Increasingly, we see the government, federal and state) outright throwing away the Bill Of Rights - including now there is often a presumption of guilt. For example, Manafort - age 69 and never in his life found guilty of anything - was denied bond and locked up in solitary confinement for a 12 year old non-violent tax case - when the IRS can not even pursue unpaid taxes after 10 years. Pure presumption of guilt before any trial for the allegation of what is known to be considered a petty offense and tax cases considered only civil 99% of the time. For gun rights, its worse. States have passed laws to strip a person of their 2A rights with NO finding of guilt and often even with no hearing first whatsoever. Someone filing a domestic abuse complaint or the police obtaining a felony warrant and automatically a person is stripped of the constitutional gun ownership rights - leaving the person defenseless. Such laws literally presume the person is guilty-as-charged until and unless the person can later prove innocence. Nor does it even require anything by the police. In Florida, in many situations any person could fill out an affidavit alleging a threat - no evidence or proof required - and instantly the person accused loses their gun rights for the police to seize the firearms until there is a hearing - leaving that person disarmed until them. In many such laws, even if the person has his/her day in court, other than for a criminal charge, the person is denied the right to a jury and instead is only allowed a hearing before a magistrate as an administrative matter, when it is well understand administrative judges will do whatever the police or government agency wants 99% of the time. Nor is the person paid the value of the firearms if the government keeps them. Contrast to the greater matter of our very government and the democracy that determines our government. If a person is arrested for a felony but not yet convicted, do they strip away his voting rights? In my opinion, until a person is found GUILTY of an offense or of the accusation - INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY DECIDE IT - NO firearms can be taken from anyone under the Constitutional presumption of innocence - rather than the current presumption of innocence. What say you?
I say I agree with you. Our Constitutional rights are under attack like never before, and the corruption of our political rulers is so pervasive they don't even fear getting caught any more. That such has happened with ever more brazenly corrupt actions by our "leaders" without the American people standing up to say, "NO MORE" means that most of the American people have decided it's easier to lie down and accept tyranny than to stand up and fight against it... and that is nothing less than a tragedy; at this point I don't know if the Republic can be saved.
It cannot. As has been said previously, numerous times before, the united states is not a first-world, developed nation. Comparatively speaking, it is little to no better than the nation of Mexico. If the desire for real and meaningful change is actually real, then it requires a significant and involved degree of work to do such. It would require what may come to be the bloodiest and most violent coup in the history of the entire united states. Every single individual who currently holds some position of authority in government would need to be systematically removed from not only that position of authority all at the same time, but they would need to be removed from the equation, as doing otherwise would allow them to spread their message of what they believe is acceptable, to others who may also share their world view, and believes that the ends justify the means, regardless of what must be done to get there. Those who hold a particular viewpoint would quite literally need to be killed for having the wrong ideas about how the nation should work. Once said individuals are removed from the equation, it would be an absolute necessity to completely dismantle government at all levels to ensure that all elements of corruption have been removed from the equation due to exposure to said corrupting influences, and start over fresh from the ground up, without drawing on anything that existed beforehand. It may be necessary to go back to drafting the united states constitution all over again, to address whatever shortcomings were present in the first version, to prevent things from so easily becoming corrupt again, and leaving you back where you started in the first place. What would ultimately be necessary for achieving the desired results, is similar to the need of utilizing radical chemotherapy for treating aggressive strains of cancer. The disease is not cured by the physician simply removing the tumors and declaring it to be good enough. Absolutely every last trace, every last suspect cell, must be completely obliterated from existence to prevent the disease from coming back again. Does anyone have the appetite for such an approach to eliminating corruption? Is anyone willing to kill hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions of individuals, on the sole basis that they cannot and will not hold themselves to high moral standards of doing what is the right thing, simply to prevent corruption from becoming entrenched into the system of government once again? Does anyone possess the constitution of character to pursue true and equal justice to this degree? Or will such be considered too much work?
I know you feel this way, but I don't think your conclusions of the current state of the nation are necessarily accurate. I don't say that to be arbitrary or confrontation; just to state that comparison in general is not valid as I see it. As a whole, the US remains one of the largest economies in the world, and there are some states that are every bit as crime and violence free as most European nations. People do forget we are 50 separate states, and there are some states that are indeed practically third-world cesspools; but to characterize the entire country as such is taking the concept too far. That's something else you and I see differently. I agree that the need to purge the corrupt from the system is paramount; but the Constitution itself does not need to be changed. The problem was never the Constitution... it was the people. I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when asked what kind of nation we would be, and he responded: "A Republic, if you can keep it." He was informing and warning at the same time; a free Republic can only stand so long as the people themselves possess the mettle and integrity to remain vigilant and well regulated. But, the people became complacent, and lazy; the corruption began when the people themselves stopped caring about anything but themselves. It is not the Constitution that needs to be revamped... it is the people themselves. The Founders warned us that government inevitably evolves towards tyranny... and the people let it happen. That is the heart of the question, isn't it? Are there enough people today willing to do what needs to be done? I fear there aren't.
Godwin's Law proven again. Why is it that totalitarians attack opposing viewpoints by smearing their opponents as "Nazis"? Because they're deflecting to hide their own fascistic behavior.
he literally called for the deaths of ALL persons in a position of government today and the deaths of ALL persons that have a different political point of view. its his literal comment. that's Nazism
No, it's not; but heaven knows no facts or logic will hold sway once you've started spouting this kind of nonsense.
calling for the murder of all government officials and the murder of all with an opposing political view, is Fascism.
the member said the following: "Is anyone willing to kill hundreds of thousands, if not potentially millions of individuals, on the sole basis that they cannot and will not hold themselves to high moral standards of doing what is the right thing, simply to prevent corruption from becoming entrenched into the system of government once again?" do you think there are MILLIONS of traitors in the USA, all who must die?
But the Left calling for the murder of all those with an opposing political view isn't? Oh, right; it's only "Fascism" when you disagree with it, isn't it? When the government is corrupt, and that corruption is pervasive and all-encompassing, and the government has ceased recognizing the rights of its own people, then it becomes time to talk about the same hard subjects our Founders did so long ago: do we continue to accept the corruption and tyranny... or do we actively strike back against it? That isn't "Fascism".... That is Freedom, and Liberty. Orwellian doublespeak to twist the truth and call lies "truth" or war "peace" or Liberty "Fascism" isn't just doubleplus ungood... it is a betrayal of who we are.
Murdering millions of people simply because they have a different political point of view, is Fascism.
most genocide has been perpetrated by collectivist authoritarian governments. Most gun owners oppose authoritarian collectivism. Many gun banners are patently collectivist and latently authoritarian
