It’s hard to debate with people who are convinced that the United States is becoming a tyranny.
Does anyone really believe that Obama will say, “I’ve decided to suspend elections and remain President-for-Life”? Do you really believe the military, who swear an oath to the Constitution and not the President, will go along with this? Do you think all the politicians who won’t even pass a simple jobs bill for Obama will roll over at this? Hell, can you imagine Hillary Clinton deciding she’ll go along with it?
It ain’t gonna happen. But some paranoid people who probably should be taking some sort of medication think that basically “If I don’t get my way, then clearly this country has become a tyranny.”
There are a lot of things our country does that I don’t like. And I think the President has become much too powerful (but that has been going on for generations). But the chance of anyone turning our country into a tyranny is next to zero. Calm down already.
This usually comes up with gun debates. Gun owners who feel that their rights are being trampled cannot understand that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them. Even the Supreme Court disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution. Only 13% of Americans in the latest Gallup poll think there are too many gun control laws. 49% say there aren’t enough, and the rest think it’s just fine or have no opinion.
As I stated previously, the way you get change in the US is by getting the population on your side and voting in change (through referendum like the ones legalizing marijuana and gay marriage), by electing politicians who agree with your views, or by bringing lawsuits to protect your rights and affect change.
Sometimes your viewpoint will lose. That’s how it works in a democracy.
The latest crap is about Obama’s Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, but have been around forever and the Supreme Court has said they are Constitutional. There’s one internet story going around about “Obama’s 932 Executive Orders” which is a complete pack of lies (whoever wrote that hopefully was wearing flame-resistant pants). Further, he’s issued less Executive Orders than many of the Presidents before him.
So just calm down. There are indeed issues concerning our personal rights and liberties that we should be worried about with the government. But we’re not going to become a tyranny.
EDIT: Obviously, this was written during the Obama presidency. I no longer hold to this belief.
ventrellaquest.com 
I applaud your effort, but I think the target audience will never accept facts. For a number of years I ran a department at a bank that handled not just collections of payments, but also loss mitigation, suits, foreclosure, bankruptcy, disposition of real estate owned, etc. Things that would have each been separate departments at many banks. So we were in a position where we often worked with the same customer at all stages of the process. That has advantages, we got to know each other. However, we also had a saying for many years “you can’t argue with crazy”. After the financial meltdown we added “you can’t teach stupid”. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity, especially the willful disregard of facts, can’t be.
LikeLike
According to your numbers, 51% of the population believes we need no new gun control, or we need less. Hmmm… Sounds like the majority are NOT for new gun laws. I thought you said I was in the minority?
LikeLike
You’re in the 13% who wants LESS, aren’t you? That’s certainly a minority.
LikeLike
Right…so confiscation of private property for economic enrichment of others isn’t an issue (Kelo decision) and a brick in the road to tyranny?
How about restrictions on our freedom to travel via the “No Fly list” or “Terrorist Watch List” — two lists no one knows how a person gets on and very few people can get off — those aren’t an issue and 2 more bricks in the road to tyranny?
A president declaring unilateral right to kill an American citizen with a drone?
A bill passed by Congress and signed by the president (National Defense Authorization Act) that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans/
The PATRIOT ACT that allowed the NSA to spy on citizens?
This isn’t a partisian issue — all presidents, all congresses (regardless who has been in control) has been slowly stripping Americans of their individual liberties for decades.
That’s how it works in a democracy. Funny that is always the claim of people who want to vote away rights but it misses one essential point. Our country is not a democracy — we are a Representational Republic. The rights of the minority are not up for vote and restriction by the majority.
Do I think our country is going to suddenly wake up one morning to find ourselves with a dictator? NO, it will a slow and gradual process but eventually we will vote away our freedoms and liberties, one step at a time. This process is evident. You even mention things you don’t like.
Further, he’s issued less Executive Orders than many of the Presidents before him.
Quantity matters and for that Obama has been better than most. Please note I disagreed with the directions and actions of many other president’s executive orders. But the direction does matter, not just quantity.
If Clinton issued 75% of his reducing the power and scope of the federal government I would have applauded…but few presidents have done that, have they?
If we aren’t moving toward a tyrannical government where are we going as a country? Surely you can’t believe with have more individual freedom and liberty than in the past.
LikeLike
You are defining “tyranny” so broadly as to cover any restriction of rights. I agree that the government has too much power in certain areas. But there is absolutely no way that is comparable to a “tyranny.”
LikeLike
No I’m not defining a tyranny so broadly as to cover any restrictions of rights. I’m describing a country that is repeatedly, consistently (regardless of political party) moving toward those restrictions and more and more tyrannical as it goes.
How do you define a tyranny?
Mirriam Webster says:
1
: oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government
2
a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3
: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
4
: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act
Are we not seeing more and more oppression by the government? Free speech zones for political protests? Restrictions even on being able to protest at all?
Our conversations monitored, our emails read?
Forced to buy insurance (yeah, I know not everyone agrees with that as oppression) but if individuals are free, shouldn’t they have a right to decide?
Governmental regulations becoming so complex that few people can comply with them much less fully understand them. Laws becoming so complex that the average person commits 3 Felonies a day?
Do you agree with the Kelo decision that allows confiscation of private property for the economic enrichment of others? We saw that in my home town not many years ago. Jerry Jones wanted to build a football stadium. The city condemned property, forced the owners to sell — often at prices that left them unable to afford another home.
As I said, few countries wake up over night to find their freedoms gone in an instant but we definitely have been sliding toward that path.
Again — if what we’ve been doing isn’t a move toward tyranny what is?
LikeLike
3boxesofbs is absolutely right. We are moving toward tyranny, and if you can’t see it, I don’t know what else to tell you to help you see the truth. Some people are just blind.
LikeLike
But I am also in the majority that wants no new gun regulations. However, it doesn’t even matter what the majority wants, because the second amendment protects the individual freedom called the right to bear arms.
LikeLike
Every time our rights have been taken away, it has come from elected representatives. People we elect, and can remove. Someone voted for those things, or appointed people who did them. Ultimately, they are answerable to us. We can contact them and get them to change their votes and we can vote them all out of office.
That is not the definition of a tyranny. Just because you don’t like what they did doesn’t make it a tyranny.
We have more rights and freedoms in the US than other comparable countries. Look at Canada, Japan, Australia, and most of Europe. They have socialized medicine. They have gun control. They have less freedom of speech. And they all elected politicians who did that. Are they all tyrannies?
Now, North Korea — that’s a tyranny.
LikeLike
I’ll ask again…what is the definition of a tyranny then?
It doesn’t matter if the people were voted in or not. Heck, Most dictators were elected at one point or another. I agree we can vote them out. It is difficult due to the gerrymandering (both parties) the two party system having a lock on early primaries and contests, etc.
It can be done and we need to do it before we have to resort to other means.
We have more rights and freedoms in the US than other comparable countries. Oh joy, our ‘leaders’ treat us better than other serfs. HURRAH..HURRAH, We have freedom because we don’t have to get a ‘travel permit’ YET.
PLEASE read what I am saying. I am NOT saying America is a tyranny. You keep arguing against that point — one I’m not making.
I AM saying we are moving more and more toward it. Things are seldom binary -Tyranny / Liberty — we are on a spectrum and sliding fast toward tyranny.
Look at Canada, Japan, Australia, and most of Europe. They have socialized medicine. They have gun control. They have less freedom of speech. And they all elected politicians who did that. Are they all tyrannies?.
Wait, you early stated because we had people voting on things we didn’t have a tyranny now you are complaining other countries voted away their freedoms are worse then us.
So maybe, just maybe we can vote away our freedom?
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
All of those countries you mention would be considered tyrannical by the people that wrote The Constitution, yes. The constitution is the best set of rules to live by on Earth. Everything else is second best.
Now, do I believe Australia is a tyranny today? No, but it’s close. If this is the direction of the world, then we are all headed for tyrannical rule – not necessarily by dictators, but by the will of a barely-majority set on oppressing the barely-minority. That is why individual freedoms are important to balance of power. Mob-rule is bad. The right to bare arms is the most important right enumerated in The Constitution. The second protects the first…
If they gain anymore power to restrict personal weapons, all is lost and we’ll quickly become like the rest… a lessor nation of weaker people. Sheep.
I’ll go to any extent to not let that happen.
LikeLike
Auto-correct/voice-rec errors…
‘any more’
‘lesser’
…sorry.
LikeLike
We’re just going to have to disagree on this one. If people democratically decide to reduce rights and the courts uphold it as not violating the Constitution, then yes, I say that is not tyranny. It’s democracy.
No need for me to keep repeating myself.
LikeLike
Didn’t the Courts at one time uphold Slavery as Constitutional?
Trying to remember my high school civics classes — wasn’t that the Dredd Scott decision?
LikeLike
Pingback: Treason is only patriotic when the right does it |