EPTIs the USA heading towards "Big Brother" Govt? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this. I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
If anything, the U.S. is heading towards modernized civilization. We are woefully behind a lot of European countries by sticking to our archaic cultural beliefs that require guns to be cheap and easily accessible to anyone, a horrific healthcare system, almost non-existent consumer protection when compared to "business rights", a horrific education system marred by skyrocketing costs, horrible social mobility, and all of this (and more) in the name of "individual freedom". It's right-wing, hypocritical BS that also gets us stuff like the Patriot Act. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On February 06 2013 00:36 radiatoren wrote: France is extremely protectionistic, the economy is shaky, far right wing is almost presidential strong, political discourse is particularly nasty and turnout is plummeting very fast! None of those factors are encouraging for stability of democracy and it certainly is pointing towards increased surveillance! The far right wing is going nowhere in a short term and if it really wants to have a legitimate shot at the presidential election it'll need to make compromises with center-right voters at the very least, which mean they will basically a conservative party. But yeah in France the state always had a big role and the fear of a big state basically doesn't exist among the population. People might be more afraid of less state lol. (which is kinda not understable for most US citizens :p) | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On February 05 2013 20:11 kmillz wrote: I don't think it is likely that it becomes a totalitarian state, but that really depends on the people to keep electing officials who vote against things that infringe on our freedoms. Fortunately most people are still strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, which is in my opinion the most important to keeping us safe from dictatorship. This is one of the most ridiculous reasons to support the 2nd amendment, if the government decided to take over completely the army, navy and air force would be on their side.... no matter how many guns you have, they have more, bigger and better ones. The 2nd amendment was written in a time before modern armies, modern weapons and modern military tactics were even a glint in someones eye. It was written before the police were invented, in a time when citizens could rise up against the government and have a fighting chance to win. You spend more on your military than the next 17 biggest spending countries in the world combined, if you think you would have any chance against them, you are deluded. If you seriously believe that "the people" owning guns is ever going to stop the government doing whatever they want, you are cuckoo. There would be nothing to stop them. The part of your constitution that protects you from tyranny is the part about elections and a government of the people, you stop the problem before it becomes a problem by ousting those who wish to oppress you. I like in the UK and we have no guns (or very few) in the hands of the citizens and we certainly do not fear our government in any way, if we don't like something as a country we vote them out. The US isn't heading for totalitarianism or big brother, just the march of modern technology. If as a country you aren't vocal enough about not wanting certain laws then the failure would be on the people, not on the government, if a totalitarian state emerged. You have all the tools to stop it within your legal system and elections, but if people become too disengaged with politics to stop it, then you only have yourselves to blame. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2013 00:42 zatic wrote: I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually. That's just because we sold them their furniture. Unless you're talking about Germany, with its "feudal property taxes" (one of the most ridiculous and indicative lines in the OP people have seemed to miss.) Also, the doctor he's citing is an anti-vaccine guy. Just sayin'. That's not to say the unprecedented amount of access the NSA has isn't problematic, but the main problems facing the country aren't due to weed and car insurance. That's just absurd. I figured this would be on the newly leaked DoJ justifications for drone strikes on US citizens but instead it's on seatbelt laws (which are awesome, btw.) | ||
|
TNK
United States163 Posts
| ||
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On February 06 2013 00:42 zatic wrote: I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually. I am really confused by this, the blog you wrote explicitly talks about all of the things citizens are not free to do, like practice their religion if they arnt muslim. I have never been to this country but what you wrote does not sound anything like america to me. I see what you mean if you are talking about appearances, but thats not really the spirit of what I was talking about. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On February 06 2013 00:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/dhs-fletc-ammunition-purchases-750-million-200-million-40-caliber-rounds-2013-1 It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed... To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression. Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget-bib-fy2012.pdf That's where it's going, it looks like the DHS's responsibility is to support some of the terribly underfunded organizations charged to actually defend our borders and help us after natural disasters. Plus some other stuff, don't have time to read all of it. "State and Local Grants: The FY 2012 request sustains federal funding for state and local preparedness grants totaling over $3.8 billion, highlighting the Department’s commitment to moving resources out of Washington, D.C. and into the hands of state and local first responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond to terrorism, other threats, and natural disasters." "The total request for U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements is $1.4 billion." I'm not actually sure that list adds up to as much as they say it does, I would expect some confidential funding but I am pretty impressed by a lot of their initiatives even if they look like another bureaucracy charged with supporting the other parts of the bureaucracy. Okay, after looking at their "enhancing security" section, airports have just retarded amounts of money thrown atthem for security, but we kind of knew that already. On February 06 2013 00:49 Jibba wrote: That's just because we sold them their furniture. Unless you're talking about Germany, with its "feudal property taxes" (one of the most ridiculous and indicative lines in the OP people have seemed to miss.) Also, the doctor he's citing is an anti-vaccine guy. Just sayin'. Oh, the doctor's a hack, always good to know. Also Zatic did you mean "look" as in on the surface, similar cars and franchises, or did you mean it in a more figurative sense as in "oppressive feel" kind of thing? | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32148 Posts
The rest of it, I don't even understand. How in the fuck is making mandatory drivers insurance a bad thing? I don't feel like being on the hook for repairs to my car if I get into an accident with some asshole who doesn't have it. Zoning laws = totalitarian state? Consider me a card carrying Pinko then, since I like having ordinances that prevent some libertarian weirdo from regularly strolling outside ass naked to take a shit on his compost heap that he uses to fertilize his orchid of righteous and free apple trees. Zoning laws are completely necessary in environements where there are more than 10 people to a town. Otherwise you'd get people who would happily let their front lawns grow to 3 feet tall, littered with dog shit, rusted broken down cars and trash from their house. | ||
|
Underkoffer
Netherlands53 Posts
On February 05 2013 17:09 Seldentar wrote: Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control? What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties? 1) To serve the people as a body by organising and structuring the country. Like providing education, building roads and protect the people (both from dangers inside the country and abroad). 2) To live happy lives. Now ofcourse a person in power that's too greedy has to be kept in check, to prevent a democracy turning into a totalitarian state, which is why certain laws are in place. I don't think your Amercan government is an evil organisation working towards total control. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 06 2013 00:52 TheFrankOne wrote: Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars, Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat." What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32148 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up? You clearly didn't get the memo. This is a mandatory tinfoil hat zone. Please exit the premises, or the Illuminati security guards will escort you out of the thread | ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:16 QuanticHawk wrote: You clearly didn't get the memo. This is a mandatory tinfoil hat zone. Please exit the premises, or the Illuminati security guards will escort you out of the thread Will there be Roswell references if I stay? + Show Spoiler + On topic: I think that while the US may be going a little screwy at times, I don't see anything drastic happening in my lifetime. And if it looks like it will, make room Canadians! | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat." What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed? I would think they provide them to police forces and they use them in their firearm training courses. Seems in line with giving grants to firefighters and the like, just instead of cash, they get bullets. Reedit: After realizing those headlines were just conspiracy nutjob websites and gun nut forums (not everyone with a gun is a gun nut, but the people I saw posting were). Who is the "they" that's so averse to the public being well armed? | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up? So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:20 TheFrankOne wrote: I would think they provide them to police forces and they use them in their firearm training courses. Seems in line with giving grants to firefighters and the like, just instead of cash, they get bullets. Reedit: After realizing those headlines were just conspiracy nutjob websites and gun nut forums (not everyone with a gun is a gun nut, but the people I saw posting were). Who is the "they" that's so averse to the public being well armed? Business Insider is a conspiracy nutjob website? The funny thing is, local police departments are having to do dry fire exercises due to ammo shortages. Meanwhile, a federal agency is sitting on over a billion rounds of ammunition. And the excuse is, they're buying in bulk to get a good deal? Again, read the article "all the firing in the above courses, and whatever else gets expended, requires about 15 million rounds of ammunition a year." That means their recent 750 million round order is enough for 50 years worth of training. Must have been one hell of a discount to buy 50 years worth of ammunition for training. [edit] The "they" I'm referring to are the politicians during that firearms hearing last week that kept asking "why do people NEED" a particular gun or a particular capacity of magazine. These guys are questioning why someone needs to hold more than 7 rounds of ammunition in their magazine, while a federal agency is buying over a billion rounds of ammunition... | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:24 SpeaKEaSY wrote: So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money? Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead. | ||
| ||
