Anyone Planning For Totalitarian America?

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
Ahhh yes. I long for the glory days of of free America when we used to string citizens up in trees because of the color of their skin; when our FBI maintained an enemies list chock full of good americans who were poised to do us wrong; when one lone Senator was able to bring the nation to a vitual stand still while he rid us of the scourge of the red menace and ensured that some named would never know the liberty of work again; when we sent our poor boys to war while protecting the important few with choice National Guard assignments Stateside; when some American men were prosecuted and persecuted for where they wanted to put their penises; And through it all we had our guns. Good old days. Damn those liberals, taking away our liberties.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,790
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
God, wake the F up man. Congress can pass any law they want. If they want to ban guns they will. There is nothing you can do about it!

Um, actually, son, no they can't.

Congress passed a law limiting donations to political campaigns... The Supreme Court threw it out.

Congress can PASS a law saying we can indefinitely detain... But Obama only signed it ( tacked onto a defense bill by the GOP- ) because he knows it won't stand a supreme court challenge.

In OUR system.. Congress can pass any stupid thing they wish... and the Supreme Court can THROW IT OUT.


And since the Supreme Court Already ruled that the second amendment plainly says americans have a right to possess firearms... do you think if congress passed a law taking away your guns that the NRA wouldn't Immediately challenge that all the way to the Supreme Court?

Where it would be thrown out...


So seriously, calm the fuck down about your fucking guns.


BTW- the Vaginal ultrasound bills will be thrown out, and so will GOP bills to require voter IDs....

Congress and Legislatures have a long history of passing bills that everyone knows will not stand judicial scrutiny... they do it to Pander to their bases.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
You can always tell an election cycle is getting into full swing when the "guns, god, and gays" paranoia is fed into LPSG threads.

No one is taking away your right to own a gun. A bazooka? Maybe. A gun? No.

The idiocy of the uneducated mass majority rises again. Sheesh!

EDIT: Psssst. Don't tell anyone, but I heard they are going to pass a law guaranteeing equal rights to people of color! Oh . . . my . . . heck!!!
 
Last edited:

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Ahhh yes. I long for the glory days of of free America when we used to string citizens up in trees because of the color of their skin; when our FBI maintained an enemies list chock full of good americans who were poised to do us wrong; when one lone Senator was able to bring the nation to a vitual stand still while he rid us of the scourge of the red menace and ensured that some named would never know the liberty of work again; when we sent our poor boys to war while protecting the important few with choice National Guard assignments Stateside; when some American men were prosecuted and persecuted for where they wanted to put their penises; And through it all we had our guns. Good old days. Damn those liberals, taking away our liberties.

Marry me!
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
? I hardly think that 5-4 SCOTUS decisions made in the last five years create the sort of legal precedence that is needed to truly secure federal recognition of the right to keep and bare arms.
Others commented, but I too support the right to bare arms. bare legs too. And lets get some of those tight jeans back.

Not quite sure what the problem is here. I imagine I'll go to my grave (in 50 years or so) never having been within a meter of a handgun. And you know what? I feel quite safe in this country and in fact I'm probably just as safe as you. Guns represent no measure of safety to me, none
As to bearing arms, it happens I have fired handguns and rifles. I'm not bothered enough to have licensed any now though I dare say I could have even here in the UK. As I understand it the evidence on guns is rather mixed. Where people do have the right to own guns and use them in self defence, such as in robbery or assault situations, then the risks tend to even out (both sides armed!). In the UK people have been quite obsessive over restricting gun ownership with little evidence it has done any good. Granted, when I was a lad I thought it a little lax to find my grandfathers guns propped up in the corner of the loo handy by the back door, but we have moved from sensible precautions to obsessive ones. I was startled recently when the government said it was relaxing rules so that british registered ships could carry guns when travelling in areas where pirates are operating.

Marry me!
Irony eh? I do get the impression from chatting here the US is ever so slightly a rabid right wind dictatorship where people really have to fight if they want to make use of rights they have in theory.
 
Last edited:

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
. . . . Granted, when I was a lad I thought it a little lax to find my grandfathers guns propped up in the corner of the loo handy by the back door, but we have moved from sensible precautions to obsessive ones.

Dear Taraxacum officialnalis:

I don't think your grandfather was being lax. After all, in your neck of the world one never knows when the Huns will attack.

I was startled recently when the government said it was relaxing rules so that british registered ships could carry guns when travelling in areas where pirates are operating.

Arrgh! 'Tis a fact there be pirates 'bout these days. Some in yer own tub!

Irony eh? I do get the impression from chatting here the US is ever so slightly a rabid right wind dictatorship where people really have to fight if they want to make use of rights they have in theory.

Actually it's a terribly flatulent right wind sand storm that threatens the dreams of the uber patriotic. Those of us who are simply patriotic try to work within the system to maintain a fair balance. :smile:
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
As to bearing arms, it happens I have fired handguns and rifles. I'm not bothered enough to have licensed any now though I dare say I could have even here in the UK. As I understand it the evidence on guns is rather mixed. Where people do have the right to own guns and use them in self defence, such as in robbery or assault situations, then the risks tend to even out (both sides armed!). In the UK people have been quite obsessive over restricting gun ownership with little evidence it has done any good. Granted, when I was a lad I thought it a little lax to find my grandfathers guns propped up in the corner of the loo handy by the back door, but we have moved from sensible precautions to obsessive ones.

Well, you're doing *something* right . . . cuz you folks don't kill each other at nearly the rate we here in the States do.

Then again, a lot of countries can't match us in that regard. :frown1:
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, you're doing *something* right . . . cuz you folks don't kill each other at nearly the rate we here in the States do.

Then again, a lot of countries can't match us in that regard. :frown1:

Boy, that's an understatement. Since returning to the US and moving to this part of Nevada there is an average of five killings every week, not counting the senior citizens wiping out school children as they try to make it across the street in cross walks. One crosses a street in Vegas/Henderson at one's peril. Even the crossing guards refuse to accompany children completely across a street because the cities cannot afford liability insurance to protect them.

But . . . it's the real West.:redface:
 

edonline

LPSG Legend
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Posts
18,903
Media
23
Likes
171,148
Points
543
Location
United States
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
God, wake the F up man. Congress can pass any law they want. If they want to ban guns they will. There is nothing you can do about it! ...

As already stated, the SCOTUS has often ruled on the side of gun owners. Do you know what it takes to amend the Constitution which is what would have to happen to allow the government to ban guns? It isn't easy and was purposely set up so.
 

Blacksun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Firstly, I would like to apologize for using the wrong homonym earlier in this thread. I am a Pakistani and only moved to the US some years ago, so yes, my English is probably not perfect... though I dare say that it's good enough that I am able to make myself understood, and I doubt any of the more liberal-minded people around here would get as much flak for similar mistakes.

In response to the post immediately above: although you say this, the Constitution doesn't allow for the assassination of US (or any other nation's) citizens, yet look at what happened to Anwar al Awlaki. I'd say that it's never advisable that trends towards greater freedom will continue or that the state will respect freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed. By all means, join the NRA and the ACLU and only support politicians who oppose widening state power over individual life.

In case any of the "tongue in cheek" comments made earlier in this thread apply to me, I would like to state that I am an atheist and that I have no problem with homosexuals. I also have no problem with people who want to own guns, although I personally do not.

In case these comments were not directed at me... isn't it sort of cowardly to bash right wingers from such a decidedly left wing site? If you want to change the opinions of right wingers, shouldn't you confront them about their views?
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
We, the members of the "right wing," are not particularly well represented on this site. And, those of us who dare to speak up are quickly corrected, often with a few hostile words. The first time I identified myself as a conservative, I was accused of being another user, and threatened with banning.

I'm still here.

Don't let it bother you. Such reactions are the reactions of insecure children who do not want to see the presence of a dissenting opinion. Hello, fellow dissenter. I'm glad to make your acquaintance.

As for the original topic of this thread, it is highly improbable that any American politician could possess the level of self delusion necessary to think they could even *propose* changes of this sort, without serious consequences. And passage of such measures is almost unthinkable. Even those so far apart as the left and right of this country agree on the basics of freedom, and any attempt to curtail that freedom is universally met with resistance.

Having said that, though, the President is the chief law-enforcement officer in this country, and directly commands the nation's military. By instituting martial law, or signing an executive order, he does have the ability to suspend any number of our freedoms, temporarily...and those on the conservative side see the current President as a dangerously unstable individual, a petulant child who *does* have a sufficiently delusional world view, that he might actually consider doing something of this sort. It's basically a paranoid fantasy...but, legally speaking, with a sufficiently aggressive push, it is not outside the realm of possibility.

And, that's where we come to the topic of guns...the 2nd Amendment affirms the right of the US citizen to keep and bear arms *legally.* (Those who get them illegally don't care how many laws are on the books.)

If you read the Federalist Papers (the commentary to the Constitution), you'll find that the goal of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens can always rise up against a tyrannical state. Yeah. Armed resistance. That's the reason given by the guys who actually *wrote* the Constitution!
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Firstly, I would like to apologize for using the wrong homonym earlier in this thread. I am a Pakistani and only moved to the US some years ago, so yes, my English is probably not perfect... though I dare say that it's good enough that I am able to make myself understood, and I doubt any of the more liberal-minded people around here would get as much flak for similar mistakes.

In response to the post immediately above: although you say this, the Constitution doesn't allow for the assassination of US (or any other nation's) citizens, yet look at what happened to Anwar al Awlaki. I'd say that it's never advisable that trends towards greater freedom will continue or that the state will respect freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed. By all means, join the NRA and the ACLU and only support politicians who oppose widening state power over individual life.

In case any of the "tongue in cheek" comments made earlier in this thread apply to me, I would like to state that I am an atheist and that I have no problem with homosexuals. I also have no problem with people who want to own guns, although I personally do not.

In case these comments were not directed at me... isn't it sort of cowardly to bash right wingers from such a decidedly left wing site? If you want to change the opinions of right wingers, shouldn't you confront them about their views?

I see you've met the resident brow-beaters. Charmingly convincing are they not?
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
We, the members of the "right wing," are not particularly well represented on this site. And, those of us who dare to speak up are quickly corrected, often with a few hostile words. The first time I identified myself as a conservative, I was accused of being another user, and threatened with banning.

I'm still here.

Don't let it bother you. Such reactions are the reactions of insecure children who do not want to see the presence of a dissenting opinion. Hello, fellow dissenter. I'm glad to make your acquaintance.

As for the original topic of this thread, it is highly improbable that any American politician could possess the level of self delusion necessary to think they could even *propose* changes of this sort, without serious consequences. And passage of such measures is almost unthinkable. Even those so far apart as the left and right of this country agree on the basics of freedom, and any attempt to curtail that freedom is universally met with resistance.

Having said that, though, the President is the chief law-enforcement officer in this country, and directly commands the nation's military. By instituting martial law, or signing an executive order, he does have the ability to suspend any number of our freedoms, temporarily...and those on the conservative side see the current President as a dangerously unstable individual, a petulant child who *does* have a sufficiently delusional world view, that he might actually consider doing something of this sort. It's basically a paranoid fantasy...but, legally speaking, with a sufficiently aggressive push, it is not outside the realm of possibility.

And, that's where we come to the topic of guns...the 2nd Amendment affirms the right of the US citizen to keep and bear arms *legally.* (Those who get them illegally don't care how many laws are on the books.)

If you read the Federalist Papers (the commentary to the Constitution), you'll find that the goal of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens can always rise up against a tyrannical state. Yeah. Armed resistance. That's the reason given by the guys who actually *wrote* the Constitution!
Glad you have stayed, kept your posts civil and not run off like so many conservatives have previously on this site.

I'm also glad to hear a person with a conservative point of view de-bunk the paranoiac myth that American politicians would consider repealing the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Could you explain what the current President has done to make you think he is a "dangerously unstable individual, a petulant child who *does* have a sufficiently delusional world view".? From where I sit, he is exactly the opposite of that. He seems very pragmatic, cool and calculating. He has taken enormous politic risks such as the GM bailout, which could have gone south if the feds had just given them the money instead of closely monitoring the company. The bin Laden assassination is another example of a huge risk, which would have absolutely sunk his Presidency. Again that is an example of a person who is anything but "dangerously unstable individual". That kind of statement needs to be explained.
 
Last edited:

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Go join and live in a Mormon cult out in nowhere land Utah or Texas. It will suit you and you will be safe out there with like-minded god-loving chosen people to surround yourself.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Could you explain what the current President has done to make you think he is a "dangerously unstable individual, a petulant child who *does* have a sufficiently delusional world view".? From where I sit, he man is exactly the opposite of that. He seems very pragmatic, cool and calculating. He has taken enormous politic risks such as the GM bailout, which could have gone south if the feds had just given them the money instead of closely monitoring the company. The bin Laden assassination is another example of a huge risk, which would have absolutely sunk his Presidency. Again that is an example of a person who is anything but "dangerously unstable individual". That kind of statement needs to be explained.

I find it hard to believe that conservatives actually think this about Obama. The man's public persona is low key, articulate, and judicious to a fault. To call him some kind of unstable lunatic is a bit like that hilarious old SNL sketch which presented Reagan as a secret mastermind behind his dithering public facade.