I'm Allowed to Rob You!

Want to see a piece of paper that gives me the RIGHT to rob you? You don't believe there is such a thing? Are you SURE you don't believe it?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• taxation
• Constitution

[wpw232]

@MaikUniversum "The state is saying to its citizens, you're earnings are not exclusively your own. We, the state, have a claim on them and our claim precedes yours. We will allow to keep some of it, because we recognize your need but not your right. But whatever we grant for you is for us to decide. Your income is ours, We have nationalized your income." They have not stolen anything per say, what they have done is reappoint citizens as slaves. It's a more depressing reality than anything.

[LarkenRose]

@fastaslightning1 Sorry if this offends the flag-wavers, but the "insurgents" in Iraq didn't lose. Same in Vietnam. Armed residents, even with mediocre firearms, even if they're a small minority of the population, can be almost impossible to conquer. After many years, and billions of dollars spent, lots of huge war machines used, what happened in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan (attacked by two opposing superpowers)? And gun owners here have better guns, and know a lot more about using them.

[LarkenRose]

@fastaslightning1 Give it a chance to change?? The Constitution has had over two CENTURIES of completely failing to limit the "government" it pretended to create. How much more time do you want to give it? People have been "working within the system" to try to achieve freedom forever, and it never, ever works. How much longer should we put up with tyranny, hoping that this time it will magically work?

[fastaslightning1]

@LarkenRose That document if followed is a limiting factor. I'm not suggesting that RP is the savior, but if government was run as he suggests, as it was intended it is too weak to oppress it's own people. It needed a proclamation by the Congress. This is how it is smart. The problem is that we have violated it completely, to no real recourse.

I'm not saying it will change, but at least give it a chance to change. At least try to elect someone different before you say it cannot be done.

[fastaslightning1]

@LarkenRose I'm basically agreeing with you, but there is no doubt that the Spartans were conquered by a large invading army. The Germanic tribes were as well by the Huns.

Your assertion that the smaller force successfully defended is a complete farce. The Huns did such an amazing job of ransacking a free world, that Baghdad has not recovered in the 1000 years since. I'm aware of the pitfalls of a large military force at home, but the controlling force in the US is the Constitution.

[vancerz]

@LarkenRose ouch you just beat me up with sense!

[fastaslightning1]

@LarkenRose Yeah, tell the armed citizens in Iraq they stopped us.

The guy doesn't get out where he is vulnerable, he stays in until he is in his stronghold.

Guerrilla warfare is by far some of the most effective no doubt, what you are suggesting is highly simplistic.

[LarkenRose]

@fastaslightning1 One last thing: the most efficient form of defense against invasion by foreign tyrants is something most "modern" "governments" specifically condemn: assassinating "leaders." The tyrants having a running agreement that they will have their pawns slaughter each other, while leaving both sets of tyrants unharmed. Hell with that. If some tyrant orders an invasion of your home town, hire an assassin to kill the bastard. It's relatively cheap, and saves lives on both sides.

[LarkenRose]

@fastaslightning1 Giant war machines are mostly good at fighting other giant war machines. They're remarkably inefficient at defense, and even at invading and occupying a place populated by armed citizens. Normal folks with guns works quite well, as demonstrated in Switzerland. You ask how to fight a tank? Wait until the guy gets out of it, and shoot him. A standing army is an excuse to enslave us, not a means to keep us free. The founders knew this, and preferred a militia.

[LarkenRose]

@fastaslightning1 What, exactly, do you think Mexico could do against 100,000,000 armed citizens, even if we did NOTHING to organize or prepare? I believe it was Admiral Yamamoto who, when asked why Japan didn't invade mainland U.S. (California), said that it was because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. How well are the huge, expensive war machines working right now, against badly armed "insurgents" in the middle east?...

[fastaslightning1]

@LarkenRose An armed populace is a great deterrent to violent crimes, and even in idea the government, but truthfully, what exactly is an armed populace going to do against an M1 Abrams, or the Chinese equivalent?

War has come to many a peaceful society who could not defend itself, it is why many societies that want to stay peaceful are vigilant in having the entire population trained in modern war tactics.

I guess I'm not seeing how we stay free with essentially no military for even our defense