Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fear of Big Brother

Discussion in 'Legal' started by thereisnospoon, Jun 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. thereisnospoon

    thereisnospoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    896
    Location:
    At my house
    Several of the recent posts on THR have made me come to the following question (All joking about tin foil hats aside);

    Is it right for us as citizens of the United States of America to fear our own elected and appointed officials (I use this term very loosely).

    I refer not to conspiracy theories and tit-for-tat Republican/Democrat accusations.

    What I mean is this; is it our duty to the constitution and our fellow citizens (most of whom are asleep at the wheel) to ensure that the Federal, State and Local .gov folks do not overstep their bounds?

    Just wanted to get some opinions from my fellow High Roaders
     
  2. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Yes. If we don't, who will?
     
  3. periphery

    periphery Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1
    No it's not right for us to have to live in dread of our officials. But I do none the less. Because they have the power and they aim to keep it. Seems they need to make examples of some now and then to keep us in fear. I am not a drone but I do watch my back and try to keep a low profile. But if you pop up on someone's radar scope what recourse does anyone have to keep what is rightfully ours?
     
  4. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    Within reason, yes - there are many officials who seem to think that they're God, and will try to walk all over "ordinary citizens" if they deem it necessary. However, there's another side to the coin: many of them are genuinely good folks, who are trying to do their (often difficult and demanding) jobs as best they can, with conflicting demands and expectations from different groups, and we don't need to make their lives more difficult by being confrontational and aggressive in our "monitoring". They have a right to do their jobs, just as we have a right to expect them not to overstep their boundaries. Mutual respect is a big help here.
     
  5. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    Federal, state and local governments constantly overstep their bounds in their relentless power grabs. Some of the time, courts will slap them back. In the long haul, however, governments at all levels are managing to exert more control over the governed in the form of legislation and regulation.

    Over time, we are losing our liberties in exchange for a 'safer and fairer' country. Is it worth it?

    You decide.
     
  6. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    The U.S. Constitution is effectively dead. Our continued freedom, such as it is, now depends solely on the benevolence of those in power. Enjoy it while it lasts.

    ~G. Fink
     
  7. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    I don't know that the Constitution is dead. Rather it has been horribly disfigured by tortuous interpretations of its provisions by activist judges. That is the real threat; the statists and others who would wield power have discovered that judicial interpretation can accomplish what legislation cannot. Many of these judicial appointments are lifetime and are without oversight by the people or their representatives, effectively ruling by fiat.

    The result however is the same. We are at the mercy of the benevolence of those in power.
     
  8. zahc

    zahc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,961
    Location:
    TX
    Yes, I became fearful when I realized I could be sanctioned by the government to the point of having my life ruined, by doing absolutely nothing wrong.

    I do fear the government that makes the laws and the police that enforce them much more than I fear 'real' criminals.
     
  9. rhubarb

    rhubarb Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    765
    Location:
    South Texas
    My wife is studying for her citizenship exam next month. As we were going over some material last night about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she remarked, "They don't use those anymore, do they?"

    Now, I don't know if she picked that up on her own or if it came from my occasional rants, but I was taken aback. No Honey, I reckon they don't use those anymore. I fear what our United States individually and collectively are becoming as a result of the crimes against the the Bill of Rights committed by our elected representatives.




    In the gummint supplied citizenship study material was this jewel:
    As y'all know, rights ain't granted by no piece of paper. They are endowed to all humans at birth. As I take it, the Bill of Rights simply enumerates a few rights as examples but is not intended as an all-inclusive list. What's more, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration, you appointed nitwits. :banghead:

    Yes.
     
  10. Gordon Fink

    Gordon Fink Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    California
    True, but the holes are big enough to drive an armored division through. :uhoh:

    ~G. Fink
     
  11. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Yep. But you try and get 300 million people to come up with some sort of guideline on what overstepping boundries is defined as. Heck, you can't get 300 million people to agree on what 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' means, and that is clear as day.
     
  12. Desertdog

    Desertdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,980
    Location:
    Ridgecrest Ca
    It is not right to fear our elected/appointed official, but living in PRK, I believe it necessary.
     
  13. dpesec

    dpesec Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    565
    Rube,

    You're forgetting something, with the current judges, it doesn't make any difference if it's the US, France, England, Switzerland, the Declaration, of the latest Picture Novel (read comic book), if it makes them feel good it doesn't make any difference the origin.
    Drink the koolaide
     
  14. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Our public servants should live in fear of us.
     
  15. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    I feel no obligation to be nice to our poor picked on beaurocrats. The overwhelming majority of them are doing jobs, strike that, holding positions that are not authorized by the constitution.

    Overwhelming Majority are feather bedding deadwood. They might as well be on welfare. Actually would probably be better if they were. They could do less damage. Ask them to stay home and mail their checks to them.
     
  16. cuervo

    cuervo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    I was going to post a thread when I've finished it (and still might), but I'm currently reading The Real Lincoln.

    The extent to which Lincoln ignored the Constitution, and opened the door for everyone else since, is pretty scary.
     
  17. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    I don't fear them.

    The government wants you to be afraid of it. If you're afraid of the government, then it wins and you lose. The more fearful you are of the government, the more empowered it becomes. Your fear is the government's fuel. Nothing makes a government more nervous than a person who does not fear it.

    Also think about this: if you're afraid of the government now, during the soft crisis, what are you going to do when the SHTF? Because if you're afraid of them now (when life is easy), you’re going to be scared sh*tless when the going gets tough.
     
  18. dfaugh

    dfaugh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,994
    Well...

    I used to have SOME trust that, although not perfect, our system of government was about as good as could be imagined...Now, however, I'm increasingly disturbed by what goes on, in particular the way that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, have apparently been wadded up and thrown in the trash.

    I have a good friend, who's pretty liberal (though not an anti) and SHE even thinks that there's a BIG problem in that we're (Americans in general) losing our rights, a piece at a time.

    In short, I'm really and truly scared, that if we don't stop the train pretty soon, we won't be much better off than the dictatorships and Communist countries that we've supposedly spent the last 50 years fighting against.

    "Paranoia strikes deep,
    into your life it will creep,
    It starts when your always afraid,
    Step outa line the man comes and take you away."
    -Buffalo Springfield, circa 1967

    In the sixties we saw large groups of people come together, to sway the government away from the things they thought were wrong. But, today, everyone is only concerned with themselves, and rarely do you see any organized resistance. Sad.
     
  19. thereisnospoon

    thereisnospoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    896
    Location:
    At my house
    Clarification

    MOLAN LABE WROTE:

    I don't fear them.

    The government wants you to be afraid of it. If you're afraid of the government, then it wins and you lose. The more fearful you are of the government, the more empowered it becomes. Your fear is the government's fuel. Nothing makes a government more nervous than a person who does not fear it.

    Also think about this: if you're afraid of the government now, during the soft crisis, what are you going to do when the SHTF? Because if you're afraid of them now (when life is easy), you’re going to be scared sh*tless when the going gets tough.

    Spoon says:
    I probably should have chosen a better word than "Fear". Perhaps I should have used "mistrust", or another word like it.

    What brought the question about was the deep chasm I see here on THR between those of us who do not trust our elected servants and those who serve them, or at least do not want to appear to bite the hand that feeds them.

    Typically when a post involves something of a anti-gubmit nature, the usual suspects come into the thread in support of the governmentor their tactics, etc. and the other usual suspects come out against (Now, I do not mean to paint with a broad brush, but we all know what I'm talking about).

    So I just thought I would see what kind of response this question received, and its funny, I haven't seen one post saying that the Gubmit hasn't overstepped their bounds
     
  20. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Is your question whether or not we see ourselves as a quasi-militia, just because we have guns? Are you asking if we would shoot government officials? What would you do with the answer?

    What if I only intended to defend "me and mine" and to accept and defend personal responsibility for our intended form of government? Yes, a gun is power, and a lot of guns with leadership is a lot of power.

    Im sorry. I don't trust the intent of these very basic rhetorical questions that kind of sneak up on you, pretending or appearing to be benign. There is a bunch of them currently on the forum. A great way to discredit gun owners is to extract and quote only the most radical responses. With that in mind, "just let 'em try to take my guns", "let 'em die in the streets", "they're all crooks", et al are not helpful.

    One who thinks these dialogues are just between us chickens is a fool. One can be quite frank and still have some sense of political correctness and what will be regarded as rational and remotely objective and respectable. The label of "gun nuts" is actually not that hard to illustrate and justify.

    Being outraged about government infringement upon rights is easy to appreciate. Demonizing government officials is a pretty natural extension. I would simply propose attempting to be objective and sounding like a rational person, especially one who is mentally fit to responsibly own and carry a firearm, acting in society's best interest or with no threat to it.

    Some of this stuff can make you crazy. Maybe I need a break. I carry a gun, recognize and claim a right to do so, and will fight to extend, maintain, or reclaim that as a legal practice.
     
  21. SteveS

    SteveS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    866
    Location:
    MI
    While I agree that judges that fail to follow the Constitution (both Federal and State) are a threat, I am more concerned about the officials in the other branches, after having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, that push all sorts of offensive legislation and regulations on the people.

    We can sit back and say that the courts should dtop these people, but that isn't always an easy thing, since there has to be an actual case or controversy. The courts can't just arbitrarily say a law is unconstitutional. Some citizen (or entity) has to file a suit.

    It is up to the people to hold these officials accountable, not just the courts.
     
  22. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I believe the best way to control legislators and the Executive is for the Courts to challenge them. If the Courts won't hear a good case or even comment on it, what's a person to do? What Steve proposes is actually a workaround IMHO.
     
  23. thereisnospoon

    thereisnospoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    896
    Location:
    At my house
    Real Power

    RealGun Wrote:
    Is your question whether or not we see ourselves as a quasi-militia, just because we have guns? Are you asking if we would shoot government officials? What would you do with the answer?


    No that was not my question. I do not see myself "melting into the woods with all my gear and becoming a resistance fighter".

    My question had to do only with the question of mindset, so I'll re-word and ask it again:

    Do you have to be a paranoid tin-foil-hatter to be wary of your government?

    Perhaps that is the correct form of my question... :confused:

    This thread was not intended to be about what action one would take (i.e. shooting government officials). More importantly, it is asking do we have a responsibility and duty to ourselves and our posterity to keep our government servants in check (the means by which we do that can be fodder for another thread somewhere else, please!)
     
  24. SteveS

    SteveS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    866
    Location:
    MI
    The courts are only allowed to rule on a law if there is an actual case or controversy. If I don't like hypothetical gun law 3.2187, and want a court to overturn it, I would have to violate that law in some fashion. The courts aren't/can't just pick a law to overturn, unless some one challenges the law.

    I agree that the courts are a decent route, but I'd like to see more elected officials voted out for violating the Constitution. We just keep sending the same dummies back.
     
  25. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Fair enough, but note that you seem to give the Courts too much credit. They are offered good cases and refuse to give them a hearing or even a comment. Silveira v Lockyer was a good example recently.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page