ronthecivil Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Mass tyranny and dictatorship??? If the shoe fits... And such sentiments are in the forefront of the concerns of elected US politicians as well. Pretty clearly President Obama is “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.” God forbid, eh? Oh yeah and what is Obama facing according to a Republican Texas Congressman - impeachment and/or deportation because ya know he was not born in the US of A and his birth certificate is fake, eh? Responding to reports that President Obama is considering signing as many as nineteen executive orders on gun control, Republicans in Congress unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.” Spearheading the offensive was Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), who charged the President with the “wanton exploitation of powers that are legally granted to him under the U.S. Constitution.” Calling him the “Law Professor-in-Chief,” Rep. Stockman accused Mr. Obama of “manipulating a little-known section of the Constitution,” Article II, which outlines the power of the President. (my note the Law Professor-in-Chief crack was first used by Sarah Palin for which she was roundly ripped.) “President Obama looks down the list of all of the powers that are legally his and he’s like a kid in a candy store,” Rep. Stockman said. “It’s nauseating.” The Texas congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could face “impeachment and/or deportation.” Noting that the President has not yet signed the executive orders on gun control, Rep. Stockman said that he hoped his stern words would serve as a wake-up call to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, there’s still time for you to get in line. But if you continue to fulfill the duties of President of the United States that are expressly permitted in the Constitution, you are playing with fire.” http://www.newyorker...l#ixzz2IAiGaqEX Bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 If America ever has a dictator, he, or she, will be a Republican .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepedestrian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 "Tyrannical governments" "Police State" What? The government of the USA? The paranoia runneth rampant in some......... c'mon back and post when you actually are facing a tyrannical government........you know....like some Middle East Countries and the like. Phhhhhhtttt..........please, 'tyrannical government' indeed.... yep, those jackboots should be clomping down a cobblestoned avenue near you any day now....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepedestrian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 If America ever has a dictator, he, or she, will be a Republican .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 in the last 10 years the US gov has taken Americans Jobs/ Taken their money now they are going for their guns. Ya this will end well. Soon the Inflation will run double digits. Homeland security will label many Americans Terrorists in the near future as they gave up liberty for security. The Fall of the Empire under hope and change. you can't write this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 President doesn't have authority of legislation.. oh no he authorised research (wonder what it'll say )! Oh no he beckoned Congress to pass gun control laws (which won't pass)! Not sure why all the hype in the first page.. nothing happened. What isn't surprising, but still just as funny, is how Obama's fans get all tickled pink when he speaks, a reaction much like teenage girls seeing Robert Pattinson in a new Twilight trailer . If anything, I see more state level gun control measures, as Obama is (despite his announcements which greatly excite his fans), sufficed to say, handcuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Rachel's take on "trolls": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuXGiV82tmg Brightest bulb on TV .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Don't class me as one of the conspiracy nuts. Just somebody who wants some assurance, and sees the occasional random shooting as the lesser evil compared to mass tyranny and dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The pro-gun people really have nothing to fear because the Republicans are in the majority in Congress. I don't see how any of the legislative meaures will be able to pass Congress. The only reason the 1994 assault weapon ban succceded was that the Democrats controlled both houses. And because of the 1994 ban, the Republicans was able to gain control Congress for the first time in 60 years in the 1996 elections. In the 2014 elections, the Republicans will likely retain their majority or increase their majority in Congress. Every Democrat in conservative rural districts face the possiblility of losing their seats. Furthermore, the Democrats could even lose control of the Senate. So President Obama is really playing with fire with the gun control legislation. If he loses both houses, he will have difficulty in passing any legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I have no problem with those rules. Very modest, and a moderate approach. Too bad the NRA won't feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Cmon, really. I expect better. They are looking to put restrictions on semi-automatic guns. Not fully automatic guns which are allready really really hard to get and are heavily regulated. You can't say they don't have a place either because they do. To protect against tyrannical governments. Can you please show some evidence that the USA isn't becoming more and more of a police state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets. This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Newsflash: pretty much every current or historical tyranny needed time to get up and running, the Bolsheviks, National Socialist Germany, North Korea, all started out being much less nasty than they'd later become, but even at their early going the signs were clearly there. It takes time to implement mechanisms of control and deal with those seen as threats and liabilities. If anyone thinks the likes of the Patriot Act and NDAA is worrisome, imagine what lies further down that road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Because the US military never suffered any casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan? No matter how technologically advanced you are militarily, you still need boots on the ground to patrol the streets and to enforce your rules. If just 10% of the US have guns and just 10% of that number decides to "fight back", that's still about 3 million insurgents/freedom fighters/etc your armed forces will have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets. This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepedestrian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 You are comparing a couple of countries with terrorist cells and weapons much more deadlier than the average joe's bushmaster which was bought from Wallmart? You can't compare the average citizen to a trained militia or terrorist groups like Al-qaida or Hezbollahs. If 10% of US citizens decide to fight back that means a majority would be against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepedestrian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 The rebels in Syria started with small arms like assault rifles and now they are close to toppling the dictator Assad. The government of Syria has tanks, artillery, and fighter jets. So it wa possible for armed to overthrow a government with superior military power. Plus wars are still on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its called guerilla or assymetrical warfare and can lead to overthrow of governments. Two classic case are Cuba and Vietnam. In Cuba, Fidel Castrol lead a ragtag band of fighters that overthrew the Batista governemtn which was heavily armed and funded by the US, The other case is Vietnam wher the Viet Cong defeated BOTH France and the United States. The Viet Cong were heavily outgunned by the Americans but still won the war. Its nonsense that well organized civilians cannot defeat a greater force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANGO Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 one thing studies haven't shown is........people that don't own/have guns, are less likely to kill you/themselves with a gun........ the studies all seem to be geared around people who have guns, and whether they will kill you/themselves with a gun. shooting yourself with a gun isn't a problem, it's a natural process that people used to refer to as.......natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.