There's a difference between 'abuse of power' and 'tyranny'. Under a real tyrannical environment, you wouldn't have the freedom to speak out against those perceived abuses of power...
Last edited by soulflower; 01-28-2013 at 02:38 PM.
Where were the natural rights of those held by law and constitutiton to forever be another's chattel property?
Forget the need to rise against a tyrranical government for a bit. I agree that people who think the government is going to kick in your doors and take your guns are a little extreme. It's not extreme to plan for a breakdown in society, even a temporary one where the authorities have little to no control (1992 LA riots, Katrina). I believe having a firearm in a situation like this is extremely valuable. History has shown us that riots (whether after natural disasters or in response to injustice-real or percieved) happen fairly regularly. In my opinion you are much more likely to need a firearm in that type of situation.
I've got my own reasons as to why this isn't such a big issue but that doesn't make what is going on right. It is the same reason nobody cared that Bush tortured people. They could have taken them out back and shot them and people would not have cared. Whaddya know, they're effectively taking them out back and shooting them and nobody cares.
That said, let's not pretend its not an abuse of power. The kind one expects from tyrannical or authoritarian regimes.
1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>
Probably not 2a, but others could apply.
Do you think family members of the Border agent that got killed more likely due to "Fast and Furious" believe the federal government is forthcoming with what happened?
Neither the President nor the Legislative branch have Absolute Power. If they do something that isn't Constitutional, it can be challenged in court and overturned by the Judicial Branch.
Do you think Saddam Hussein had to worry about the courts when he was a tyrant?
The border agent was killed by criminals, not Fast and Furious. Mexican gangsters have no problem getting guns. F&F was a failed attempt at stopping them from getting guns...
Neither the President, nor Congress have absolute power so I don't think the word 'tyranny' applies...
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278