Why the government cannot be trusted by ChrisMoorhead

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why the government cannot be trusted

POSTED BY: CHRISMOORHEAD
UPDATED: Friday, March 17, 2006 07:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1068
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:23 AM

Ok, so, I was trying to sleep last night, and all of a sudden I have to get up and write this down. Consequently, it may either be obvious, not true at all, but it's currently the best observation I've ever made as to why citizens should own firearms and always be prepared to fight off their own governments.

"The government has to beleive that the laws and structure of the nation it governs are what actually deffine that nation in roder to give itself credence. If laws and structure deffine a nation, and it is the government's job to protect the nation, and the government itself is that thing that makes, enforces and judges those very laws, ipso facto, the government's primary concern is keeping itself alive and intact, while protecting the people is secondary."

I also wrot a couple other ramblings to support this. I think the most relevent one is that since the government is made up of people, that if everyone who was not in a government position were killed, there would still be people left to make up the country. However if all the people that held office were killed and only citizens remained, there wouldn't be a structure to support what can actually be deffined as a "nation". Because of this, the government has to beleive that it's existance is more important than the citizen's.

So, any thoughts, comments? I'm not sticking by this as an end all be all just yet but I really feel like I may have stumbled across something that makes perfect sense, if to no one else, at least to me. I think the important questions to ask in order to decide if what I wrote is bunk or legit are:

What is the government's ACTUAL primary concern?

What SHOULD the government's primary concern be?

Let me know what you all think.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:48 AM

ZISKER

I think the sentiment is stated too broadly to apply to the second amendment.

First, you have to define what the citizens should trust the government to do - which involves determining the precise role of government. For example (and this is simplified), say you only expect the government to make your train run on time. Well, the government needs to exist to make that train run. So in putting itself before the citizen to ensure its continued survival, there's no reason not to trust it because the train will only keep running if the government is there. This also means that when the government gives benefits to any organization or individual involved in making sure that train is running to the detriment of other, non-involved citizens, there's still no reason for you not to trust them. Now, if you want the government to go down with the citizen when the ship sinks, you're screwed. Hell, they've got recently de-classified bomb shelters for Congress when the Soviet bombs fall (oops, didn't happen) - which brings to mind one of Aesop's fables about ruling a wasteland of the dead as well as a few short sci-fi stories.

But I digress: Yes, the government believes that the citizen is expendable - why wouldn't it? The government acts in its own self-interest because it is comprised of humans and 99% of us act in our own self interest. But the government is even more interested in self-preservation and survival, and 100% of humanity is interested in that (save those who are suicidal, but let's not split hairs). Therefore, you have to determine how much guff you'll take from the government. Then, how much guff will the government give its citizens to ensure that it survives at a given time. Will you base whether or not you own a gun on those factors? Does armed revolution even achieve its aims often enough to make it worth it? Honestly, I feel that in America there are other, more efficent ways. And as long as we're allowed to leave America if we don't want to take the guff - do we need the guns?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the second amendment (with a few safety features because I feel that's just common sense, though I understand there are people who disagree due to the 'slippery slope') - I just don't think this is the best argument to support it. To me, at least it brings up more interesting questions about the nature of government.

BTW, were/are you eleven-bravo?

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:16 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Well, first off this isn't purely a defense of the second amendment. I believe there's many other more important ways to prepare for the worst than just owning a or a couple of firearms. I'm not saying the government is a totally useless institution or that we should be in a hurry to overthrow it, but I think the citizens should feel that it is their duty as human beings to prepare for the collapse of and/or the absolution of their governments.

As you said, the government does believe that we're expendable, so why should we trust it past a certain point to protect us? The unfortunate state of the US is that much much (much) less than half of the population is prepared to defend themselves against foreign or domestic threats. I think owning, maintain and being properly trained with firearms is an essential part of preparedness, but I reiterate, not the totality of it.

The unfortunate possibility in a world of infinite possibilities is that inside of an hour, given the right circumstances, we might not be able to leave the U.S. If martial law is implemented and we are forbidden to leave out place of residence, we will be told it is for our own good. The reality is that it is for the government's own good, and at the point where things become intense enough for the government to be interested in preserving itself at the cost of it's citizens is the point that the citizens MUST be prepared to defend themselves.

I went through Infantry school, but my official MOS was 18X. Never got to finish my training, though, I was a medical washout after a training op went south.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:35 PM

DC4BS

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
What is the government's ACTUAL primary concern?

In our case (USA), mostly getting themselves re-elected.

Sometimes, it seems to be inventing new ways to throw away rediculous amounts of money. Often, with the only concievable motive being the gaining (buying) of votes in the next election cycle - EG: building massively expensive dumb-ass bridges to nowhere...

Quote:
What SHOULD the government's primary concern be?

Well, Government at what level? Are we just talking federal here, or state/city/town?

Each has different things they SHOULD be doing (some don't though - or they do but very badly). Most do MANY things thay have NO buisness messing about with in my opinion...

But then again, I'm way messed up politicaly having an ultra conservative father and an ultra liberal mother... And one of each for older sisters...

"Goodness, gracious, that's why I'm a MESS!"
- West Side Story - Gee, Officer Krupke

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:40 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:

What is the government's ACTUAL primary concern?

What SHOULD the government's primary concern be?

Actual primary concern: Money- making it/taking it/using it/keeping it in the accounts of the top 1/2% ruling class.

Suggested primary concern: The safety and liberty of the citizens of this country and the promotion of peace and prosperity through competition as a world view.

Ridiculously wishful-thinkin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE