How real do you see the threat of tyranny as being?

Pretty sure the OP is COINTELPRO...just sayin....it asked direct questions like a cop does.

The FBI is watching ATS...and posts on it (more than likely). From the recent FBI FOIA request on the OWS crackdown;




www.justiceonline.org...

reply to post by Legion2024


As far as I knew, that is that is the exact reason for the second amendment.

When police home invasions become way more frequent than burglar home invasions.

This is a quote from the book Principles of Tyranny by Jon Roland, he is the founder and president of the Constitution Society. He outlines several indicators that your government is tyranical. Each point has several current examples that could be brought up.

"Control of public information and opinion
It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing".

Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers
It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

Undue official influence on trials and juries
Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

Usurpation of undelegated powers
This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force
The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Militarization of law enforcement
Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform
Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers
When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

Use of the law for competition suppression
It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

Subversion of internal checks and balances
This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

Creation of a class of officials who are above the law
This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".

Increasing dependency of the people on government
The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them
When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to produce popular support
Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

Conversion of rights into privileges
Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

Political correctness
Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

I don't see it as a threat any longer!

Originally posted by Nanocyte
I want to start this by saying that this is not another gun control thread. There are more than enough of those for now, so I hope we can keep this on topic.

Having said that, the most prevalent argument for unrestricted gun rights seems to be that we need to be armed in order to defend ourselves from government tyranny. The thing is that we've already lost a lot of rights with the PATRIOT act, NDAA, etc., our tax dollars have been wasted in futile, illegal, and immoral wars, we have an absurd amount of people in prison for crimes that I'm sure many of us think shouldn't be crimes, and the list goes on. But so far, none of the government's incursions upon our freedoms, aside from proposals to unrestricted access to and possession of firearms, has sparked any serious talk of armed resistance. So I'm wondering, other than if the government were to come in and try to take your weapons, what kind of situation do you imagine occurring in which you would actually initiate or take part in an armed rebellion against the government? In what kind of situation would you use a firearm against law enforcement, military, or other members of the government? How effective do you think your opposition would be, what would your ultimate goals be, and what events do you see taking place between now and then that would create such a situation?

Now, I understand that the second amendment was intended as a safeguard and that many people feel that they need to remain armed at all times to preserve a free state, even without any apparent threat, but many people seem to be of the mind that danger to our freedoms significant to enough to warrant armed resistance is imminent, and that any restrictions on their rights to obtain any weapons they choose will be preemptive to the government taking actions that they wouldn't have been able to with an armed citizenry,

Again, this thread is not about gun rights or the second amendment. I'm simply curious about situations in which you think you would actually need to invoke your second amendment rights and engage in armed conflict with the government.

edit on 2-1-2013 by Nanocyte because: (no reason given)

Our country, in the beginning was not supposed to have any "standing army" and that is the reason for the second amendment. The part about "well regulated" speaks of the role of government in our responsibility to bear arms in the correct manner. The government is to do the regulating, not the NRA which is a private organization.

Well it turned out that America did, indeed, need a standing army and navy and coast guard too. These then take the place of the original "well regulated militias" that were foreseen as being necessary (to a free state). The NRA, however, does not to relinquish their imaginary role as leader in the fight for our "rights". They would be well advised to speak less of rights and more of responsibilities.

The United States Army, and other forces, are the well regulated militias that our founders spoke of. So what are we all doing with all this talk of guns, guns and more guns all the time? We've been conned into believing that our government is the enemy and that America is only free because we all have guns in our basements, just like Heston did. This is a distortion and it leads us to trouble.

I'm going to end this here because the purpose of providing a historical view is all I meant to do....

ps.... I like guns too. I own several of them. Hunting and target shooting is what I enjoy doing. I am not afraid of my government and that is because "we" are the government.

reply to post by Nanocyte


recently posted this in another thread and it makes as much sense here except the comment about Obama and the article the OP linked.

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by johncarter

 

I am going to give you a different scenario that is surely happening since the corrupt power elite also love war and death. The gun and ammo industries have seen a massive spike 39-45% increase in sales and stockpiling.


www.reuters.com...

Now if by Obama and his cronies you mean Congress we are on the same page...if however you mean that same old tried and true Liberals vs. Conservatives, Democrats vs. Republicans tripe you have a lot to learn.

I envision laws placing armed guards at Schools, Businesses and most public buildings. Not (so-called) trained Police officers but Untrained monkeys with weapons, and power trips worse then any inner city cop. Surround the enemy first then cut off the resources and access to weapons.

Then there will be no need to take away our guns. And that article is specifically stating why they wont take them away.