Dictatorship (and Gun Ban) --is it possible?

Is a dictatorship followed by a gun ban possible in America's future?

  • Yes, it will happen within the next 10 years under the next administration.

    Votes: 48 34.3%

  • Yes, but it will be many decades away. I'll be too old to care.

    Votes: 53 37.9%

  • No. Checks and balances in government are working just fine.

    Votes: 35 25.0%

  • I don't know. Who is Sandra Day O'Connor anyway?

    Votes: 4 2.9%
  • Total voters
    140
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
You missed the really obvious one: Dictatorship in the very near future - say within the year - and no gun ban. We're just about there now with an Administration that has said its "signing statements" definitively interpret the law and that if it says something is a matter of national security there can be no opposition to its decrees by any branch of government. Arbitrary detention without trial or charge, lettres de cachet, the disappeared, and so on.

The fact that the more gullible of the sheep still have their magic trinkets and believe that they are free thereby makes the victory that much more complete.
 
well, heres the thing. the three branches are independent/checked and balanced.

If the congress makes a law that the executive will not sign, even if its overridden in a veto, he does not have to enforce it.

If the executive is embarked on an action that the congress overwhelmingly opposed, they can impeach, censure, or just not fund it.

If the judiciary decides that something is not constitutional, then the congress can make it an amendment.

All of these branches are checked and balanced by 'the people'. If congress/executive pass a law that totally infringes on the rights of the people, they will eventually run out of people to enforce it.

Likewise, if the judiciary upholds anything that totally infringes on the rights of the people, they will eventually run out of people to enforce it.
 
I agree with xd9fan

Attacking judges for judicial decisions is like attacking fish for swimming. There is a mechanism all ready in place to punish judges for misconduct. xd9fan is correct it can go both ways. If righties can punish judges for unfavorable decisions, so can lefties. Ultimately a decision must be made. Nothing would get resolved if there were endless challenges.

DKSuddeth is right that there are checks and balances and if one branch oversteps the other two can try to correct it. This government and the Constitution is self correcting, in so far as it meets the demands of the people. This is a slow process and very labor intensive, but it should be if you’re going to be tinkering with the backbone of law of the land. I guess people are just not patient enough for the process to work or don’t trust the process to begin with.

The extreme right wants a religious police state because they are morally superior and know what is best for you, think Iran. The extreme left wants a secular police state because they are morally superior and know what is best for you, think China. Both extremes are bad for our rights, it is unfortunate that they are the only ones we hear.
 
From the article:

In her speech, Ms O'Connor said that if the courts did not occasionally make politicians mad they would not be doing their jobs,
Click to expand...

Activist judges are making more than 'politicians' mad. The many twisted 'interpretations' of the Constitution that have come from the courts have had a long-lasting impact on the public's view of judges. Ms O'Connor seems to be unaware of the grass-roots movement to replace activist judges with judges that actually read the Constitution.
 
The pot calls the kettle black.

The judiciary has a long history of assuming powers it has no right to assume. From Marbury v. Madison to their current efforts to rewrite the constitution "because it disagrees with international law", the court has consistently edged closer and closer towards judicial tyranny. It comes as no surprise that a former supreme court justice wants more power for the court.
 
On "Activist Judges"

You vote for the people that appoint the activist judges.
If you don't like who they appoint, call them, and/or vote for someone else.
 
On the court's decisions...

...it was a memorandum by a court CLERK in the 19th century that gave corporations the rights of persons, really. Which has led to the current system, where the execs are pretty much untouchable by the public for wrongdoing unless they pull something so blatantly egregious as an Enron.

That was "activist". It certainly wasn't in the constitution.

But do you think for one second that the Powers That Be, completely and totally in bed with megacorporations that fund their campaigns, want THAT one reversed or thrown out?
 
Truth be told I am beginning to see a Dictatorship forming in our country as we speak. We have a President who spies on his own people, believes Imminent Domain is ok, believes in the Patriot Act, and says that he would pass another AWB if it reached his desk. The next election will probably go to a Democrat because the current Administration really screwed up the country. The Democrat will most likely be Hillary Clinton, she happens to be a very rabid anti-gun politician. The politicians already in office will not support the Patriot Act during campaign time, however the voters will not hold them accountable nor check their voting records when campaing time comes. Thus they will believe whatever the politician says.
 
I say if corporations are people let's treat them like people!

Three strikes: If the corporation is convicted of three serious crimes it gets the equivalent of a life sentence. Its charter is revoked. Its assets are sold off at auction the next day and the proceeds given to the creditors and shareholders. It ceases to exist.

We know the value of human life: Since a for-profit corporation has the sole purpose of making money (at least that's how their founding documents read) it would violate the fiduciary duty of the officers to think in terms other than money. Let's make it simple for them. The actuaries have calculated the economic worth of people down to the penny. Consider the economic value of a human life to be the value of the median citizen in terms of age, gender, education, etc. If you steal, defraud or cause the public that much economic damage you have done the financial equivalent of wasting a life, with premeditation. Same results as above.

Or we could just pierce the veil between the board of directors and the corporation. Ken Lay gets to dance the hemp fandango for mass murder on the level of Osama Bin Laden.
 
I voted for the "Yes, but it will be many decades away. But I'll be too old to care."

Note, however, that the last sentence should be deleted and the voters given another shot. At an old age, I'd be more prone to take action against a tyrannical regime than as someone with most of his life in front of him. Plus, I will ALWAYS care - cause life isn't just about you, its also about those who come afterwards. Damned if I'll sit back and watch my kids and grandkids become slaves.
 
Google "Dixie", learn the words, gunowners will be the next confederates.


I saw "The Patriot" last night I wonder what was the percentage of the colonists that fought for freedom and how many were against or just did nothing.


It had to be less than 50 percent women didn't fight back then. Then subtract the loyalists. Then subtract those too young or old.

So that leaves what percentage? 20 or 30 percent maybe less?

I wonder.
 
30 percent so what percentage of those 30 fought I'm sure it wasn't all? So half of those 30 are women so they are out so figure 2/3 of the men fought. 10 percent to kick the pants off of what at the time was the greatest military.


10 about one third of the current population of gunowners getting pissed at once brings us back to a constitutional government and a proper interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
 
Being as the left just spent a day celibrating another potential start to the Iraqi civil war day by repeatedly stating how democracy dosnt work, I think we dont have very long.

The bug in the ointment is that control has shifted hands too often. They want a dictatorship, but theres a select few who want to be the ones in charge of it when the dust settles.

If history serves, the first thing to go after the revolution are the revolutionaries. I doubt an forced change in our government is going to end as anything predictable.
 
Whoa I never said anything about a revolution. The only one that ever got the people anything was the one we had here and seeing how all the others have ended up we just got lucky with the leaders.
 
No it will be the nasty corporations.... They want to take over. KBR building "concentration camps" according to some forum posters.

Corporations = evilllll, Government = goood. (try telling that to the 100 million people who were killed by the Communists, oh, you can't .... They're DEAD).

Yep mean nasty PUBLICLY HELD corporations with intense government scrutiny from the SEC, IRS, Department of Commerce, as well as intense scrutiny from private investors. Yep, they really have motivation to take over the world... :eek:
 
If Sandra Day O'Conner is worried about the direction the court is moving that is a good sign.

Dictatorship isn't even on the radar screen for the US. A slow loss of freedom to a bureaucratic tyranny is what has been happening.

Those worried about a right wing religious takeover of the government are just goofy.

Of all the things to worry about and you are worried about evangelical christians?

You guys have been watching too much left wing propaganda and have lost the ability to keep things in perspective (ie. TV rots the brain).

The country was born and prospered during a time of much more conservative mores and values than are common now.

We purged the church out of government and I don't see it getting in control of the halls of power anytime too soon.

That doesn't mean that conservatives aren't going to fight for our laws to reflect conservative/traditional values.

To let the libertines, social liberals and anarchists perform their social experiments on the population by redifining freedom as licentiousness will do more to destroy this nation than anything.
 
The Guardian is a very good paper. I don't see eye to eye with it on all matters, but they still think of themselves as journalists first and foremost.
 
Note, however, that the last sentence should be deleted and the voters given another shot.
Click to expand...

I simply worded it that way because given my experience at town hall
meetings with federal reps that the people 60 and older are completely,
and I mean completely, focused on social security, medicare, and
their Rx's.

Also, I used "dictatorship" because that could imply either a fascist or
communist (right or left) bend to the future. These terms would have
been too loaded and led to distractions over what type of government
could be possible in the future. Likewise, I avoided "totalitarian" and
"authoritarian" for those same reason of getting lost picking over the
details.

Many could say we are currently falling into "authoritarianism" and that
we temporarily have a reprieve (or have been tossed a bone) when it
comes to the 2A. Students of history know we do not currently have
a totalitarian system in place, but these terms are often confused and
inappropriately interchanged in the media.

Of all the things to worry about and you are worried about evangelical christians?

You guys have been watching too much left wing propaganda and have lost the ability to keep things in perspective (ie. TV rots the brain).

The country was born and prospered during a time of much more conservative mores and values than are common now.
Click to expand...

This is a completely different can of worms in which we could argue that
the views of dispensationalists, rapture, tribulation, the so-called "left
behind" series are quite varied and diverse and only a certain strain even
heard in the current administration. One could argue that a fundamentalist
Christian would leave more of the politics of this world to this world and
not try micromanaging every other country on the planet according to his
own individual interpretation of God's will.

But, I didn't want to mix politics with religion since that is not my
understanding of THR's mission.
 
AL GUARDIAN

The Guardian is the voice of Eurabia. I'm not impressed that they think of themselves as journalists. Since when does a person's view of himself become his authoritative definition? I see people in court all day who are reminded by the judge that their self conceptions are flawed.

Josef Goebbels thought of himself as a journalist...

Buddy
 
engineer151515 said ...Checks and balances are not working just fine when the Supreme Court says cities can Imminent Domain your private property and hand it over to a private enterprise (as opposed to public use) for the good of the community.

The problem is that the guberment has become so money hungry. This is causing everything to go out of ballance. Until this situtation is corrected nothing will change, it will only get worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Iran again
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
odysseus
O
P
  • Locked
Building illegal handguns in Britain
Replies
15
Views
704
Rogelio
R
A
  • Locked
Huge scandal brewing in UK
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Headless Thompson Gunner
H
D
  • Locked
John Edwards - "I do believe in the Second Amendment"
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
JohnL2
J
R
  • Locked
U.K facing "gun violence crisis"
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Wheeler44
W
Back
Top