« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

On Tyrannical Governments and Why the Left Mocks the Very Idea of Such Ever Happening In America

By: tomjeffersonsghost (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2013 at 12:51 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

When Ben Shapiro debated Piers Morgan on the issue of guns and the 2nd Amendment, along with treating the US constitution as a some sort of formality that could be dismissed and ignored in the name of “modern society”, Piers also mocked and scoffed at the very core component behind our right to bear arms: the prospect of a tyrannical government that would take shape in America and in so doing threaten the rights of individuals.

I’m not surprised Piers Morgan mocked this very real scenario, after all he’s from Great Britain. Those of you who love American and world history like I do have learned in detail the time lines riddled with periods and blips in which tyrannies have been established in parts of the world.

What makes America immune to tyranny? What makes American leaders so much more honest and virtuous than their European counterparts, as to reject the allure of power? Haven’t we heard  presidents past and president present say that federal power must expand in the name of a “common good” or in the case of President Obama’s second inaugural speech: “collectivism”.

How many violations of the constitution much take place before we fully accept the very real potential that one day our government could in fact rule our lives in absolute.

But of course for the liberal why would they fear what they support? They have a blind allegiance to government that has convinced them that federal expansion could never turn against the people because those who control the machine have given their word. But when has man’s word ever been as concrete in its promise as that of his creator? The bible says God is not a man that he should lie, so why is man not God that he should lie?

The liberal’s belief in government is rooted in their belief in man. Their god serves only eight years at the maximum, though his programs and agenda are everlasting, and their heaven is a utopia under construction; halted only by the founding documents.

But as we go deeper into the Obama years that line of defense called the constitution is becoming weaker. Soon it will hold no relevant objection to policies and politicians who violate its creed. At which time, as the very essence of the 2nd Amendment states: The last line of defense against a government in full contempt of the constitution will be the people and their guns.

Our liberals friend ought whisper to the spirits of old Europe for a lesson in well intentioned tyranny. The bible says the road to hell is paved with good intentions. First comes the idea, then the take over, then comes the promise to the people, then the narrative takes shape, and at long last the tyranny is established. Every dictator at some point had very well meaning motives to what drove them further into evil. Power is something that twists the rationale of flawed creatures; it is Satan’s most effective narcotic. That is why we trust a living God and not living men. For if men were able to have power without appeasing its seductive spell, there would be no need for term limits, divided government of which there are three branches, or most importantly the founding fathers would have never established the idea behind the right to bear arms being the right for citizens to protect themselves against their government. A government which Thomas Paine called a necessary evil in its best state, and in its worse an intolerable one.

Sincerely,

El Fantasma Estudiante de Manos de Piedra

(The Ghost: Student of Hands of Stone)

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • fwfd13

    Many liberals support government programs like Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, and so on, but bear no affection for the bureaucratic creep that takes over many administrations. Even among the leftist of the left, there are those who don’t want to see the state set up a Ministry of Love and cart dissidents off to Room 101. The problem as I see it, is a confluence of both Leftism and Statistism. But if you’re hanging out with people like that, you’re probably still in college with the other lazy shiftless losers who talk about how money is evil, and everything should be free while wearing $30 dollar che guavara shirts.

  • Viet71

    Don’t want to start a flame war, but from where I sit, federal and state governments have exhibited signs of tyranny numerous times during my life — if by tyranny one means governmental suppression, brutal if necessary, of a perceived opponent.

    There have been many governmental attacks on freedom of expression. At times, blatant attacks or state-sanctioned discrimination based on race or religion. Wide scale governmental intrusions into the personal sphere violative of Amendments IV and V. And so on.

    The best offset against tyranny in America is the system of checks and balances. A president who scoffs at the Supreme Court shows a clear pre-disposition toward tyranny.

  • Chris

    My concern about using the Second Amendment as a guard against tyranny is the actual decision to invoke it, so to speak. Who gets to decide that? Presidents and Congresses have arguably violated the Constitution numerous times throughout our nation’s entire history, so you can’t just say it’ll be obvious or unanimous. There are a lot of people who are saying that President Obama is doing some unconstitutional thing or another right now, and the same with President Bush before him. How are we to distinguish between tyranny, and just some minority of the population that’s deeply unhappy with the results of the most recent election (whatever that was)? For every person whose convictions would lead them to seek a ‘Second Amendment solution’, there’s another that would see that same solution as a treasonous coup d’état. I suggest that we stick to the ballot box.

    • kipling

      “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      The American people make the call. No one person called for the militias that massed against the British as they marched on Lexington and Concord. The people just had enough and turned out to right a wrong.

      The line in the sand for me is the gun control issue and religious freedom.

    • marymargaret

      The founders clearly believed that the answer to unhappiness with government was the ballot, not the bullet. To suggest the violent over throw of a duly elected government is a complete antithesis to the Constitution no matter how you try to justify it. If you propose or participate in the over throw of a duly elected government you are a traitor, not a patriot.

      • PowerToThePeople

        First, I will loudly state that we are no were near having a valid reason to wage war against our government, it takes much more than bad policy to form the prerequisite standards to be right in bearing arms against the government. But with that statement I will also say that while not to that point, we may get there. That being said….

        You should really think before you speak. How do you think the founders got to the point of being able to cast ballots? Singing in drum circles? They went to war, they started a rebellion, they violently overthrew the days rulers. Not sure where you get they did not support armed resistance as not only did they actively support it, many fought in it. So you are dead wrong Ms Lefty, armed resistance against an oppressive government is a constitutional right, one that was supported by our founders.

        And if it comes down to armed resistance, those with the courage to stand for what is right will be the patriots while people like you will be the traitors. And one should remember what happened to the last set of traitors known as the Tories. Duly elected will never mean free to do as you please, you would do well to remember that.

        • ndmittle

          The 2nd Amendment isn’t a right to shoot politicians because you think you’re being oppressed. Constitutional Democracy is your protection against tyranny, not your AR15.

          • PowerToThePeople

            You have no clue as to what you are talking about. It is also obvious you have little comprehension skills, so next time you think yourself capable of wasting my time, don’t.

        • marymargaret

          I suggest you go back and read your history books. The germination of the war of independence was taxation without representation. Now go back and read my post again. The use of force to overthrow a duly elected government is antithical to what the founders designed. The operative words are: duly elected government. There is no “constitutional right” to over throw a duly elected government. Our system of government is based on the rule of law. Margaret Thatcher said it best: Our abiding commitment to the rule of law is the very bedrock of our civilization. It is what makes all else possible, from the flowering of the arts to the steady advance of the sciences. The idea that men must govern themselves not by the arbitrary commands of a ruler but by their own considered judgment, is the means whereby chaos is replaced by order. Balanced by the peaceful resolution of differences, the rule of law and the institutions of representative democracy are what stand between civilization and barbarism. It is through law-governed liberty that mankind has been able to achieve so much.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Poor Mary, yet to make one intelligent comment. Let me correct you a bit.

            A) Taxation without representation was a catalyst, not the entire gist of what lead to war. See Mary, in order to lecture someone about reading history books, your knowledge must come from something other than those cute little pop up books. There were many aspects that lead to the war, taxation was only one. The revolutionary war came about because of the American enlightenment and this enlightenment included social, political, and intellectual changes that lead the colonist to go to battle to end what they saw as oppression, not only tax oppression.

            B) There were elected officials in this country prior to the Revolutionary war, many who stood against the war and even took leadership positions in the Torie units and or the British units. Some of the most oppressive leaders in the colonies were the elected officials who also held the positions that the King could do no wrong.

            C) I challenge you to find where the constitution states that once elected, a person can oppress the people without worrying about retaliation. It is just not there. For you to continue making such ignorant comments just shows us all you are a moron not to be taken serious. I would agree with anyone that bad policy is never a reason to revolt, but it is laughable you keep stating that elections end the remedy of revolt. On a completely hypothetical level, lets say Obama throws out all Congress members, disbands the Congress and the Supreme Court, declares martial law, states he will no longer submit to elections, orders whatever military who will obey to roam our streets, declares all weapons illegal, ends free speech, and then starts having all those who voted against him executed, is that reason to revolt? He was elected, so according to your ignorance, we have no remedy. How about if us republicans take back the House in 2016 with Jeb Bush, he immediately does the same thing except he orders a purge of all leftist. Would you have issue with leftist protecting themselves via the 2nd amendment and fighting against the oppressive government? If you simply thought through what you say once in a while, you would be less of a fool.

            D) Actually dummy, most advances in freedom and most of the evil empires that have been brought down have been accomplished only through force. Not sure where you get that liberty has been accomplished by anything else.

            Now go play in the sandbox, you have embarrassed yourself enough for a lifetime already.

            PS, while it is such a neat quote from Thatcher, it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Nothing. You are trying the whole square peg, round hole thing there ole Mary.

  • norris

    The British have taken most of the concealable firearms from law abiding citizens.
    Now thugs have no reason to fear repercussions from weak , old ,small or female citizens minding their own business .
    Muslims gangs harass women in short skirts, couples walking too close to a mosque and anything that violates their customs.
    The police are of little help in stopping street crime and home invasions .

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Intrestingly enough, Sinclair Lewis and others on the Left still understood the possibility of tyranny int he US during the 1930s. THis is ironic, because they totally rant he show in the 1930s and essentially were talking about what would happen if their own power base got totally out of control. See “It Can’t Happen Here.”