Darth Wong wrote:
Actually, it is the Republicans who are most aggressively pushing the totalitarian state right now. They're aiming to get us there before Bushie-boy and his Gestapo-henchman Asscroft leave office.
Yeah right, and your goobermint is even better? The same
Canadian Government who protected the IMF/WTO meeting in one of
your cities by having the military deploy cell phone jammers? Your courts
even let that decision stand. So don't get all preachy about us when your
government is as fucked up as ours....at least we don't jam our citizen's
phones to protect the elite..
And the Democrats when they're in power, generally push for a totalitarian
nanny-state, while the Republicans push for a totalitarian law and order state...
Generally same thing, but different philosophies...the democrats want to take
your rights away to protect you, while the republicans want to take your rights
away to stop criminals, or undesirable elements...
But according to your NRA buddies, neighbourhood guys with rifles can stop all of that, right? Except that they're not ...
Violent armed revolution is never a step to be taken lightly. The Second
Amendment is the final failsafe in our system of government. It safeguards
the other amendments. Why do you think the founders gave it such a
high number?
What do tyrannical governments do upon assuming power typically?
They outlaw the ownership of firearms, so that they would have a
monopoly of force alone. Think for a moment about that.
Tom Jefferson got it right with the Declaration.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.
Corporations, actually. They own the government.
Ha, put down Marx and Engels, OK? Actually, all the corporations want
is TAX BREAKS. They don't give a fucking shit about the reins of power.
All they want is the skids of government greasing the path to greater
profit.
That reminds me Mike, Lifesaver Corporation just recently pulled a JOHN
GALT, and pulled up all of it's operations and moved to Canada lock,
stock, and barrel. The reason?
Subsidies for sugar growers in the tax code put in by sugar industry
lobbyists....it costs a fuckload more to buy sugar here in the US of A
than it does in Canada.
EDIT:
Oh yes, sorry mike, just remembered a case of corp influence... DuPont's patent on FREON, R-12
was about to run out, and after years of debate, somehow, a law banning
freon for it's damaging effects gets passed, and DuPont gets new patents
on new, environmentally safe refrigerants like R-22 and R-134a...
Maybe because New York suffers a thousand homicides every year? Why should this one make national news? Guy goes nuts, shoots a couple of people. Hell, when I lived near Detroit, that would barely make LOCAL news.
Remember Buford Furrow? Aryan Nations guy? The one who went nutzors and shot up
a Jewish Day care place? That was all over the news for DAYS...
Or what about that nut in Massachusetts, Michael McDermott, he shot up his workplace,
the same way this former FBI agent did, and he was splashed all over the front pages
for DAYS.
But the media is strangely quiet over this shooting, even though it has all the
ingredients of a good front page story.....guy upset over an "Dear John" e-mail
goes and shoots up his workplace, and he was a WTC survivor...and also a former
FBI agent...one of the elite few that the media thinks should be armed.
There IS a bias in the media when it comes to shit like this, and it's fairly
OBVIOUS to anyone with two brain-cells to rub together.
That isn't enough media bias for you? How about this?
How about a FBI agent pulling over a Kid and his girlfriend for bank robbery,
even though he has a fucking PICTURE of the bank robbers car, and the kid's car
looks NOTHING LIKE IT, and when the kid unbuckles his seat belt, the brave FBI
agent uses his machinegun to put a round into the kid's nose......and then they
cuff the kid and his girlfriend and leave the poor guy bleeding in the street for almost
an hour before calling an ambulance....
What happened to that FBI agent? Was he put in jail for nearly wasting the wrong person?
No, all he got was paid leave and a reassignment. The papers never even printed the
agent's name, while the names of every two-bit criminal out there get splashed all
over the front pages...
How do I know? I read local Maryland papers...this one never moved past page A23
or made national news...the double standard is between two groups of people:
Those who work for the government, and those who dont......
Lets not get started about how the government prefers the FLAMBOYANT stuff,
if it can get them a soundbite on the evening news.
They could have just picked up Randy Weaver when he was in town getting
groceries, or they could have picked up David Koresh when he was jogging
around his compound, with no muss or fuss. But no, they have to ALWAYS
do things the HARD way....
You are pro-YOUR freedom. You are against everyone else's freedom, eg- freedom of (or from) religion, freedom to openly criticize the government, freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc.
Oh, and your suggestion is to pass MORE laws dictating how WE THE PEOPLE should
think, and feel everyday? Why not just make a law dictating that everyone must
submit to 2 hours of mass brainwashing everyday to inculcate a proper attitude
towards certain groups?
Why do you think the homosexual associations out there are always pushing for
more and more and more laws protecting them, rather than simply supporting
concealed carry like the Pink Pistols?
http://www.pinkpistols.com/
Answer: They'd rather have the bodies of dead GLBTs to use to fob off their
anti-freedom legislation through our legal system. In short, they don't want
live gay, lesbian, transgender, or bi-sexual individuals....they want MARTYRS
for their cause!
What would have happened if Matt Shephard had been packing a Glock that night?
Absolutely fucking nothing and he'd be alive today, but then the GLBT groups
wouldn't have one of their most prominent MARTYRS.
And on Religious freedom, do we have mass mobs burning people alive for
merely being members of an opposing religion here? Uhm, No. Then why
do we need more laws against this kind of shit? Murder's murder, whether
the victim was straight, mormon, atheist, homosexual, etc etc.
I mean, murder's already ILLEGAL. Do we need to make it special-double-Illegal?
If I'm not mistaken, the murderers of Matt Shepherd got two consecutive
life sentences, without the need for anti-hate legislation.
Besides, you've obviously never seen how the government always misuses
laws, no matter how noble they originally were, nor how they never,
EVER give power back.
Case in point, using RICO laws originally intended to shut mobsters down against
pro-life groups, and the British Secrecy Laws, enacted during WWI...the brit gov't
found it liked having the powers so much they never got rid of them.
Law of Unintended Consequences, man.