Republicans turning into anarchists?

I've always been pissy about big gubment and wasn't a fan of most of what Bush created in DC. Obama winning did not change what I think about the dirtbags in washington. Government isn't always the enemy, but they rarely give you the warm fuzzies. I would prefer if they stayed far away and never took any interest in me (good or bad) since so many of their little minions act like hall monitors with guns. Anarchy has nothing to do with any conservative ideals and even though I'm a bonified wackadoo, I don't see or feel the need to revolt.

Edited by JohnnyHopper - 05 February 2009 at 1:44am

Look at your history. My family helped found this great country. (one of my ancestors signed the declaration of independence, we have fought in EVERY war or conflict since the beginning).

Again, FE you really need a better accountant if you're paying over half your income in taxes.

You say you pay $.464 on a gallon of gas then proceed to list taxes that other people pay on transactions they profit from.

Whine moar.

The fact is FE, the tax you pay is 46.4 cents. The other companies are paying INCOME taxes on the money they make from doing what they do, find/refine/ship gasoline. A service they are being paid to do.

Are you saying only end users of products should have to pay taxes? Cause thats a good way to screw a lot of things up...

FreeEnterprise wrote: This country was founded because people were tired of paying HUGE amounts of their income in taxes.

F.E. does make a good point though, about taxes not just being on the tax-portion of your pay stub. Mind you, not all of the taxes are federal taxes. Sales tax, alcohol taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, phone taxes, etc etc. They do add up and people in the under $75,000 tax bracket who live within their means probably do wind up paying close to half of their gross in various taxes. And yes, while government spending does have some to do with the anti-federal sentiment floating around out there, it isn't the only reason for the anti-Obama Administration flare up you're seeing.

Sure, the hard core conservatives such as F.E. and many others had their minds made up prior to the election, but now more moderate minds are starting to take notice of what is going on in DC and thinking that a big mistake was made.

After proposing a transparent and outsider-based presidency, Obama has attempted to fill his cabinet with Washington insiders who don't have the greatest track records when it comes to legal issues. When the people that you "stand behind 100%" start removing themselves from the nomination process due to some rather embarrassing questions being asked, well, perhaps you aren't making the best decisions. Due to the vetting process being so disrupted by bad choices, Obama is going to have a very tough time keeping his first 100 days from stalling on him. If he can't get more finished than what he already has, he's going to start losing face with his supporters. The man promised too much and now isn't going to be able to deliver on his promises. How is that different from any other politician? It's not. But the fact of the matter is that his supporters bought into the whole "I'm not like these other guys" spiel hook, line, and sinker.

What's really pissing off the conservative end of the spectrum right now are the preliminary steps being taken to provide the federal government and the various cabinet members with broad powers to interfere in the lives of the individual and the states. Since there's been talk of H.R.45 on here recently, I'll use that as an example. H.R.45 gives almost complete power of firearms approval to the Attorney General. That means that one man is given the authority to say what firearms are legal to own in the US and which ones are not. Furthermore, it gives one man the ability to establish whatever guidelines he pleases when it comes to compliance with the law. At no point in this process is anyone able to step in and say that the provisions made are unreasonable. It would only be in the case of an appeal reaching SCOTUS that any unreasonable measures could be axed. That is a very long, expensive, and life-shattering process. Giving one man sole control over any individual rights in this country goes completely against what the founding fathers fought for. There's a reason that we have a system of checks and balances in place, and that is to keep any branch of government, let alone any individual, from having complete power over our liberties. However, the last administration and now THIS administration have been whittling away at the system for their own gains.

The talk of resisting the gov't is mainly just that, talk. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see mass demonstrations within the next year of gun owners and anti-federalists. There are already plans in the works for a "million gun-owner march" next year which is being headed up by the GOA and possibly the NRA. The biggest form of resistance we would see this time around will be the "losing" or "selling" of privately owned firearms should H.R.45 come to pass.

Some of the real whack-jobs may try to go all Ruby Ridge on the federal gov't should H.R.45 come to pass, but enough gun owners in the US understand what is at stake after seeing what happened in the UK:



We're rapidly headed in the same direction that the UK is. To a "nanny state" where the rights of the individual are no longer valid. Our ancestors fought to keep the government out of our private lives. Guns are just one of the many issues at hand and one of the most visible. There are many, many other reasons, from taxes to the sense of class warfare that is becoming more prevalent, that keep the anti-federalists going strong in this country and gaining more support each and every day.

Bruce Banner wrote: What's really pissing off the conservative end of the spectrum right now are the preliminary steps being taken to provide the federal government and the various cabinet members with broad powers to interfere in the lives of the individual and the states.   Surely the irony of this isn't lost on you.

Of course it isn't and I think I mentioned the fact that the previous administration did it as well and set us up for this kind of thing. Bush certainly wasn't the greatest president, far from it, and the mucking about in the rights of the individual and stripping of certain guaranteed freedoms was something I never could support. Are there certain sections of the Patriot Act that were useful? You bet your ass there are! But did the powers it gave the government and individual federal officials need to be there? Not so much. There were much better ways to go about the whole deal but the opportunists and those who wished to be seen as being "proactive" rushed the sucker through under the guise of the "war on terror."

So, yes, I realize the irony of it. But the fact of the matter is that Obama and the rest of the newly elected Dems were the loudest when it came to denouncing such actions and the power it gave individuals in government. Of course, when they got here, all they did was latch on to the allure of their new found powers and it will only be a matter of time before they too abuse them. Obama and his cabinet are no King Solomon and Court.

Since there's been talk of H.R.45 on here recently, I'll use that as an example. H.R.45 gives almost complete power of firearms approval to the Attorney General.   Don't know much about HR 45.  Looks interesting; I'll have to do some reading.

Believe me, it's scary when you think of the implications. I've no doubt that the originator thinks he is merely helping law enforcement keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people, but when ignorant people write ignorant laws, bad things happen. That's my biggest problem with gun legislation in the US. So many people who introduce bills on the subject have no clue what they are talking about and never research the matter. H.R.45 supposedly creates a clearinghouse on gun related accidents, deaths, and crimes. The only difference between it and the ATF and FBI's joint statistics clearinghouse is that the new clearinghouse would also have a database of every gun owner and what firearms they own. What purpose does this serve? How is somebody's life proactively protected by this?

The talk of resisting the gov't is mainly just that, talk.   You made me laugh.  Also, you should expect the revocation of your NRA membership in the mail by next week.  Few things make my eyes roll faster than "from my cold, dead hands."

I'm not a member of the NRA. I've considered it many times, but the cost/benefit ratio isn't good enough for me at this juncture. Do I support them a lot of the time? You bet I do! Have they made some major gaffes in the past that make me facepalm? Ohhh yeah.

As for "cold, dead hands" that's reactionary rhetoric. Smart people realize that martyrdom is a last resort. I will say that the US Govt is going to have a very tough time rounding up guns should it come down to that. They will all mysteriously be "lost" "stolen" "sold and I can't remember his/her name" or otherwise disposed of by their owners. The fact of the matter is that whatever legislation is put in place today, 4-8 years down the road it can, and will be reversed.

Honestly, I'd like to see something screwball happen with H.R.45 or some other such legislation that nullifies the FOPA-86 which would, in turn, nullify the Hughes Ammendment. Sure, you'd have a registry of gun owners and their firearms, but it'd flood the market with nice, cheap, imported machine guns.

We're rapidly headed in the same direction that the UK is.   And I think most Americans are concerned about this.  But I have hope, because Americans are not British.  Americans have an entirely different starting point in terms of the role of government.  And while the "government interference line" ebbs and flows, the basic principles of individual freedom are far stronger here, both socially and legally, than in any European country.

I don't think this is as true as it was in the past. Today's youth don't have as much of a sense of their rights and personal freedoms as those in the past have. They "know" that they have personal rights and freedoms, but don't understand that they have to fight to keep them. This is the generation, after all, that said "not my president" and thought that it was true. You may not have voted Bush into office, but he's sure as hell your president and what he says and does matters. There just seems to be a disconnect between young voters and the political process. Is this an "across the board" kind of thing? No, of course not. But I think the disconnect with the younger generations is far wider than it was with any prior with the exception of the Hippies.

I have faith.

Well, I have faith that God exists, but the scientific facts are contrary to my faith and can't be ignored. Same can be said for politics in this country.

I doubt there will ever be a worthwhile revolt in the US. No one will do anything big because of technology being able to track their every move it's not like the Boston Tea Party, you can't just put on a mask and have some fun anarchy, you'd probably be shot by police. There's too much... I don't know, civilization? Not many will risk what they've done in life to protest in a large manner.

tallen702 wrote: Take the 1968 riots but instead of being social, make them political, and you've got a revolution on your hands. Arm the rioters and you've got a civil war.

Take the food away and you have Africa.

Edited by PaiNTbALLfReNzY - 05 February 2009 at 3:02pm