- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,618
- Reaction score
- 55,243
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
you know the old story about boiling a frog don't you?
Definitely!
you know the old story about boiling a frog don't you?
Dictatorship is a kind of government, not a kind of society. The society is higher than the government it's sent into place. The society needs to remain stronger than the government so that the government doesn't turn against it's master and oppress the society. Should it try, the society removes the government and replaces it.According to the poster I directed my comments to, he believe these weapons are needed to protect himself against the US military and the government. If that is the case, then the society he thinks he is living in is not a free society, it is a dictatorship.
Dictatorship is a kind of government, not a kind of society. The society is higher than the government it's sent into place. The society needs to remain stronger than the government so that the government doesn't turn against it's master and oppress the society. Should it try, the society removes the government and replaces it.
In danger of heading in that direction, what indications support this? Or perhaps is it only supported in the minds of the overly paranoid?
I don't have any idea what your talking about..... You refer to dictatorship as a type of government which is mostly correct, and not a kind of society. Not really sure where the confusion occurred after reading my post but you are pretty much saying exactly what he was saying. That the public must protect itself from the government and if the government gets out of line, it needs to have the ability to overthrow it. A society in fear of the government that feels it has to be armed to fight against it, is not a free society. That was my point.
Not at all.
Over the past several years there has been an absolutely massive expansion of the federal government and the trend has definitely been continuing in that direction. We already have a nation that has become largely reliant on the government for retirement funding and old age medical care. The scope of Obamacare is expanding that dependency as is the treatment of "too big to fail" institutions. We are looking at the very realistic prospect of the nationalization of many core industries and the further prospect of effectively disarming the general public. More than that we are moving away from the principles of Republican governance and toward a direct Democracy which would be HIGHLY likely to result in some form of dictatorship in relatively short order.
You said such a society was a dictatorship. That was not an accurate statement.I don't have any idea what your talking about..... You refer to dictatorship as a type of government which is mostly correct, and not a kind of society. Not really sure where the confusion occurred after reading my post but you are pretty much saying exactly what he was saying. That the public must protect itself from the government and if the government gets out of line, it needs to have the ability to overthrow it.
A government can only reason with an armed society, because the government cannot force an armed society to do anything that society doesn't want to do. Being armed takes the use of force against you off the table, you can only be dealt with through reason and persuasion.A society in fear of the government that feels it has to be armed to fight against it, is not a free society.
So you're not aware of the private banking system, how most of the countries the US invades are countries who've tried to use a non-us currency to base oil on.My confusion with these types of people is where are they seeing this need to protect themselves from the goverment with guns? Gay marriage is being legalized in many states, gays have been let into the military, free speech is protected more often now than any other time in US history. Even that crazy baptist church is allowed to protest outside military funerals holding signs that say "thank god for dead soldiers". Women are increasingly becoming a vital part of the workforce... Legalization of marijuana is close at hand....Where is this impending oppression? I just don't see any trends that would support it at all. In fact, most trends are the complete opposite.
You said such a society was a dictatorship. That was not an accurate statement.
A government can only reason with an armed society, because the government cannot force an armed society to do anything that society doesn't want to do. Being armed takes the use of force against you off the table, you can only be dealt with through reason and persuasion.
So you're not aware of the private banking system, how most of the countries the US invades are countries who've tried to use a non-us currency to base oil on.
ObamaCare is not about providing poor people with heath care. The people of the US are going to be charged a hell of a lot more than ObamaCare requires to operate and the extra money used to prop up this private banking pinzie scheme.
The bottom line is: the government is mismanaging our money, the government knows we will kick it's ass, that's why they're trying to distract us with meaningless social policy on gay marriage and abortion, trying to buy us off with various hand-outs from food stamps to 180 day unemployment benefits.
The government knows this bubble won't last forever, non-gold-backed currency never does, though it's never lasted this long before. The bubble will pop, the people will riot, and the government wants us disarmed before this happens.
But the government is not growing to oppress society, it is growing to offer more to society. No one is forcing anyone to go to the doctor at gunpoint.. no one is forcing large businesses to accept government assistence.. I don't see oppression being a factor in any of these things. Are they things many of us disagree with, sure. They are not oppressive measures that we need to free ourselves from by use of force.
When government steps in to "offer more" to society it inevitably cuts out private sector options which ends up limiting choices and making people more reliant on the government. The health care exchanges are a prime example. They mandate the type of coverage that has to be offered to the public and assess penalties on those who do not provide that coverage. That actually takes away options from the public who might well benefit from a different level of coverage.
Why, for example, should I be required to purchase health insurance that covers gynecological exams and maternity care? I certainly have a relatively low risk of ovarian cancer and I highly doubt that I'll need to get an abortion but I now have to purchase insurance that covers that stuff because the government says that I do. If you think that certain financial institutions weren't forced into accepting "assistance" under TARP you are mistaken and there was pressure applied to companies such as Countrywide to provide financing to unqualified borrowers through threats to have their immunity from CRA requirements revoked.
You might well see it as government coming in to make things better but the truth of the matter is, as has been mentioned above, that we are being put in a pot and the heat is being turned up.
I spent a year in Afghanistan, I'm intimately acquainted with how effective a low-tech 3rd-world militia can be against a modern 1st-world high-tech Army and Air-Force.Sure it can, you think civilian weapons are a deterrent if the government really wanted to oppress people here? With the most advanced Air Force and the most experience and trained Army / Marine force in the world, you think they are scared of armed civilians? You can't win a war with guns against a force that has had much more training and also is much fitter to fight than you. You also can not defeat a force that is much more heavily armed and has a large technology advantage on you.
I spent a year in Afghanistan, I'm intimately acquainted with how effective a low-tech 3rd-world militia can be against a modern 1st-world high-tech Army and Air-Force.
I spent a year in Afghanistan, I'm intimately acquainted with how effective a low-tech 3rd-world militia can be against a modern 1st-world high-tech Army and Air-Force.
Iraqi veterans can tell you the same.
So your going to arm yourself and overthrow the government because you have to pay for some poor chicks gynecology appointment?
I get the impression that you have chosen not to "get it".
I will NEVER be a subject of the State as long as I have the means to prevent that from happening. I am wholly unwilling to cede my liberty to a "benefactor" and especially unwilling to cede that liberty to a State which has "benefactored" the native Americans on to reservations and imprisoned its own citizens based on nothing other than race. The precedent is there and I am loathe to allow it to happen again.
Get what?? Caught up into some of the crazy things people say on the internet. No, I don't get it. I think there are people out there that need serious medical and psychological assistance and the internet is a good example of that.
Good for her, benig able to recognize when she is talking to someone that cannot directly address the issues put to him and not letting him spin away from questions/issue he cannot directly address.My daughter used to declare herself the 'victor' much the same way you do now...
It is a constitutional right for you, too.Is owning a weapon for you a constitutional right...
You're right -- if anything, they are more restricted on when they can use deadly force as a civilian has no duty to try to do everything he can to peacefully apprehend the person threatening him.Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers ARE different in the eyes of the law
I have no need to own one.