Fascism and gun laws

I frequently see posts warning that America has become a fascist state, or is dangerously drifting that way. Beyond the obvious rebuttal to that which encompasses our freedom of speech, movement, and assembly, I think the most important point might be related to gun ownership.

As an adult in Florida with a clean record, there is very little in the way of weaponry that I can't legally own. Assault weapons, handguns, hunting rifles, even machine guns if I apply for a (relatively) easy to get collector/dealer license. I can legally conceal a gun with a permit.

And yet, I'm a registered Democrat. Moreso, I have a Muslim friend of Middle Eastern descent who buys guns as a hobby, and is better armed than our police force - yet no government entity seems to care about either him or me.

If the Republicans were going to (or even able to) institute a fascist state, isn't one of the first things they'd do be the restricting of my right to own guns? The Nazis sure banned the hell out of Jews owning guns, and sharply restricted everyone else.

The day they start talking about taking away my guns, or making them very hard to own, I'll feel a bit more worried that totalitarianism is around the corner. The greatest enemy of a fascist state is an armed and alert citizenry, and any fascist worth their salt knows it.

A little food for thought, anyway.

:popcorn:

In before the move!

It seemed kind of "general discussion" to me.

They serve a fair purpose, I guess.

Sometimes they get shuffled off to the Gungeon, sometimes they float around their original forum. Depends on the topic and the mods, I guess. Often if it's related to a current ancillary topic, like, say, the recent shootings in Ohio or Wisconson, it will stay. But if you say "Hey, I have a great new idea for a gun law..." <shoop> off to the Gungeon.

The popcorn is for the topic, not the location.

While they take away the rest of your rights, and most of them actually are gone, they want you to think you're a-ok as long as you've got your gun.

Just like they want the Christians to think they're holy as long as they care about unborn children, who require no economic sacrifice.

And want the poor to think they will have the "American Dream" when only 2% ever become economically comfortable and even less become rich.

And want the patriots to think America is all about freedom and democracy, when 90% of the time our government is exploiting what they say we're fighting to "liberate".

Smoke and mirrors. That's our country, thanks to the Republican Party.

...to their "plans," though. It means that should the need ever arise, a well armed militia could stand up against tyranny as it did before.

I would think they'd be at least hinting at something, or supporting liberal measures aimed at restricting gun ownership. Instead, they fight them at every turn. It seems needlessly self-defeating.

The way I see it is this - Republicans are incompetently running the executive branch and making a mess of virtually all things domestic and international. America has a rotten President and lots of crappy agendas being promoted, but totalitarianism just isn't one of them.

If it were true, we'd have hauled their asses out of the White House by now. The guns are a phony panacea. As long as they can hypnotize the country with the pretty ads on the teevee, they don't have to worry about anybody ever getting worked up enough to pick up a gun to stop them.

Legal gun owners, protecting their homes and families from looters, had their 2nd Amendment right stripped away when they needed it most.

A dose of reality for thought.

The only way I could agree with disarming is if they were under government care at a shelter. That would be just plain common sense, and I have no doubt our colonial predecessors would have done the same rather than having a bunch of armed and very stressed-out people stuck together in cramped and abysmal conditions.

Did they disarm them in their own homes or as they were bringing them to a shelter?

This happened in my neighborhood and I personally know people who experienced this. It did not matter the person's race, class, or political affiliation. They disarmed all Americans. Period.

I don't know if anyone who went to shelters were armed. I do know, however, citizens were held at gunpoint in shelters for weeks.

But it's more the legislation that troubles me. They're not going to be able to disarm all Americans on a mass scale without it, and it could only be done while our defenses are down - like now. Instead, they promote the very opposite.

If Americans start to smell even the slightest bit of fascism, a gradual erosion of our gun rights could be legislatively impossible.

Blackwater "security contractors" were there, too.

house by house? I thought I remember seeing a piece where some wealthy people were pissed because they were armed and trying to keep looters away from their houses but either the National guard or Blackwater, went house to house confiscating weapons. I'm pretty sure it was Blackwater, so when they eventually call for martial law because of an economic collapse or a false flag event or just another real one that they allow to happen, they will be taking those weapons. Good luck with your optimistic view of the government, I will keep my realistic view. How many people think that only one party is involved in the machines plan and the democratic party is full of angels fighting the good fight for the people? I would bet most Americans believe that and that is why the system can do anything it wants in front of us and we sit back and wait for our saviors.

This is why its so frightening to me that so many people right off someone like Dennis Kucinich, when he is one of the only candidates speaking out on behalf of the people about the corruption, the corporate takeover and the attack on the constitution. We the people have completely ignored what is being done to us and we completely ignore the ones that make an attempt to speak out for us. Ask yourselves, why haven't any other candidates been speaking out about the patriot act or the all out attack on our constitution? Wouldn't the attack on our constitution be the most important issue that we face? It doesn't look that way by the way we vote.

Its a horrible feeling when you can see what is happening but the majority of the country cant and the majority will choose your future.

Someday, that might play right in to the fascists hands (if your fascism theory is true). Blackwater won't be able to take the guns away from people who know they're a threat - there's a lot more of us than there are of them. Heaps more.

highway because it takes effort and will take time out of their day. I don't believe their are enough people that will actually step up to the plate and take a chance. I think most will say ok, do whatever you want as long as my daily routine isn't hurt too much and I can continue on. Its sad but that is my outlook of most Americans nowadays. I hope that your scenario is the right one but I would rather elect someone that will try and change the direction of the country even if he wants gun control. I doubt the size of the NRA will allow complete gun control and to continue electing the folks that think attacking the constitution is the right direction, is just a guaranteed failure. Some say pessimist, I say realist. Please let your scenario be true!

Couldn't agree more.

I hope your OP doesn't get sidetracked too much.

A few weeks ago I stumbled across one of the "America is a police state" threads while cleaning a little .22 rifle that I bought at a gun show, and smiled a bit.

Guns are good. Seeds and the skills to turn them to food is even better.

A well armed population with no food is not much of a threat.

Think about THAT a bit.

There are enough Democrats running around to a) do the job for the fascist Republicans, and b) in doing so get more votes for the fascist Republicans.

Perfect, isn't it?

I believe the anti-gun Democrats have good, if misguided, intentions. But if the Repubs were really trying to create a fascist totalitarian state, I don't believe they'd be fighting gun control measures and fostering a gun culture.

To me, one of the most terrible smears you can make against a person or people is to call them Nazis. I think this fascist routine is just an attempt to intellectually justify an ugly tactic, much in the way idiot Republicans will come up with all kinds of disingenuous reasons to justify calling Democrats unpatriotic.

I really wish our national political discourse weren't so hyperbolic and brutal, but I suppose it's always been that way.

Or rather, they're not in on the plan. But they're being used regardless.

First off, most of the gun-control ideas that the anti-gun people come up with are in and of themselves foolish and useless. It's not like there's a good idea buried in a pile of shit. The controlled-access highway, for example, was a Nazi German idea, the Autobahn. Eisenhower brought this idea to America as the Interstate Highway System. A good idea, buried in the fecal matter of Hitler's idealology.

Second, by making themselves seem unpalatable and crude, the pro-gun people drive away liberals, hardening their anti-gun stance because of the perceived cultural/social/regional conflict. "I don't want to be associated with THEM!!!" mentality.

Thirdly, the areas where liberals have managed to pass the most restrictive gun-control laws include many of the urban areas associated with people the right doesn't like anyway, like liberals, blacks, Jews, and immigrants. So the liberals, where successful in restricting guns, are disarming the people the conservatives don't want owning guns anyway.



I'm not calling them Nazis. I'm calling them fascists. You can use the term corporatists instead, if you want. Or crony capitalism.

Guliani and Romney definitely, and McCain spent some time as a spokespolitician for a gun-control lobbying group.

Country-club repubs aren't particularly comfortable with the "little people" owning guns, is the impression I get. The party as a whole was leaning anti (the original AWB was the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, under Bush the Elder, and is now codified into 18 USC 922 et seq), until Gingrich realized what a disaster the 1994 Feinstein ban was going to be, let it pass in conference committee, and then rode the backlash into the Speaker's chair.

You may find the following interesting: The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

FWIW, Sarah Brady is a Reagan repub and proud of it, and the Brady Campaign itself is headed by a repub.

I personally don't see the gun issue as a left/right thing so much as an elitist/populist thing, or an authoritarian/civil-libertarian thing.

owner just a few weeks ago. He also takes your position -- "nothing really bad can happen because I still have my guns" -- and I quickly disabused him of that notion.

Folks, these fascists in the White House have, and will gleefully use, the following against you:

tanks
bunker busters
machine guns
heat rays
"noise" guns
gas
poison
bacteria/viruses
stun bombs and guns
...and God knows what else in their arsenal, and you think you are going to stop them with your pistol, for which you MIGHT have 500 rounds?

Yeah, I could protect my house from looters for a couple of weeks, but the full weight of the govt? Uh-uh. Not even if we gathered into groups could we have much impression, and you could bet money that few of those big-talking loudmouth gun owners would back up their talk with courage of any kind. Remember, they are all for saving themselves, and the hell with anyone else, so they'll protect their little square of land from "looters" -- but they aren't going to give a damn about the govt. doing anything to you or your property. You will have "deserved it" because you're a liberal, or a homo, or a whatever.

Now, having said that, I do believe there is a way to bring lots of shit to a screeching halt--as someone above said, get off the grid and grow your own food, etc. But that won't happen, either, until people are forced by economic circumstances to do it. And it is unfortunate to note that even when people lived back in the Depression (when 80% of people actually lived on farms, knew how to grow, cook, and can/preserve food) they still went hungry often. How do you think today's 25-yr-old would do? Most of them can't even cook an egg, or bake a quick bread from scratch. A 25-yr-old I know personally didn't even know bread is made from wheat, and wheat is a grain. And think about the times you have brought produce to a cashier who is new -- remember the kids who didn't know what a peach or a cuke was? A serious proportion of young people (and older folks, too) won't eat anything that is not processed or easy to prepare -- they eat pizza, hotpockets, toaster strudel, soda, boxed chicken wings, etc.
Oh, and that's another thing someone mentioned -- all the govt would have to do is cut off the food supply of the above processed items, and millions would starve to death because they had nothing to nuke in their microwaves. It would all be couched in the terms of "oh, dear, we have such food insecurity because of (insert name of villain here), that we will have to ration food, and gee, we can't get into (insert name of rebellious town here) so we won't be delivering any food to that area until it quiets down and our trucks can get through!"

The very same propagandistic and psychological tactics that are working so well on this dumbass populace will keep right on working, believe you me. There is no reason for them not to work, especially since no one reads or thinks critically anymore, and since the TV is such a ubiquitous item in every household.

The internet? Sure, DUers can get together, all 100,000 of us, big deal. Most people are on the internet for 1) porn 2) shopping 3) email to friends and family. The only thing I see making any difference, frankly, is the postings of Youtube videos of police brutality, etc. Those seem to dent the consciences somewhat of people who otherwise would never hear about it.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, folks, but that's how I see it.

...at their own friends and families in the name of a President who polls under 30%? I think believing that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

And even if that outlandish scenario became true, this junta would face a guerilla conflict the likes of which had never been seen - that's the power of having an armed citizenry.

If your friend was convinced by what you've said in that post, he went down way too easy.

Ever talked with an ex-Army Ranger? I was also in the service, the USAF, but before the Rise of Bush-Limbaughism, so my observations are not relevant to today's mentality.

Well, I just got finished working with one for more than a year. Good guy and a True Patriot, but misled, as so many are.

Anyway, he and I always chatted, and becuase he's a Misled Loyal American and not a Loyal Bushie, he always gave me a fair hearing.

In any case, I once asked him as part of the normal flow of conversation (we may well have been discussing this very topic), "I'll bet lots of your friends are like 'Kill all the Liberals,' aren't they?"

And I hate to say this because he was/is a good man, but to my surprise, his own eyes lit up quite a bit, and his animated answer was, "Hell yeah!"

This is one man among millions of Dittoheads and Hannibots or Misled, who would torture your ass to death if only someone in authority would give them PERMISSION (read my sigline link for a more scientific understand of this truth) to do so.

And if YOU can look around at the fat-assed mentally-weak, morally-compromised sad condition (with some exceptions, possibly as many as 10-20%, but even that, I think, is quite high) of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika around you, and how many who actually have the martial skills necessary are Dittoheads and Hannibots who will side with Tyranny, it doesn't look good for us Loyal Americans when the Loyal Bushies decide to have a Final Solution to the Liberal Problem, which will probably be different from the Nazis' Final Solution to the Liberal Problem.

To do otherwise would just be bad marketing practice.

Getting the military to actually fire on Americans would quickly dissolve that organization in to an unleadable pile of chaos. Bush can't even get ex-generals to stop nailing him on his incompetence, and you're going to tell me he'll find ways to make them attack cities in America for some great big liberal purge? Are you out of your mind?

I think you're just willingly suspendng reality to cling to an unrational fear.

Did you witness the context and content of the previous and following conversation?

Which, naturally makes you qualified to judge his seriousness when he made that comment.

And did you read my previous post on the New Totalitarianism? I would guess not, or you wouldn't have made the erroneous assumption that I believed that ordering Loyal Bushies to attack American Cities was likely or even necessary. My point was that the mentality is similar, though the circumstances very different.

Though yours is a fine straw man and adds drama to your final comment, so I see why you would say it.

My point is that many in the military will obey orders without questioning them, no matter how unlawful. Jesus Christ, Abu Ghrahib and Pat Tillman ring a bell?

Besides, it's not the neighbors or their families they're shooting at. It's those terroists and liberals and homos and Al Sharpton. Maybe there will be a higher resistance among African-American soldiers, as they have often been used by self-serving whites to kill each other and may be more sensitive to this by virtue of their oppressed status in general.

Has it not been this way since the first king and priest orderered the first soldier to kill his neighbor and feel good about it?

I think you are willing to close your eyes to an awful lot of reality in order to cling to your denial, which undoubtedly is personally and psychologically more healthy than being depressed about thing you can't change, so keep up the good work.

Let's agree to disagree, though you might want to go back to my other posts if you want to understand what I am trying to say instead of trying to reduce it to a nonsensical and childish Straw Man.

Oh, and do read the links to Jaspers, Mayer, Klemperer, and Altemeyer, if you wish to further understand that selling totalitarianism to free people (or those hwo think they are free) is much more compelx an endeavor and more subtle (at least in the nere and now) than you ever imagined.

Read...and then get back to me.

You have no idea what my own experience or education entails. Assuming that because you've read a few alarmist books and spoken with a lone Army Ranger over some beers makes you some kind of wise and savvy prophet on this bizarre subject is arrogant beyond words.

Educate yourself in the realm of common sense, and then get back to me.

Klemperer, a detailed 12 year diary of day-to-day life detailing the personal observation of a man in the midst of the rise of Nazi Germany, is an "alarmist book"?

:rofl:

See, time was you used to have to READ something before you can criticize it. Oh wait, those rules haven't been in effect for quite some time to those who lack the ability to think critically (not that I am referring to anyone in particular), so proceed.

Actually it is quite a bit more than a single Army Ranger over a few beers, but again what lovely Straw men you build. So purty. And so intelligently built.

:rofl: (sorry, nervous tic)

How like a Bushie you argue. Not one of my detailed points addressed, just short declarative one-liners of insult.

I ha no idea you were a member of the Sneer and Smear Brigade, My apologies for speking to you as if you had something interesting or orignal to say.

'Bye now. :hi: You're going on ignore, you deeply brilliant and inquisitive person.

You know what's the best part of putting someone like you on ignore. KNOWING that you cannot HELP replying to me here, and the satisfaction I recieve in knowing I will never see it and that you watsed time on it.

By all means, proceed. I'm off to put you on ignore with the few others I have found here who are genuinely bankrupt in the area of holding up an end of a converstaion. Once determined, there is simply no further need for discussion, just like a Dittohead or Hannibot.

:hi: bye-bye, Bright Boy.

(oh yes, I am not averse to throwing insults in return to morons who start it, if you haven't noticed)

Live overseas for a while. Study other cultures. Put yourself outside of America so that you can really get a feel for what makes this country tick.

Actually, learning what fascism is would really be the best start for you.

that like the Germans before us, awareness of this will not reach 30% of the people until 29% of them have personally felt the lash and sting of The New Totalitarianism.

One in which the insurgents outnumber the military by hundreds to one.

And, unlike in Iraq, all the insurgents would speak the same language, have the same skin color, and believe in the same God.

And, unlike in Iraq, there is no shortage of powerful sniping weapons and people who know how to use them. Hell, we have millions of ex-military personnel in this country!

Plus, I believe that a goodly portion of the military would desert or rebel rather than blindly follow orders to kill and imprison their own countrymen.

The National Guards of many states may well refuse to be federalized, turning governors into commanders-in-chief.


It would be a big giant mess. A big giant terrifying mess.

In other words, is it not true that totalitarianism comes in many forms, left and right?

Is it not true that each new version of totalitarianism, from it's humble beginnings as feudal monarchy all the way through to Communism, Fascism and yes, BushPutinism, reinvents itself and tailors itself to the nation and time period which it is operating in?

BushPutinism is my name for it. It doesn't have a name yet because it camouflages itself so well and in fact, desires that people do not believe it exists in order for it to succeed. If you haven't noticed, it has succeeded more wildly at camouflaging it's intentions that Caesar or Hitler ever did when taking over THEIR Republics.

And that such repeated reinvention is necessary because each version of totalitarianism is discredited by it's own authoritarian excesses to future generations and thus re-branding becomes a MARKETING IMPERATIVE.

Understanding the psychological sciences of advertising and marketing, as well as Ed Bernays and the origins and purpose of propaganda, is very helpful in understanding why The New Totalitarianism likely won't move toward gun confiscation, and will likely come under the radar as another Bushie Lie like all felons must turn in their hidden guns but records show "incorrectly" that everyone but Loyal Bushies are "felons".

But really, no one can predict the exact details of how the New Totalitarianism will do what it will do. Trends are easy, predicting details almost impossible.

But I digress (and I am very VERY pro-gun, so we have no beef there in our general gun philosophy, I imagine), and the main point is that, just as the American Version of Totalitarianism didn't and doesn't require beetle-browed KGB men standing behind every journalists with a drawn pistol to make the modern American Media more resemble Old Soviet Pravda With Obsessive Celebrity News Component than the media of a Free Nation (hint: watching the BBC may jog your memory to recall what this used to look like)....

Just as that isn't needed, neither is the direct physical confrontation of trying to confiscate the guns of Loyal Americans.

Why bother until such is necessary, just continue restricting the laws of the Empire so that when the "trigger event" like another 9/11 (God Forbid) or worse (God Forbid doubly so) happens, they don't NEED to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Why, just go to Condition Red, and order everyone inside their houses? Then do house-to-house and confiscate the guns then? It is already "lawful" (in that Nazis or Bushies are really ever bound by any laws but their moral bankruptcy) for law enforcement to shoot people on the streets in a Condition Red Lockdown, if one were to ever actually happen even if it was tomorrow. That's what Condition Red is...or Threat Level Red or whatever it's called, and that is at this very minute.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Anyway, I am bogging down in trying to predict the EXACT details of the future based on observable trends, and that is nigh impossible. My real point is that, what if the formation of American Totalitarianism was not as threatened by the existence of an armed populace due to the relative docility of that populace, as well as the increased leaps of magnitude that surveillance, tracking, and computing technology that make control of the populace so much easier and all-pervasive?

Anyway, I hope I have explained some of why so many think this, and why we believe that by the time they come to confiscate our guns, it will be far too late for us to do anything about it.

Here are some more links on the dangerousness of NOT "resisting the beginnings" and "foreseeing the ends", as told by people who would know better than anyone.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/jaspers02.htm
http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html
http://www.amazon.com/Will-Bear-Witness-1933-1941-Paperbacks/dp/0375753788

Oh, and the link in my sig-line, which represents the compilation of two decades of scientific research, is worth reading, also.

:thumbsup: and I a SO stealing it! ;)

of possible ones -- my main point was that gun-owning Americans are DELUDING themselves into not resisting these "first steps" BECAUSE they own guns. That, to me, is quite dangerous. Their guns will be fairly useless when push comes to shove, if only because the powers that be only have to ban sale of ammo to render most gun owners totally unarmed within a few weeks.

To the person who said that Americans wouldn't turn on other Americans -- obviously, I don't agree with you. The only people who WOULD stand up and holler (and we've been doing it already) are the hated "libruls." And you know how the pundits, talking heads, and politicians have been treating us. Any ideals we hold are automatically suspect already, and you think the populace is going to rise up and join us? Can I have some of what you are smoking? At best, the public is apathetic and thoughtless; at worst, it is vindictive and ugly.

As a person who works with a lot of police and federal agents of all stripes, I can say that at least a third would be happy to blow shit up, especially if you send them to the other end of the country where they don't have "roots." I also regrettably have to listen to the "throw them ALL in jail" comments from the idiot civilians where I work (a red state) whenever the subjects of protesting, civil disobedience, LTTEs against Bush, etc., come up. These are not people steeped in the true history of our republic, nor are they sympathetic to anyone who disses their "leader." Edward Bernays has a lot to teach everyone about how this sort of worship is instilled in a populace, and he should be required reading for everyone. I also investigated joining the DAR here, but believe it or not, they are filled with religious women who think that Bush is the second coming. These people would have been TORIES back in the day, and they don't even realize it!

Also, we should not forget that anthrax was loosed upon Democrats and a newspaper that trashed Bush -- and that anthrax came from Fort Detrick, MD. It was a small and pathetic release, but look how it scared the hell out of everyone. Millions of people wouldn't even open their mail. And you think a populace as easily frightened as this is going to face a tank with a Glock? Pardon me if I have grave reservations.

But, like Tom Paine above, I don't think the neocons want a shooting war among Americans -- it damages property and keeps the slaves from going to work every day to make money for their owners. I am most certainly not one of those head-for-the-hills survivalists. I couched my reply to my friend in immediate, visible points that he could agree with. Obviously, I could have gone on and on about Bernays, etc., but guess what? No one wants to hear this stuff. No one reads or discusses or thinks much anymore -- it's too much like work, and why do that when you can just vege in front of the TV?

"The greatest enemy of a fascist state is an armed and alert citizenry..."

Unlimited numbers of guns in the hands of the German populace would not have stopped the Nazi machine.

If you'd ever lived in a country that does not have a pervasive gun culture you'd know how silly these gun culture rationalizations sound.

It frankly made me appreciate the freedoms we had in America. Hell, I couldn't even own a TV there without buying a government license, let alone a handgun.

Living without the protection of your guns? Maybe you didn't live there long???

I wasn't really that paranoid because it wasn't my country, and I knew I'd be leaving eventually. What did surprise me was the tremendous amount of violence in the city, including a mob-related shooting of a popular local journalist and a football riot that saw a swarm of armored police come in to the stadium with billyclubs and crack peoples heads open.

The police walking aorund weren't generally armed, but a quick radio call would bring hordes of officers armed like the Blackwater guys in New Orleans. If I were a citizen there, that would have really creeped me out.

that in the UK and other Europaean countries, a TV 'license' is *not* like a gun license or e.g. a driving license. It doesn't mean that you need to be checked out by the government or anyone else as suitable to own a TV!!! It is just proof of the payment that you have to make every year, towards the cost of maintaining the BBC. Perhaps 'TV tax' or 'TV program rental' or 'TV fee' would be a better term than 'license'.

Do Americans not have to pay any sort of annual fee towards broadcasting costs? Or don't you have so much public broadcasting? Or is it included in your general income tax?

It's like you can't do even a simple thing like buy a TV for your house without the government getting involved. That's oppressive, IMO, and they'd be much better off adding the tax to something more general.

want to be seen as "doing good" and a small part from federal income taxes. IIRC, the pubs tried to cut out any taxes going to public TV, but they couldn't get it passed for some reason. Prob because some fairly well=off people like to watch something that's not total drek.

shut their traps almost totally about fascists taking over the country-- why? Because the DEMONCRATS are out of office! Because there is a Republican in charge of the White House! In their eyes, and in the eyes of most of their followers, they have nothing to fear from any Republican -- they're on our side, dontcha know? It's all those LIBRULS and CLINTOONS who are are going to outlaw their guns. They are so totally focused on their guns that they can't see their freedoms, the ones the guns are supposedly there to protect, being stolen right out from under them by the very Pubs who bloviate continuously about freedom! And I'm supposed to trust these freaks to protect my freedoms? I don't think so. They wouldn't recognize freedom if it bit 'em on the ass.

The premise of a modern fascist state, one that may arise here, is to let the populace have its flag, its cross, and its puny little guns. In return, you will shut up, go to work and go shopping, and put up with all the indignities, slights, loss of freedoms, etc., or we won't protect you from the terrorists. It's worked so far.

Now we are getting reports that AT&T was setting up their NSA spy program BEFORE 9/11 which would have been as soon as Bushco usurped power. Not to mention the many "freedom" issues since 9/11. I have to wonder how the wingnuts reconcile all this with their DEMONCRAT fantasy world. :shrug: