentially societal limitations on free speech, I would say that such a result absolutely has not happened.

Based on what I'm seeing, the conclussion that somehow the act of a single crazy individual is going to increase liberty by scaring officials into taking actions contrary to liberty is wrong
 
If this is true, then we are in trouble.
Have I ever said that we need a better people?
 
A little something I encountered at another forum. This (IMO) looks like clear-cut advocacy for the events that took place recently in Arizona. Later on in the discussion, one of these posters even went so far as to quote Jefferson and his liberty/tyranny proclamation (regarding government).

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Anyone agree?
So, are we saying that Thomas Jefferson advocates that citizens shoot politicians when they fear that the government is "overstepping".
Was he not a slave-owner as well?
This is the 21st century, a Martin L King replaces Jefferson.
National health care replaces bankruptcy and early death..
 
Seeing how it would require a significant stretch to claim that the government is a tyranny at this point, and specifically that this congresswomen represented such, I would hardly agree at all that this falls in line with what Jefferson was suggesting. I find it disturbing that anyone would find this to be a good or useful thing, whether they state it as such or whether their actions show their beliefs as such.

Yup, at this point we still do have control, even if we don't wish to exercise it that much. The government is not at the stage where it would necessitate violence against it. That's not to say that I think Jefferson is wrong. I think what he said is a stern warning to us all. There could be a time when it is necessary, and if such time should ever be reached; then we need to understand that in order to preserve liberty, we would have to fight for it. But even in that situation, what this guy did was not going to help in that regards. It was too sloppy, too reckless, and involved too many citizens. If it were necessary to fight, you don't do it by running into a building and start shooting up the place. You have to be calculated and precise, target government officials, government authority, government buildings. It would have to be made clear that the People at large are not the targets, but rather it is the tyrannical government which is being targeted. But that's to say you'd be at the point where you are left with no other option, and we are not at that point.
 
bah double post
 
Last edited:
There is no reason for hyperbole here. The OP post a thoughtful discussion in my view. No doubt you'll come back and say I support the killing of congressmen along with skippy and RH. We ought to discuss what Jefferson meant by that statement, and when it is appropriate to defend one's rights.
Lets define "tyranny".
The health care bill was very close to this. That all people pay for health care, is IMO, good.
Not everyone sees it this way, and they do have their points.
I enjoy and benefit from subsidized health care :peace , why should everyone not benefit from the same?
 
Last edited:
We're all capable of saying some pretty stupid things from time to time, even Jefferson.
 
We're all capable of saying some pretty stupid things from time to time, even Jefferson.

However, what he said was not stupid. It's in fact a very important piece for the continued pursuit of freedom and liberty.
 
Back
Top Bottom