Wait, what about Yugoslavia ?

This thread is too damn Sophisticated for me. i don't like it when i feel stupid

Look at Greece five years ago and look at it now. Things can turn around and get real bad real quickly. Who knows what could happen if the same thing were to happen to the US considering how the country is becoming more and more polarized.

OT - I propose the old constitution to be cast aside and the United States to be reorganized as the First American Empire. All for the safety of the society of course.

I'd argue that people who both claim this and own a gun should be vigorously investigated.

You mean you want the government to bypass the fourth amendment. Don't worry they're already doing that via facebook and other internet resources, as well as encouraging people to report "suspicious behavior" much like I don't know the secret police of authoritarian states in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.  But in this new America it's alright to arrest people for what they think and/or own and you seemingly encourage it. 

Just look what happened to this kid, minding his own business in school, after Sandy Hook. 

http://cbldf.org/2012/12/doodles-lead-to-new-jersey-students-arrest/

When a 16-year-old New Jersey boy doodled in his notebook on Tuesday, December 18, he probably didn’t expect to be arrested by the end of the day. However, when school officials saw the sketches, which they state appeared to be of weapons, and the boy “demonstrated behavior that caused them to be concerned,” the police were called.

A subsequent search of the boy’s home led to his arrest because they found several electronic parts and chemicals. He was charged with the possession of an explosive device and put in juvenile detention.

The details on what was precisely in the drawings are sketchy, as are the details on the behavior that caused concern. The school claims the drawings were of weapons, but the boy’s mother told various press outlets that, “He drew a glove with flames coming out of it.” If true, then the drawing wouldn’t be out of place in the notebook of any teenager who loves comic books.

At no point in time did the boy threaten the school, school officials, or his classmates. He cooperated fully with authorities, and a search of the school itself found nothing dangerous. The boy’s mother describes him as a good boy and frequent volunteer with a passion for disassembling old things and reassembling them. School district superintendent Steve Ciccariello stated that he would not expect violent behavior from the student. Further, Galloway Township Police Chief Pat Moran recognized that “There was no indication he was making a bomb, or using a bomb or detonating a bomb.” Despite all this, the boy was arrested — all because he doodled in his notebook.

You're making mountains out of molehills, here. Yes that was a dumb arrest and based on backwards assumptions (our private thoughts are our own, after all). I'm talking about people who have made public declarations about the need for civil war, who are known owners of weapons that would facilitate such. Both of these would be established before the person came under suspicion. The case you cited, however, is a clear shot of profiling, where nothing substantive was said or owned by the individual.

Care should be taken that such talk is just talk, before some armed group does attempt armed insurrection

I don't think anybody is arguing that we are at the point of civil war now, and that we should enact it. However; people are arguing for the  possibility that we do reach such a point, and that it is necessary to be prepared. Regardless of whether somebody is a gun owner or not, if they're inciting violence - yes - they should be investigated (albeit - legally.) However; it is the case that civil war should always remain a possibility to deter such tyranny. The potential of a revolution empowers the people, even if it's not realistic to call for one at this point or any point until the consensus decision of the people arrives.

We see this in the actions of the U.S government to promote the people subjected to Islamic fundamentalist regimes so that they might fight against their own tyrranical governments. How is it that this activity is justified, but the potential of the people within the U.S to fight against their own government, if it becomes oppressive, is not? This is not to say the U.S government is at such a  point now, but it is quite clear that over the last ten years (as evidenced by these links)  the federal government is taking more and more power and using it without the permission of the states nor the people in the form of the document by which it is delegated powers - The Constitution of the United States of America. Eventually it will be too much to control through political movements, and eventually people will have to rely on some other means, if it is a matter of force against force.

Ultimately, all political power is derived from the people, and if they ask for it back, the government must oblige or face consequences. If those consequences include a more physical revolution then so be it. It is how this country was born. As far as I can tell though, most people will only act according to the non-Aggression axiom, only if the government physically intrudes upon their liberties or harms their (or other) persons would they fight back with force. Right now the liberties are being inflicted upon, but this isn't the case with persons, yet. In that event, it seems a revolution is justified and it wouldn't be a matter of civil war, but rebellion (against the government - not against eachother.) Hence, it is necessary to secure arms for such an event, even more necessary when the government is taking power without permission. 

A quick and easy way to determine whether the government should have a power is the following test:

Take the president that you dislike the most because of his willingness to abuse his power (for Democrats this may be George W. Bush and for Republicans this may be Barack Obama) and imagine that the voters you think are dumb and incompetent elect someone who is far worse than this president. Would you want them to have this power?

I could be wrong but I suspect the average Obama supporter would flip out if George W. Bush had these same powers, and the thought of someone worse holding them would keep them awake at night; and this is the reason why the government shouldn't have that power.

the NYT is a "UN agenda 21 "propaganda agency
they have the worst presstitudes in the business
they'll write almost anything to reach the goals of agenda 21
to unite the nations ,but in a very antidemocratic way,ruled by bankers hidden behind names like IMF or worldbank with help from rating agencys

in europe they call it EU(meanwhile dominated by goldman sachs people like monti,papademos,barroso)
in america they call it nafta

to make this possible the constitution must be destroyed(well lets call it modified)
as bush(patriots act)and obama(NDAA)have destroyed the constitution already and this article is just another step.

the NYT should be asked why they refuse to write about the worlds most important meeting(bilderberger)
or the bohamian grove(please research) instead of writing stupid article.