Obama: Government Tyranny is Impossible in the United States

[The2ndAmendment]

“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

1) Does Obama know that the Third Amendment (yes the 3rd) is meant to protect you from the government? By his theory we should just TRASH the third Amendment.

2) Does it occur to him that the Second and Third Amendment are bound to each other, the same way the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are bound to each other? Oh wait, the Second, Third, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are irrelevant to Progressives.
Oh, and the Patriot Act (Bush + Cheney) + NDAA took a giant dump on Amendments Five through Eight. Hey, at least we still (sorta) have the First Amendment (do we?), as long as you dont' attend giant rallies like Occupy Wall Street, you won't be labeled a terrorist by the FBI.

3) Tyranny by majority is also a well known occurrence, in fact, our original system of Checks and Balances, especially the Intra-Balance between Congress, divided into two Houses, was meant to protect us from tyranny by majority.

4) WAKE UP, stop thinking that it won't happen here, IT DID HAPPEN HERE, IT'S HAPPENING

--------------------
Also, Obama, would you say the the abuses and oppressions that black suffered between the 1860's to the 1970's (after they were free) was because they were imagining it? Was that tyranny all a hoax or something? I mean hey, it's not like the KKK pushed through GUN CONTROL bills to disarm the newly freed blacks so they could impose the reign of JIM CROW LAWS on them.

--------------------
I'm bringing my family's heirloom in for polishing and sharpening, it was used in the Revolutionary War It should look just like the one below once it's fixed up.

The International Bankers will see the cold steel of my forefathers once again. The story has it that my Patriot forefather defected while in Connecticut, having been born and raised in the colonies. Apparently many of my colonial family members went broke and unemployed when the British Parliament passed the Currency acts, disbanding Colonial Script and replacing it with Interest/Bond money from Europe, constraining and controlling the money supply.

Apparently my great-great (plus many more greats) - grandfather was unable to pay to support his own horse only a few months into serving the Continental Army, and the Continental Army itself could not afford it, so he fought on foot, and like many other men who were well trained in the skill and arts of swords, were kept just behind the front lines in under to come forward to repel British bayonet charges.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

*yawn*

 

[The2ndAmendment]

*yawn*

Thanks for the free bump Redcoat Tory Loyalist.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Really? Maybe it is harder but Obama certainly wants to do a Chavez or a castro here. It isn't for a lack of trying.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

*yawn*

Thanks for the free bump Redcoat Tory Loyalist.

You're welcome you confused brain dead straight F in history boring lunatic.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

*yawn*

Thanks for the free bump Redcoat Tory Loyalist.

You're welcome you confused brain dead straight F in history boring lunatic.

I take that as a compliment from anyone who believes tyranny is impossible in the United States and has never occurred in the United States, because the government has always been "us."

 

[Mustang]

Certainly the slaves were well-acquainted with the tyranny of their owners, the tyranny of their respective state governments, and the general indifference of a federal gov't which allowed the Southern states to continue the practice of slavery in order to further enrich the wealthy landowners who owned the slaves.

 

[boedicca]

I use the George Costanza approach when interpreting Obama. Whatever he says, he means The Opposite.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I use the George Costanza approach when interpreting Obama. Whatever he says, he means The Opposite.

Wait, so you're not Obama's fanboy?

 

[bucs90]

If you dont like the idea of Americans being forced to house soldiers, then I assume you are going to rally against the FACT that US taxpayers pay the off-base housing costs for troops. Thats right. Your tax money pays the rent of US troops to live at off base apartments. While we could build (cheaply) massive, cement barracks instead, we choose to make the taxpayer pay for off base apartments at private apartment complexes instead, usually at about a $900 a month per troop cost.

So your local Navy cook, who probably wont see a single day of combat in 20 years, is getting free housing on your dime. Hows that for the Constitution?

 

[boedicca]

I use the George Costanza approach when interpreting Obama. Whatever he says, he means The Opposite.

Wait, so you're not Obama's fanboy?

I'm neither his fan nor a boy, bub.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you dont like the idea of Americans being forced to house soldiers, then I assume you are going to rally against the FACT that US taxpayers pay the off-base housing costs for troops. Thats right. Your tax money pays the rent of US troops to live at off base apartments. While we could build (cheaply) massive, cement barracks instead, we choose to make the taxpayer pay for off base apartments at private apartment complexes instead, usually at about a $900 a month per troop cost.

So your local Navy cook, who probably wont see a single day of combat in 20 years, is getting free housing on your dime. Hows that for the Constitution?

That has nothing to do with the Third Amendment, which is designed to protect us from a Police State by Standing Armies.

Can you somehow project your example into police oppression? Then you'll have merit to continue talking in this thread.

 

[Lumpy 1]

*yawn*

Thanks for the free bump Redcoat Tory Loyalist.

You're welcome you confused brain dead straight F in history boring lunatic.

I've missed reading your flagrant posts...

I blame myself..

 

[bucs90]

If you dont like the idea of Americans being forced to house soldiers, then I assume you are going to rally against the FACT that US taxpayers pay the off-base housing costs for troops. Thats right. Your tax money pays the rent of US troops to live at off base apartments. While we could build (cheaply) massive, cement barracks instead, we choose to make the taxpayer pay for off base apartments at private apartment complexes instead, usually at about a $900 a month per troop cost.

So your local Navy cook, who probably wont see a single day of combat in 20 years, is getting free housing on your dime. Hows that for the Constitution?

That has nothing to do with the Third Amendment, which is designed to protect us from a Police State by Standing Armies.

Can you somehow project your example into police oppression? Then you'll have merit to continue talking in this thread.

Sure it does. What difference does it make whether they force you to allow soldiers in your home for shelter, OR, if they come and say you must pay for them to live in the apartment across the street?? Taxes are oppression, right?

So I expect you to start a thread demanding we stop paying for the off base housing of troops, since that indeed forces the taxpayer to enable the housing of troops "amongst the citizens". That WAS the point, afterall, of the 3rd, was to prevent the mass integration of troops amongst the citizens, thus enabling a police state.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Sure it does. What difference does it make whether they force you to allow soldiers in your home for shelter, OR, if they come and say you must pay for them to live in the apartment across the street?? Taxes are oppression, right?

So I expect you to start a thread demanding we stop paying for the off base housing of troops, since that indeed forces the taxpayer to enable the housing of troops "amongst the citizens". That WAS the point, afterall, of the 3rd, was to prevent the mass integration of troops amongst the citizens, thus enabling a police state.

Let us suppose that I agreed with you, and made a thread, would you concur with it? Or are you making a strawman argument that even you don't agree with, because I sense that you're concealing something (omission).

 

[Sallow]

*yawn*

Thanks for the free bump Redcoat Tory Loyalist.

Boy are you stuck in the past.

But heck..had we been back in those days..you'd be cheering the King.

No doubt about that.

 

[bucs90]

"2ndAmendent", you must study the history of police first, to see the viewpoint the Founders had on them and on troops being housed amongst the people. The police as we know it formed in England, and the reason they are blue is the British did not want to confuse the military with police, so they wore blue instead of the British military's red, and the two were to be housed and kept 100% apart form each other.

In context of this, the Founders did not want military troops housed "amongst the citizens", as they saw the dangers it could cause in England. Troops were to be housed in military barracks. Police were not, and thus, only police- not military- were "amongst" the citizens.

But today, YOU and your tax money pays to house soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines "amongst" the people, in private housing, amongst the citizens.

I expect you to start a rally against that.

 

[bucs90]

Sure it does. What difference does it make whether they force you to allow soldiers in your home for shelter, OR, if they come and say you must pay for them to live in the apartment across the street?? Taxes are oppression, right?

So I expect you to start a thread demanding we stop paying for the off base housing of troops, since that indeed forces the taxpayer to enable the housing of troops "amongst the citizens". That WAS the point, afterall, of the 3rd, was to prevent the mass integration of troops amongst the citizens, thus enabling a police state.

Let us suppose that I agreed with you, and made a thread, would you concur with it? Or are you making a strawman argument that even you don't agree with?

Try it and see. Read my last thread. The history of police started in England. They were absolutely convinced that police and military should be kept separate. Thats why military wore red, police wore blue. The British people hated the idea of military doing domestic policing.

Thats the context our Founders used, as a backlash against things from England they didnt want. One of the points of the 3rd was to keep the military housed in barracks, NOT "amongst the people".

But you are being forced to pay to do just that.

It is a clear violation, isnt it? Start a thread. See how it plays out.

 

[DiamondDave]

"2ndAmendent", you must study the history of police first, to see the viewpoint the Founders had on them and on troops being housed amongst the people. The police as we know it formed in England, and the reason they are blue is the British did not want to confuse the military with police, so they wore blue instead of the British military's red, and the two were to be housed and kept 100% apart form each other.

In context of this, the Founders did not want military troops housed "amongst the citizens", as they saw the dangers it could cause in England. Troops were to be housed in military barracks. Police were not, and thus, only police- not military- were "amongst" the citizens.

But today, YOU and your tax money pays to house soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines "amongst" the people, in private housing, amongst the citizens.

I expect you to start a rally against that.

National defense and military is a charge of the federal government.. and paying for those services is indeed justified.. and hence, paying for the employment compensation of the employees handling those jobs is justified.. and as prior service, that 'free' food and housing is taken into account when you are paid under minimum wage for all the hours you serve on duty

Quite different than the conservative opposition to people and corporations getting handouts for nothing against the intent of the constitution

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Sure it does. What difference does it make whether they force you to allow soldiers in your home for shelter, OR, if they come and say you must pay for them to live in the apartment across the street?? Taxes are oppression, right?

So I expect you to start a thread demanding we stop paying for the off base housing of troops, since that indeed forces the taxpayer to enable the housing of troops "amongst the citizens". That WAS the point, afterall, of the 3rd, was to prevent the mass integration of troops amongst the citizens, thus enabling a police state.

Let us suppose that I agreed with you, and made a thread, would you concur with it? Or are you making a strawman argument that even you don't agree with?

Try it and see. Read my last thread. The history of police started in England. They were absolutely convinced that police and military should be kept separate. Thats why military wore red, police wore blue. The British people hated the idea of military doing domestic policing.

Thats the context our Founders used, as a backlash against things from England they didnt want. One of the points of the 3rd was to keep the military housed in barracks, NOT "amongst the people".

But you are being forced to pay to do just that.

It is a clear violation, isnt it? Start a thread. See how it plays out.

Since this is new information to me, I currently agree with you, but I believe if I were to take a strong stance against this housing of troops, you would drop an A-bomb on me, since I don't have that much knowledge of the situation. I'm admitting that I don't know enough about this (very new to me) to discuss it, so far I've agreed with what you said. Is there any reason not to agree with you? Are you hiding something?

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2.html