Executive orders
- Thread starter 2quills
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
Well, he couldnt get it done through congress so now he plans to bypass it and go after the gun control measures that he wanted? This should be interesting. Tyranny here we come.
What he wants he cant do through executive order....wont happen.
What he wants he cant do through executive order....wont happen.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Perhaps not to the scope that he desires (I hope). But he came into office claiming that he wasn't going to be that guy and do those things that Bush did. But he seems to have grown more comfortable in throwing his weight around and makes no bones now about doing what it takes to get things done with or without congress. His words.
I just dont like the sound of where this is going. I was cool with expanding backround checks. But I dont trust this guy.
I just dont like the sound of where this is going. I was cool with expanding backround checks. But I dont trust this guy.
reefraff
Active Member
There are a few things he can do as far as requiring states to report those who are mentally ill but he can't undo HIPPA through executive order.
I suspect you'll see an order full of reporting requirements with a ban on importation of foreign made ammunition included in it.
I suspect you'll see an order full of reporting requirements with a ban on importation of foreign made ammunition included in it.
darthtang aw
Active Member
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota . These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. Two hundred of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of ‘heroism’.
We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books.
What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”.
And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre which
appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in
United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of an invading army or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, hunting was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night and target shooting was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on target shooting. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed, should such tyranny arise in the United States .
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety or protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table and will most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of safety.
Before we blindly accept whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, we should
stop and think about something for just one minute. Evil does exist in our world. It always has and
always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of
the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We cannot legislate evil into extinction.
Good people will abide by the law and the criminal element will not.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, evil and malevolence is most often found in the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? Scapegoats and enemies within their own border, but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was. The confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists and
why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms.
Without the Second Amendment we will be stripped of any ability to defend ourselves
We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books.
What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”.
And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre which
appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in
United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of an invading army or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, hunting was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night and target shooting was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on target shooting. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed, should such tyranny arise in the United States .
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety or protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table and will most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of safety.
Before we blindly accept whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, we should
stop and think about something for just one minute. Evil does exist in our world. It always has and
always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of
the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We cannot legislate evil into extinction.
Good people will abide by the law and the criminal element will not.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, evil and malevolence is most often found in the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? Scapegoats and enemies within their own border, but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was. The confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists and
why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms.
Without the Second Amendment we will be stripped of any ability to defend ourselves
2quills
Well-Known Member
^--- likes this...
"Some things have simply not changed. Those regimes seeking to assert and maintain absolute control over the citizenry will always try to disarm them first by means of confiscation, regulation, taxation, and through controlling markets for firearms and ammunition. Without exception, an unarmed citizenry is one that can be effectively bullied and coerced and are readily controlled by the government.
By comparison, a well armed citizenry is an ominous threat to any police or military force who would seek to exert control over them. It is for this reason that our founding fathers introduced the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution.
Undoubtedly many readers will challenge the logic of the Second Amendment and will assert that the rationale for gun ownership that I have presented is no more than empty rhetoric. However, before you completely close your mind on this issue, consider the following:
Turkey established its gun control laws in 1911, utilizing them to arrest and exterminate some 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
The Soviet Union prohibited citizen gun ownership in 1929 which in turn contributed to somewhere between 20 and 62 millions citizen “dissidents” being rounded up, imprisoned and exterminated.
In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate approximately 13 million Jews between 1939 and 1945.
After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.
Gun control laws introduced in 1956 allowed Cambodia police and military forces to arrest around 21 million professionals and intellectuals and exterminate them.
Although the U.S. Constitution was created long ago, the intelligence and foresight of our founders regarding our national sovereignty and self-defense remains impressive.
There are many quotes from the founders which could be cited to illustrate their rationale for including the Second Amendment in the Constitution. However some of the following quotations are particularly indicative of their thinking at the time.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson, after observing during the drafting of the Virginia Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” (1776) later asserted in correspondence to John Cartwright (1824) that “"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
James Madison, though best remembered for asserting in 1792 that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” also observed that (1788) “The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
Likewise, Patriot Richard Henry Lee - renowned for calling for the independence of the colonies during the Second Continental Congress - is also remembered for warning that (1788) " to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Finally, our first United States President George Washington made the timeless observation (1790) that "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Our founder's words are clear, distinct and unequivocal. It doesn’t take a Harvard trained attorney to interpret their plain-language as they blatantly asserted that the people not only “should” maintain personal arms, the absolutely “must” maintain arms in the interest of remaining free."
erif;">
Dr. Edward Wimberly
"Some things have simply not changed. Those regimes seeking to assert and maintain absolute control over the citizenry will always try to disarm them first by means of confiscation, regulation, taxation, and through controlling markets for firearms and ammunition. Without exception, an unarmed citizenry is one that can be effectively bullied and coerced and are readily controlled by the government.
By comparison, a well armed citizenry is an ominous threat to any police or military force who would seek to exert control over them. It is for this reason that our founding fathers introduced the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution.
Undoubtedly many readers will challenge the logic of the Second Amendment and will assert that the rationale for gun ownership that I have presented is no more than empty rhetoric. However, before you completely close your mind on this issue, consider the following:
Turkey established its gun control laws in 1911, utilizing them to arrest and exterminate some 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
The Soviet Union prohibited citizen gun ownership in 1929 which in turn contributed to somewhere between 20 and 62 millions citizen “dissidents” being rounded up, imprisoned and exterminated.
In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate approximately 13 million Jews between 1939 and 1945.
After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.
Gun control laws introduced in 1956 allowed Cambodia police and military forces to arrest around 21 million professionals and intellectuals and exterminate them.
Although the U.S. Constitution was created long ago, the intelligence and foresight of our founders regarding our national sovereignty and self-defense remains impressive.
There are many quotes from the founders which could be cited to illustrate their rationale for including the Second Amendment in the Constitution. However some of the following quotations are particularly indicative of their thinking at the time.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson, after observing during the drafting of the Virginia Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” (1776) later asserted in correspondence to John Cartwright (1824) that “"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
James Madison, though best remembered for asserting in 1792 that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” also observed that (1788) “The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
Likewise, Patriot Richard Henry Lee - renowned for calling for the independence of the colonies during the Second Continental Congress - is also remembered for warning that (1788) " to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Finally, our first United States President George Washington made the timeless observation (1790) that "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Our founder's words are clear, distinct and unequivocal. It doesn’t take a Harvard trained attorney to interpret their plain-language as they blatantly asserted that the people not only “should” maintain personal arms, the absolutely “must” maintain arms in the interest of remaining free."
erif;">
Dr. Edward Wimberly
In truth, while I do believe in upholding the 2nd Am., if it came down to the people against a tyrannical government in the USA, the people would loose. Our handguns, AKs, and even a few tanks here and there is nothing compared to the armaments of government security starting with local police all the way to our military. In the end, the USA as we know it would end.
2quills
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be so sure. But either way, if we were under a tyrannical government the the USA as we know it has already ended.
Perhaps we have it backwards. Instead of the government going out of its way to make more and more laws to police its citizens perhaps we should be going out of our way to better police our government and so called elected officials.
Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?
Perhaps we have it backwards. Instead of the government going out of its way to make more and more laws to police its citizens perhaps we should be going out of our way to better police our government and so called elected officials.
Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?
darthtang aw
Active Member
You assume a majority of our military would follow unlawful orders. If there were a popular uprising in this country I wouldn't be too sure the military would be willing to take a hand.
The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. But that's not in the United States.
The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces. But that's not in the United States.
darthtang aw
Active Member
In truth, while I do believe in upholding the 2nd Am., if it came down to the people against a tyrannical government in the USA, the people would loose. Our handguns, AKs, and even a few tanks here and there is nothing compared to the armaments of government security starting with local police all the way to our military. In the end, the USA as we know it would end.
That would depend..because our military are people also that have some of the same beliefs and convinctions....
That would depend..because our military are people also that have some of the same beliefs and convinctions....
I agree. However, in the event of an uprising due to tyranny, I wouldn't expect that most US citizens are suddenly going to pick up their arms. Unless that actually happens, the military, the cops, etc., will be required to quell certain pockets of "radical extremists" and I feel that most of our security forces will comply. Only a very large uprising, happening at once, might turn the tide. By and large, most people just want to live their lives.
It wouldn't be a Hollywood moment were tyranny is brought down by the people. We were lucky in the 18th century that we were an ocean away from the tyrant. If you look at the history of Great Britain, you'd have to agree that they have put down all uprisings in Great Britain.
It wouldn't be a Hollywood moment were tyranny is brought down by the people. We were lucky in the 18th century that we were an ocean away from the tyrant. If you look at the history of Great Britain, you'd have to agree that they have put down all uprisings in Great Britain.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Lets hope it never comes to that. But you make a good point, Beth. In history, by the time they've gotten around to turning all citizens into criminials it's already too late because not enough people were able to realize what was happening early enough to try and do anything about it. We need transparency from our leaders.
People are upset over the senators, NRA etc over not passing this latest gun control legislation. But I'd like to think that it's not so much that people don't want to better protect our own citizens as much as it's about those trying humble a president that they believe is out of control. It almost seems like he's a bit fanatical about restricting access to guns for all citizens and I truely have to wonder why.
If we look at some of what he's done already it hasn't all been through executive orders in the true sense of the term but he's using loop holes in the system to push his own agenda through in other ways behind congresses back because he says we cant wait for congress. Probably since a lot of folks there strongly dissagree with him.
People are upset over the senators, NRA etc over not passing this latest gun control legislation. But I'd like to think that it's not so much that people don't want to better protect our own citizens as much as it's about those trying humble a president that they believe is out of control. It almost seems like he's a bit fanatical about restricting access to guns for all citizens and I truely have to wonder why.
If we look at some of what he's done already it hasn't all been through executive orders in the true sense of the term but he's using loop holes in the system to push his own agenda through in other ways behind congresses back because he says we cant wait for congress. Probably since a lot of folks there strongly dissagree with him.
theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395300/executive-orders#post_3519178
You assume a majority of our military would follow unlawful orders. If there were a popular uprising in this country I wouldn't be too sure the military would be willing to take a hand.
I kind of agree with this. People talk day and night about the day "the government" will come and take away all the guns. When people talk like that, you have to remember that "the government" would have to use the armed services, or local and federal authorities to do their bidding. I can tell you right now, if you took a survey of Marine's, army infantry, cops, federal agents, etc and asked them about their feelings on the second amendment, they would be far more likely to support it than the average Joe. So, assuming the government needed these people do do their dirty work, what makes you think they would?
I just asked a friend of mine (former Marine) what he would do if he were asked to do something like confiscate weapons from every day citizens for no reason other than the fact they had them. His response was he would desert, and if it came down to it, fight against the people giving him those orders. I have a feeling the majority of the rest of his friends would feel the same way...
Short of hiring foreign mercenaries, how would they "collect guns"?
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395300/executive-orders#post_3519178
You assume a majority of our military would follow unlawful orders. If there were a popular uprising in this country I wouldn't be too sure the military would be willing to take a hand.
I kind of agree with this. People talk day and night about the day "the government" will come and take away all the guns. When people talk like that, you have to remember that "the government" would have to use the armed services, or local and federal authorities to do their bidding. I can tell you right now, if you took a survey of Marine's, army infantry, cops, federal agents, etc and asked them about their feelings on the second amendment, they would be far more likely to support it than the average Joe. So, assuming the government needed these people do do their dirty work, what makes you think they would?
I just asked a friend of mine (former Marine) what he would do if he were asked to do something like confiscate weapons from every day citizens for no reason other than the fact they had them. His response was he would desert, and if it came down to it, fight against the people giving him those orders. I have a feeling the majority of the rest of his friends would feel the same way...
Short of hiring foreign mercenaries, how would they "collect guns"?
darthtang aw
Active Member
I kind of agree with this. People talk day and night about the day "the government" will come and take away all the guns. When people talk like that, you have to remember that "the government" would have to use the armed services, or local and federal authorities to do their bidding. I can tell you right now, if you took a survey of Marine's, army infantry, cops, federal agents, etc and asked them about their feelings on the second amendment, they would be far more likely to support it than the average Joe. So, assuming the government needed these people do do their dirty work, what makes you think they would?
I just asked a friend of mine (former Marine) what he would do if he were asked to do something like confiscate weapons from every day citizens for no reason other than the fact they had them. His response was he would desert, and if it came down to it, fight against the people giving him those orders. I have a feeling the majority of the rest of his friends would feel the same way...
Short of hiring foreign mercenaries, how would they "collect guns"?
The funny thing is, I feel you are right but not as right as you think. The majority of Americans are content with certain restrictions and laws. The majority of Americans only follow their "party". I can give you an prime example about rights. For 8 years a large group of democrats complained and railled about the patriot act and the 'civil rights" it violated and Took away. This was even campaigned against by our current President. However, once in office....the talk of this has been greatly minimized. Why? Because their side or guy now things it is ok. So, as long as your side agrees with it, most americans will go with the flow..........
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395300/executive-orders#post_3519178
You assume a majority of our military would follow unlawful orders. If there were a popular uprising in this country I wouldn't be too sure the military would be willing to take a hand.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395300/executive-orders#post_3519178
You assume a majority of our military would follow unlawful orders. If there were a popular uprising in this country I wouldn't be too sure the military would be willing to take a hand.
darthtang aw
Active Member
2quills
Well-Known Member
It would never really be that black and white for everyone. And I can't see it ever being like a D-day invasion on our guns. Our system is abused and broken. And half the people who it's designed to protect don't even understand it.
Think law makers really thought that prohibition was going to stop everyone from drinking? Law is a method of controlling the populous. And our system has been corrupted and abused by too many. Criminalizing or severely limiting access to defensive means makes us vulnerable to all types of threats. Including ones from within. I don't really want to become some kind of citizen drone. That's not freedom to me. But in some small way I fear that's where this nation is headed.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny". Abraham Lincoln
I've always liked this one...
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". Abraham Lincoln
Think law makers really thought that prohibition was going to stop everyone from drinking? Law is a method of controlling the populous. And our system has been corrupted and abused by too many. Criminalizing or severely limiting access to defensive means makes us vulnerable to all types of threats. Including ones from within. I don't really want to become some kind of citizen drone. That's not freedom to me. But in some small way I fear that's where this nation is headed.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny". Abraham Lincoln
I've always liked this one...
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". Abraham Lincoln
darthtang aw
Active Member
It would never really be that black and white for everyone. And I can't see it ever being like a D-day invasion on our guns. Our system is abused and broken. And half the people who it's designed to protect don't even understand it.
Think law makers really thought that prohibition was going to stop everyone from drinking? Law is a method of controlling the populous. And our system has been corrupted and abused by too many. Criminalizing or severely limiting access to defensive means makes us vulnerable to all types of threats. Including ones from within. I don't really want to become some kind of citizen drone. That's not freedom to me. But in some small way I fear that's where this nation is headed.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny". Abraham Lincoln
I've always liked this one...
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". Abraham Lincoln
I won't say it is totally abused, broken, or corrupted. What I believe is most don't fully understand or take the time to study or research historical intent. We have a rookie/junior House representative in The house. This is her first year. Very bright woman. Democrat. friend and client of mine. However from a historical aspect doesn't know squat. She and I have been debating and bounce ideas off each other for years. She is a very educated, likeable, and nice lady. It isn't they are corrupt or abusing the system..it is they just don't know. They base everything off what the think and know...and walla. It isn't till year 6 that corruption starts to set in. And that is with both parties....Hell even "Tea Party" candidates are flopping on crap...It is human nature to advance one's self even at the expense of a few people. This is not exclusive to washington. It is human Nature.
Think law makers really thought that prohibition was going to stop everyone from drinking? Law is a method of controlling the populous. And our system has been corrupted and abused by too many. Criminalizing or severely limiting access to defensive means makes us vulnerable to all types of threats. Including ones from within. I don't really want to become some kind of citizen drone. That's not freedom to me. But in some small way I fear that's where this nation is headed.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny". Abraham Lincoln
I've always liked this one...
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". Abraham Lincoln
I won't say it is totally abused, broken, or corrupted. What I believe is most don't fully understand or take the time to study or research historical intent. We have a rookie/junior House representative in The house. This is her first year. Very bright woman. Democrat. friend and client of mine. However from a historical aspect doesn't know squat. She and I have been debating and bounce ideas off each other for years. She is a very educated, likeable, and nice lady. It isn't they are corrupt or abusing the system..it is they just don't know. They base everything off what the think and know...and walla. It isn't till year 6 that corruption starts to set in. And that is with both parties....Hell even "Tea Party" candidates are flopping on crap...It is human nature to advance one's self even at the expense of a few people. This is not exclusive to washington. It is human Nature.