Liberty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byron noted
I don't like the way that both the federal and state governments are continually trying to push back the barriers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And it's not just guns. It's everywhere.
And I share these feelings.
there may be quite a few who are unaware of the freedoms they have lost but you're not likely to find them here. you have, however, completely ignored those of us who have told you what we dislike about our current situation.
No, I have not ignored you; rather, I have pushed to discover what other aspects of government involvement in our lives members consider to be oppression, and what other governmental actions have robbed citizens of vital freedoms.

Frankly, while I consider the myriad of taxes and fees levied upon all of us to be horribly unfair, regressive and to a great extent, unnecessary -- I think we really have more pressing concerns to deal with.

As Byron rightly points out, there are other things going on that don't affect us economically.

It's not a search; it's a checkpoint. Driving on the roads is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, it's OK to have checkpoints because it only interferes with your privileges.
And this is precisely where we're being attacked -- with the very definitions of rights, freedoms and privileges. This is what I was originally trying to get at -- in our present culture, most folks are easily satisfied with their lot in life as long as their basic needs are met. Read my very first post in this thread. Most citizens are unthinking -- we all know this. We have relied for too long on our government to define the limits of our freedoms. I attempted to show how, in some ways, people today could believe that we are more free than our forefathers while key freedoms were being chipped away. What I wanted to see was whether anyone else understands, as I believe to be the case, that we who look toward fundamental concepts of freedoms are far outnumbered by those whose only concerns are materialistic and the basic comforts of life -- and this is why I believe our freedoms are most in jeopardy -- not because of what the government has done, is doing or will do.

Now, chopinbloc finally hinted at it:
we live in a society where government intrudes on our lives at every waking (and sleeping moment) you sleep on a government sactioned matress. you drive in a car that has met government standards fueled by gasoline that has met government standards. your employer is so choked by government regulations and taxes that many smaller businesses ultimately fail. the government decides what you are allowed to put in your body and how much it will be taxed. they decide what you will see on television and hear on the radio. they will listen to your phone conversations, search your person or your house whenever they see fit.
Some of the members here seem to regard their right to own whatever type firearm they desire, and the fact that the government restricts them from this, as the key infringement or limitation or denial of what they seem to consider their most important freedom.

This is so very shortsighted. And wrong.

Other members regard their tax burden as the government's chief inroad against their freedom. And this is just whining.

While both these issues, and the multitude of sub-issues within, are critical, I see the increasing acceptance of loss of privacy and government tracking of each of our identities as the biggest threat to our freedoms today.

But to me, the biggest loss of freedom of all is the fact that our society has finally arrived at the point where the majority of the citizenry cares not about ideals and the concept of true freedom, but simply being comfortable and entertained.

No one got this. Our government doesn't oppress us. We oppress ourselves.
 
...the more things remain the same...

Somewhere I read: ""... that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Agreed that the majority will accept whatever oppression is served up, just as in colonial America, yes? The minority is growing, however, of who don't go along with the program. This also happen to be the most productive segment of society. When we hit the tipping point, and exactly how we'll "right ourselves", is a fascinating debate.

Some mention was made of a "societal contract". Seems these days, our government is behaving just like the credit card industry, rewriting the terms of this "contract" unilaterally, issuing due notice in fine print that no one reads.
 
Old Dog said:
While both these issues, and the multitude of sub-issues within, are critical, I see the increasing acceptance of loss of privacy and government tracking of each of our identities as the biggest threat to our freedoms today.

But to me, the biggest loss of freedom of all is the fact that our society has finally arrived at the point where the majority of the citizenry cares not about ideals and the concept of true freedom, but simply being comfortable and entertained.

No one got this. Our government doesn't oppress us. We oppress ourselves.

This is where I think you fail to give others enough credit. While you are worried about mere threats to privacy, the latest oh-my-the-sky-is-falling, others have cited instances where the government has actually acted upon the curtailment of freedoms in a very real way. Beyond that, I think you picked the wrong group to make a grand indictment about being indifferent to or tolerant of the erosion of freedoms, indeed actually being happy with the way things are. I don't know of another place where you would be preaching to the choir to a greater extent. Gun owners, especially owners or would be owners of heavily regulated firearms, already have an oppressed attitude and tend to know a lot more about rights and government funny business than just the RKBA.
 
RealGun said:
This is where I think you fail to give others enough credit. While you are worried about mere threats to privacy, the latest oh-my-the-sky-is-falling, others have cited instances where the government has actually acted upon the curtailment of freedoms in a very real way. Beyond that, I think you picked the wrong group to make a grand indictment about being indifferent to or tolerant of the erosion of freedoms, indeed actually being happy with the way things are. I don't know of another place where you would be preaching to the choir to a greater extent. Gun owners, especially owners or would be owners of heavily regulated firearms, already have an oppressed attitude and tend to know a lot more about rights and government funny business than just the RKBA.
Well said.
 
Prostitution.

Land that the goverment has some interest in ie wet lands or eminent domain.

High end computers and many electronic devices can not be owned or are regulated to death.

You can not speak out against the drug war on television, the same goes for other topics and mediums.

Marriage being illegal for some or highly regulated, same with divorce.

Cant wear a mask or other certian clothing in public.

Can't own certian harmless pets ie ferrets and such.

Can't carry cash in excess of a few hundred dollars without it being taken.

Won't get a trail for many offenses traffic violations, terrorism and such.

The government thinks it can tell me what I can own, what I can do, it thinks I can be forced to help it do things or go places against my will (war, mandatory counsiling after a divroce, car accident, etc).

It thinks it has the right to kill people without a trial, remember Ruby Ridge and the "can and should kill" order. Or the way people are treated that do not come out of their homes quietly, ie being blown up.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gun owners do a lot of talking then when the s@#t hits the fan they put their tail between their legs. Just like Katrina. A lot of people sit on this board all day in their nice houses with their perfect families and talk about what if. Well, what if is happening now. And I don't buy the argument that things are better now than they were in the 80's or 60's or 30's. WHAT PART OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? Pardon me for not wanting to call my pwetty wittle congressman and ask him to pretty please not take away my RIGHTS. I've called my politicians before. They don't care! Their are more people who are ok with gun control than are against it. I've already been flamed on this on another thread. I'm sorry for having something between my legs. But as Malcolm X said, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
 
Pardon me for not wanting to call my pwetty wittle congressman and ask him to pretty please not take away my RIGHTS. I've called my politicians before. They don't care! Their are more people who are ok with gun control than are against it.

This is reminiscent of Democrat US Senators who are all indictment and no better ideas.
 
It may have been. I am not a lawyer but there is something called: "The Smith Act" which is to prevent people from talking about revolution and overthrowing the US government.

Hmmm...

Further indictments followed throughout the nation. In the end over 140 Communist Party leaders were indicted. The trials did not cease until, a number of Supreme Court decisions in 1957. Two of the most important were Yates v. United States and Watkins v. United States. The Yates decision overthrew the convictions of the second tier of Communist leaders. It drew a sharp distinction between the advocacy of an idea for purposes of incitement and the teaching of an idea as an abstract concept. In Watkins the Court ruled that a defendant who had opted not to use the Fifth Amendment could still use the First Amendment against "abuses of the legislative process." The vote was six to one, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the majority opinion.
The net effect of these and related decisions was to bring prosecutions to a halt. The Court had reaffirmed constitutional protections regarding free speech and self-incrimination while raising the requirement of "intent" to a level that made it difficult for prosecutors to show a Communist Party member had a criminal purpose.

Perhaps he need not worry overly about going to jail from being prosecuted under the Smith Act after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top