Consumer Credit Card Act and Loaded Weapons?
Real Estate Investor · Tampa, FL · Member since 2008 · 456 posts · 42 votes
I was reading an article on concealed weapons today. Actually, it can be found here if you're interested in that
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
but that isn't really the topic here. I read through this article and got to the end to see this:
In May, President Barack Obama signed into law a consumer credit card act that also restored the rights of people to carry loaded weapons in national parks.
lol! Now I knew about the Consumer Credit Card Act and I own both guns and credit cards but I fail to see how one has to do with the other. I was just floored. I'd never heard that before. But I thought I would show this as an example of how things get pushed through the system without the American people knowing about it. Hide it in with something really popular and run it through.
I have noticed throughout this thread that others are using other countries as examples to prove a point. But be careful. Most of the counties that have been mentioned are social democracies, or democracies using the parliamentary system.
America is truly unique, in that it is a Republic that was born out of the ashes of a revolution against tyranny. True Republics are rare in the history of the world. Because they contain strong executive branches, they lend themselves to evolving into dictatorships.
The founding fathers knew this. They assumed that at some point the people would have to turn against a federalist government if it became too powerful and tyrannical. Hence, why gun ownership is at the core of this country’s founding.
Guns, muskets and cannons gave us our freedom and they protect our freedom against enemies foreign and domestic.
Ahhhhhhhh, but the "republic" of China was of the "ruling class" and not that of the people.
Austria, I can not really speak to as I have not looked at it in all reality!!!
"Mike, what is that about attacking the "Socialists" all the time. Is there anything more socialistic then the Section 8 program? And don't you enjoy that program? You cannot have it both ways.
(Oh no,I just hijacked the thread again.... "
That's right, There is nothing much more socialistic than this and I hold to my principles and will not accept it for rent payment.
"That is why many libertarians believe that the federal government lost its original and only role. To defend the union from foreign attack, everything else should have left to the state."
I believe this too.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouQlWZDkPME
Sorry, Karen, but Rome was a dictatorship of the ruling military class.
It was a conglomerate of defeated states that Rome occupied and controlled until their military was defeated in that area.
It was setup as an occupied area in which a general usually was put in as supreme commander for that area, with the exception of answering to the Ceasar. If there were uprisings in his area he was expected to squash them without the assistance of the Ceasar's army.
It was a dictator under a dictator, who would fall everytime the military did no longer support him.
The Roman Republic was governed by a complex constitution, which centered on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the aristocracy, or the patricians, and other talented Romans who were not from famous families, the plebians. Early in its history, the republic was controlled by an aristocracy of individuals who could trace their ancestry back to the early history of the kingdom. Over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a new aristocracy which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance. Thus, only a revolution could overthrow this new aristocracy.
The precise event which signaled the end of the Roman Republic and the transition into the Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation. Towards the end of the period a selection of Roman leaders came to so dominate the political arena that they exceeded the limitations of the Republic as a matter of course. Historians have variously proposed the appointment of Julius Caesar as perpetual dictator in 44 BC, the defeat of Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian under the first settlement in 27 BC, as candidates for the defining pivotal event ending the Republic.
Can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic
Still does not change the fact that in all cases it was a military dictatorship. Only the "roman citizens" could actually voice their wants in the roman affairs. And most of them were military based citizens. And when any figure got to be soo influential that they tried to rule the military without the military's input and approval there were assanations which was the end of most of the Ceasars.
A dectatorship or military dictatorship or republic of dictataorships is still a dictatorship.
The principles of a republic may indeed have come from the Romans as they usually left the dominated area under the control of the defeated governments as long as those governments did not do certain things. These were only allowed by roman citizens (military) and not the plebians (controlled public).
Then again those assemblies could only be attended by those "people" considered by the authorities as Roman or influential plebians not all the people as a republic is. Thus it may have its "beginnings" there but there were too many "clases" of people not considered people to be a republic, but a dictatorship of the ruling military class.
Except in the case of a military dictatorship, where the military installs their man who in is fact a dictator and is removed by death. Which is why all the ceasars had to "watch their backs" like ET U BRUTUS?