Whats Up With America?!?

[b.k. barunt]

There are people who try to take them away. As long as someone is trying to get the government to do that, it is possible that the government will do it.

Yes and there are people who want to make pedophilia legal too, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Well up to 1973 if you would've told me that they'd be legalizing gay marriage i would've said the same thing. Don't forget that NAMBLA marches with a bigass banner in the NYC Gay Parade. You never can tell what's gonna happen in this whacked out country.


Honibaz

It doesn't.

It did the last time i happened to see the parade on TV, which was right before Katrina. Maybe the gays realized that wasn't a real bright idea to let folks know they approved of such and rescinded the invitation, but at least up until 2004 they marched with the rest of the, um, "alternative lifestyle" folks. One big happy family.

Also, gay marriage being illegal is not in the fucking constitution.

Paedophilia's not mentioned in the Constitution either - whatthefuck does that have to do with anything?


Honibaz

[Woodruff]

I'm more fearful of a government take over from INSIDE our boarders. A defenseless people will not be able to stop the next Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, etc. who rises to power.

Oh f*ck off Jay.

When Hitler invaded Poland, The English masses did not have guns freely available to them.

Britain declared war, British men signed up to go to war, the Government gave them some green clothes, some guns, knives and grenades. they went to army training learnt how to shoot and were dispatched to fight the Germans.

A fat lot of good it was having all those Americans with guns in 1939. You lot did f*ck all until 1941.

So please drop this NRA bullshit about not being able to stop Stalin unless you're armed. That's what your armed forces are for ffs.

Lets see if you can keep up. England and Hitler has nothing to do with it. Now, had the Germans had the weapons, gonads and resistance to the Nazi rhetoric they might have rose up and stopped Hitler before he could get started. But you take away the people's ability to defend themselves and the government can do whatever it wishes.

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

[jay_a2j]

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

[Snorri1234]

There are people who try to take them away. As long as someone is trying to get the government to do that, it is possible that the government will do it.

Yes and there are people who want to make pedophilia legal too, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Well up to 1973 if you would've told me that they'd be legalizing gay marriage i would've said the same thing. Don't forget that NAMBLA marches with a bigass banner in the NYC Gay Parade. You never can tell what's gonna happen in this whacked out country.


Honibaz

It doesn't.

It did the last time i happened to see the parade on TV, which was right before Katrina. Maybe the gays realized that wasn't a real bright idea to let folks know they approved of such and rescinded the invitation, but at least up until 2004 they marched with the rest of the, um, "alternative lifestyle" folks. One big happy family.

NAMBLA has pretty much been blocked from participating in any gay event or parade since the midnineties. For all intents and purposes the group doesn't exist anymore, even as early as 1986 the group was blocked from gay pride parades.

Also, gay marriage being illegal is not in the fucking constitution.

Paedophilia's not mentioned in the Constitution either - whatthefuck does that have to do with anything?


Honibaz

Well...the right to own a gun is in the constitution, like freedom of speech. If you think there's a real possibility of the US deleting it out of the bill of rights then I am going to laugh at you.

[Woodruff]

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

[jay_a2j]

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up an opposed a government.


TICK

TOCK


Grabs a Snickers.



Times up.



It would never happen.


Come back and Play Again!

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

[monster10]

first off it is fun to shoot urself


second it is fun to shoot ur house,car,tree,food,etc.

[Woodruff]

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up an opposed a government.

Just because something has never happened in the past in no way changes the fact that it could be done now. You're trying to change the argument, but I'm not goign to allow it. If the people simply refuse to follow the government, then the government has no power. This is factual and really inarguable.

But go ahead and argue it if you'd like, because you really do make things entirely too easy.

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

I don't believe ANYONE is saying anything like that, Juan. Where did anyone say that the government can't "go bad"? You guys are arguing against things that aren't being said.

[Phatscotty]

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up an opposed a government.

Just because something has never happened in the past in no way changes the fact that it could be done now. You're trying to change the argument, but I'm not goign to allow it. If the people simply refuse to follow the government, then the government has no power. This is factual and really inarguable.

But go ahead and argue it if you'd like, because you really do make things entirely too easy.

well, if something has never happened in the past, how could you possibly hold it against a people who have done it.....the only way it has ever been done???????

[Woodruff]

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up an opposed a government.

Just because something has never happened in the past in no way changes the fact that it could be done now. You're trying to change the argument, but I'm not goign to allow it. If the people simply refuse to follow the government, then the government has no power. This is factual and really inarguable.

But go ahead and argue it if you'd like, because you really do make things entirely too easy.

well, if something has never happened in the past, how could you possibly hold it against a people who have done it.....the only way it has ever been done???????

I don't actually know what you're trying to say here - try again, please.

[jay_a2j]

This really isn't true at all. If the people simply refuse to follow the government (which may mean some are executed, yes), then the government has no power. Granted, that sort of effect takes the vast majority of the people to act together, but if the "threat" is bad enough, then they would.

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up an opposed a government.

Just because something has never happened in the past in no way changes the fact that it could be done now. You're trying to change the argument, but I'm not goign to allow it. If the people simply refuse to follow the government, then the government has no power. This is factual and really inarguable.

But go ahead and argue it if you'd like, because you really do make things entirely too easy.

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

I don't believe ANYONE is saying anything like that, Juan. Where did anyone say that the government can't "go bad"? You guys are arguing against things that aren't being said.

No one is asking your permission to "allow" anything. The fact remains. There is a reason the right to bear arms was established. Our founding fathers lived through an oppressive mother country and in establishing the USA wanted to prevent that from happening again.

[Snorri1234]

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

I think you guys are missing the point. When the US government would do things that would be classified as tyranny it would almost always be with the support of the populace. That's what has happened in most cases throughout history.

You need the support of the people.

[Phatscotty]

Going to listen to THIS guy?......

Live, in my metro area, A woman was found stabbed to death in her house and it happened just minutes ago. The killer is on the run and the community is on lock down. A few questions I have for you.

1) If YOU lived in this community, would you prefer to have a gun handy right about now?

No i would not prefer to have a gun, its not neccesary, you can handle a stabber without a gun.

can EVERYONE handle a stabber without a gun? And I guess you do not think these things through, but do criminals usually target someone that looks like they can "handle" the said criminal...with a knife???? I'm pretty sure criminals prey on weaker people.

2) If the woman owned a gun, would her chances of survival be higher?

They might be but the likelyhood is if the woman had a gun the stabber would also have a gun, maybe even a shotgun or something because if she could get a gun so could the killer and he would obvously have the intent to kill her so her having a gun would be nul voided by the killer having a gun.

the STABBER had a KNIFE. That one should be self-explanatory. I do not know why you want to add your own made up stories.

3) If you are lucky enough to NOT have the killer coming down YOUR street, do you hope that the street the killer is on right now has a couple of gun owners?

No i dont the police have guns they can deal with it not some vigilante fuckers who will most probably accidently shoot a kid doing petty theft rather a killer

The police can not be everywhere all the time. The neighborhood is on lockdown, with a killer on the streets, and you think a law-abiding gun owner is walking outside during a lockdown? and into the streets that the police are patrolling? and then furthermore going to shoot a random kid, who is also on the streets with a lockdown in progress?? Wow, so a double murder, completely unrelated, at the exact same time? During a lockdown manhunt? Man, I have seen some stretching, but you can put that Fantastic 4 guy to shame.

4) IF the police DO spot the killer, how likely are the odds the killer will bust into another house and take a hostage?

They are minisclue how will a killer armed with a knife beat the police with handguns into a house to get a hostage the moment they saw him run they would put two into his knees.

So, the police catch the bad guy EVERY SINGLE TIME???? That is what you are arguing buddy! if the Killer is hiding on a balcony he is much closer to the door of a house than the cop on the street.
Is Flash Gordon the Cops in your example, and with a sniper rifle?(in the knees )

Have you ever heard a story about how the police don't show up for 35 minutes?????


You are way out of line. I am not going to sit and call you names, but perhaps you would admit you have a bit more thinking to do before you take a stand on a position? Obviously, you have not even considered a large majority of the information about America's Bill of Rights, and what those rights are.

Of course, you are viewing them as a foreigner, who does not live here.....maybe that's it? What is your media feeding you guys over there? If your government has banned guns, There is no doubt they are constantly re-inforcing in your little zombie minds how good a thing it is to be defenseless, powerless, and dependent on someone else to protect you.

So, has your country ever had an economic problem before? Pretty screwed if police get cut aren't ya? What if nobody want's to be a cop? What if bakers get paid more than cops? Is that the way it will always be?

Check yourself before you wreck yourself. You are pretty much done in this forum. Let the ignores begin!

Dismissed

Wouldja listen to this blabbering little twatlet? "Pretty much done in this forum"? "Let the ignores begin"? "Dismissed"??? Looks to me like some kind of god complex coupled with a terminal case of diarrhea of the mouth.


Honibaz

so, you do not see someone who is completely talking out of their ass and straight making shit up? you don't? It's pretty obvious. but to each his own

Here are his answers, in short, to my questions.
1. if he wishes he had a gun in my real-time example (you do know what an example is barunt?)
I can take a guy with a knife
2. If the woman had a better chance of survival with a gun against a knife
maybe
3. If he hopes there are law abiding gun owners in the neighborhood
no cuz the gun owner will shoot a random kid
4. What are the odds the killer will break into another house before he gets caught (you know, because he is out there and HAS NOT been caught)
The cop will for sure shoot him in the knees first

Barunt, now I ask ya, are you sure it was me that was blabbering? did you read the smart guys answers?

[Phatscotty]

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

I think you guys are missing the point. When the US government would do things that would be classified as tyranny it would almost always be with the support of the populace. That's what has happened in most cases throughout history.

You need the support of the people.

interesting if you add the minute possibility that the gov't might tell a little white lie from time to time......

sure missed you though

[Phatscotty]

The whole idea of fearing for your life and being scared of burglary in a "civilized" country is totally insane. if you believe the problem is there, why dont you try to fix the problem BEFORE it gets into your house or personal space.

it's a pretty sick society you live in if you are expecting crimminals to enter your home, attack, molest and or shoot you and THEREFORE you feel the need to arm yourself.

I'd say being scared of guns makes a helluva lot less sense than being prepared for what occasionally happens in this country. My house that burnt down was in a nice quiet middle class subdivision, the last three blocks where i lived comprised of at least 2500 sq ft homes. The mother of the family a block away from me was carjacked at the supermarket, driven back to her house and shot in the head.

I'm not "scared" of burglary and i don't fear for my life. I supervised 2 Americorps literacy teams in one of the worst neighborhoods in New Orleans and never carried a gun there except for the time when i promised a crackhead who i got into rehab that i'd check on his house each night - the house was on the corner of the main crack intersection and no whites would drive through that neighborhood at night.

In my home however, where i have the responsibility for the safety of my family, i'd be stupid and cowardly to not be prepared for the unlikely but certainly possible event of a break in. It's never happened yet and probably never will, but it doesn't hurt a damn thing to be prepared.

I don't know whatthefuck you mean about fixing the problem "BEFORE" it gets into my house, unless you're dimwitted enough to think that you or i can "fix" a legal system that concentrates more on pot smokers than violent crime.


Armed and Dangerous Honibaz

better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it?

[Snorri1234]

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

I think you guys are missing the point. When the US government would do things that would be classified as tyranny it would almost always be with the support of the populace. That's what has happened in most cases throughout history.

You need the support of the people.

interesting if you add the minute possibility that the gov't might tell a little white lie from time to time......

sure missed you though

What? Of course I'm allowing for that possibility. But it doesn't matter. I mean, shit, if I didn't allow for that possibility I would act like the Iraq war didn't happen.

What this means though is that ARMED REDNECKS OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT is not going to happen. If a tyranny happens then it happens with their support.

[Phatscotty]

I'm with you Jay. Saying that the United States Government will always permanently and forever fight for it's people against (successfully from both within and outside) tyranny goes exactly against everything history has ever taught us. What even recent history has taught us.

I think you guys are missing the point. When the US government would do things that would be classified as tyranny it would almost always be with the support of the populace. That's what has happened in most cases throughout history.

You need the support of the people.

interesting if you add the minute possibility that the gov't might tell a little white lie from time to time......

sure missed you though

What? Of course I'm allowing for that possibility. But it doesn't matter. I mean, shit, if I didn't allow for that possibility I would act like the Iraq war didn't happen.

What this means though is that ARMED REDNECKS OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT is not going to happen. If a tyranny happens then it happens with their support.

still only one possible form of tyranny? ok

[Genghis Khant]

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up and opposed a government.

France in 1789 and, because I'm feeling generous, Romania in 1989.

[Woodruff]

Like Tiananmen Square? Yeah, that turned out well for the people.

That must be a big fucking square if the vast majority of Chinese citizens were there in Tiananmen Square. But then, you know they weren't, right?

Geez, sometimes you just make things entirely too easy.

Give me ONE example where the "vast majority" stood up an opposed a government.

Just because something has never happened in the past in no way changes the fact that it could be done now. You're trying to change the argument, but I'm not goign to allow it. If the people simply refuse to follow the government, then the government has no power. This is factual and really inarguable.
But go ahead and argue it if you'd like, because you really do make things entirely too easy.

No one is asking your permission to "allow" anything.

So what you're saying here is that you have no intention of discussion the issue honestly. That's not really a surprise to anyone...but it is nice to see you admit it.

The fact remains.

Yes, as I said...the fact remains that without the people, the government holds no power.

There is a reason the right to bear arms was established. Our founding fathers lived through an oppressive mother country and in establishing the USA wanted to prevent that from happening again.

I understand that. Yet it is entirely irrelevant to the point we are discussing (IF you are going to try to honestly discuss it, that is).

[b.k. barunt]

NAMBLA has pretty much been blocked from participating in any gay event or parade since the midnineties. For all intents and purposes the group doesn't exist anymore, even as early as 1986 the group was blocked from gay pride parades.

Well...the right to own a gun is in the constitution, like freedom of speech. If you think there's a real possibility of the US deleting it out of the bill of rights then I am going to laugh at you.

Laugh all you want. If that helps to construct a comfortable alternate reality for you i'm sure you'll indulge yourself.

Unlawful search and seizure is forbidden in the Constitution. Under Reagan they set that aside - they can now seize your vehicle or home and auction such off before you ever go to trial if you are busted with drugs in either of them. Right to privacy, unlawful search - under Nixon they instituted urinalyses. You have to take a piss test now before you can get most jobs here. Due process of law - Bush gave us the "Patriot Act". I spent 2 days in jail in Palestine, Texas under that act and was not charged with a crime nor was i allowed to make a phone call.

Oh yeah i forgot one - the Constitution clearly stated from its inception that if any of the original 13 colonies saw fit to secede from the Union they had the right to do so - guess who set that one aside? See how stoopit your argument is? No? Well have yourself a good laugh. Also, regardless of your bogus info on NAMBLA not marching in any gay parades since the mid 90s, i saw them marching with a bigass NAMBLA banner in the New York City Gay Pride Parade in 2004. But hey, since i'm a "homophobe" i must've been seeing things, amirite?


Honibaz

[LikeYestrdaysJam]

NAMBLA has pretty much been blocked from participating in any gay event or parade since the midnineties. For all intents and purposes the group doesn't exist anymore, even as early as 1986 the group was blocked from gay pride parades.

Well...the right to own a gun is in the constitution, like freedom of speech. If you think there's a real possibility of the US deleting it out of the bill of rights then I am going to laugh at you.

Laugh all you want. If that helps to construct a comfortable alternate reality for you i'm sure you'll indulge yourself.

Unlawful search and seizure is forbidden in the Constitution. Under Reagan they set that aside - they can now seize your vehicle or home and auction such off before you ever go to trial if you are busted with drugs in either of them. Right to privacy, unlawful search - under Nixon they instituted urinalyses. You have to take a piss test now before you can get most jobs here. Due process of law - Bush gave us the "Patriot Act". I spent 2 days in jail in Palestine, Texas under that act and was not charged with a crime nor was i allowed to make a phone call.

Oh yeah i forgot one - the Constitution clearly stated from its inception that if any of the original 13 colonies saw fit to secede from the Union they had the right to do so - guess who set that one aside? See how stoopit your argument is? No? Well have yourself a good laugh. Also, regardless of your bogus info on NAMBLA not marching in any gay parades since the mid 90s, i saw them marching with a bigass NAMBLA banner in the New York City Gay Pride Parade in 2004. But hey, since i'm a "homophobe" i must've been seeing things, amirite?


Honibaz

Well said sir!

[jay_a2j]

I understand that. Yet it is entirely irrelevant to the point we are discussing (IF you are going to try to honestly discuss it, that is).

It's the point I'm discussing. (and if you didn't realize, I set the topics of discussion around here!)

[Snorri1234]

NAMBLA has pretty much been blocked from participating in any gay event or parade since the midnineties. For all intents and purposes the group doesn't exist anymore, even as early as 1986 the group was blocked from gay pride parades.

Well...the right to own a gun is in the constitution, like freedom of speech. If you think there's a real possibility of the US deleting it out of the bill of rights then I am going to laugh at you.

Laugh all you want. If that helps to construct a comfortable alternate reality for you i'm sure you'll indulge yourself.

Unlawful search and seizure is forbidden in the Constitution. Under Reagan they set that aside - they can now seize your vehicle or home and auction such off before you ever go to trial if you are busted with drugs in either of them. Right to privacy, unlawful search - under Nixon they instituted urinalyses. You have to take a piss test now before you can get most jobs here. Due process of law - Bush gave us the "Patriot Act". I spent 2 days in jail in Palestine, Texas under that act and was not charged with a crime nor was i allowed to make a phone call.

Oh yeah i forgot one - the Constitution clearly stated from its inception that if any of the original 13 colonies saw fit to secede from the Union they had the right to do so - guess who set that one aside? See how stoopit your argument is? No? Well have yourself a good laugh.

Temporary abuses of power are not really important, that shit started with Lincoln. But nothing got deleted or ignored longer than a term or two. Habeas corpus hasn't disappeared, freedom of speech hasn't disappeared. At times it has been ignored, but it has always been temporary.

Guns are just not going to be taken away.

Also, regardless of your bogus info on NAMBLA not marching in any gay parades since the mid 90s, i saw them marching with a bigass NAMBLA banner in the New York City Gay Pride Parade in 2004. But hey, since i'm a "homophobe" i must've been seeing things, amirite?

I didn't say they didn't march in any parades, I'm saying that they are almost always blocked and are not aproved of by anyone.

[b.k. barunt]

NAMBLA has pretty much been blocked from participating in any gay event or parade since the midnineties. For all intents and purposes the group doesn't exist anymore, even as early as 1986 the group was blocked from gay pride parades.

Well...the right to own a gun is in the constitution, like freedom of speech. If you think there's a real possibility of the US deleting it out of the bill of rights then I am going to laugh at you.

Laugh all you want. If that helps to construct a comfortable alternate reality for you i'm sure you'll indulge yourself.

Unlawful search and seizure is forbidden in the Constitution. Under Reagan they set that aside - they can now seize your vehicle or home and auction such off before you ever go to trial if you are busted with drugs in either of them. Right to privacy, unlawful search - under Nixon they instituted urinalyses. You have to take a piss test now before you can get most jobs here. Due process of law - Bush gave us the "Patriot Act". I spent 2 days in jail in Palestine, Texas under that act and was not charged with a crime nor was i allowed to make a phone call.

Oh yeah i forgot one - the Constitution clearly stated from its inception that if any of the original 13 colonies saw fit to secede from the Union they had the right to do so - guess who set that one aside? See how stoopit your argument is? No? Well have yourself a good laugh.

Temporary abuses of power are not really important, that shit started with Lincoln. But nothing got deleted or ignored longer than a term or two. Habeas corpus hasn't disappeared, freedom of speech hasn't disappeared. At times it has been ignored, but it has always been temporary.

Guns are just not going to be taken away.

Also, regardless of your bogus info on NAMBLA not marching in any gay parades since the mid 90s, i saw them marching with a bigass NAMBLA banner in the New York City Gay Pride Parade in 2004. But hey, since i'm a "homophobe" i must've been seeing things, amirite?

I didn't say they didn't march in any parades, I'm saying that they are almost always blocked and are not aproved of by anyone.

Wtf???? Why am i even responding to this? I guess i'm just a mean guy and so enjoy pointing out your stoopitness."Temporary abuses of power"??? Not one of the examples i brought up were temporary - all are still in place - are you a complete idiot?

Let's start with the denial of secession. Could you possibly explain howthefuck that was temporary? The southern states were conquered and forced to remain part of the Union. Howthefuck can you suggest that this was temporary?

The "temporary measures of the Reagan administration are still in place - they can still seize and auction off any property connected with drugs - before you are tried and proven guilty in a cout of law.

The "temporary measures" of the Nixon administration are still in place - only the postal workers stood up to that one and fought it to the Supreme Court. At this time everyone but postal workers may be arbitrarily forced to take a piss test and lose their jobs if they refuse to do so or if the results show that you're guilty of the heinous crime of smoking pot.

The "Patriot Act" is still in place. Obama has done nothing to rescind it. You can still be arrested and held without due process.

What's to stop them from suddenly demanding that all guns be turned in like they did with the gold under FDR?


Honibaz