The way I see it, while some things in this country aren't fair, it's really not right to say that we're living under tyranny. When we start living in a country where the government forces us to have certain religious beliefs, THEN we can say we're living under tyranny.
Cry me a river. Taxes are the price we all pay for civilization.
Also, the colonists were protesting taxation without representation, not taxes in general.
Everyone's been told that in order to drive a car, they need what's called a Driver's License - a privilege granted by the government. What if I were to tell you that's not necessarily true. Back when cars were first invented, no license was required to operate or drive what is now referred to (by the government) as motor vehicles.
First of all, requiring a license to drive a car is not unconstitutional. You do not have a constitutional right to drive a car. Second, a driver's license exists to prove you are responsible enough to drive and have passed certain tests. Considering how dangerous a car accident can be, that's a minor price to pay for keeping the morons off the road.
The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the Power to coin our nation's money and regulate the value thereof, which is gold and silver.
No, congress has the power to print money period. It is not required to be some magic precious metal. And if we did go back to the gold standard, it wouldn't solve our monetary issues, it would just cause very rapid inflation.
Before 1776, the British tried to confiscate all the colonists' guns. This was one of the primary reasons we separated from them.
No it wasn't. Not even the Declaration of Independence mentions that.
Now it seems to be happening again with all these "gun-control" "laws", not allowing ex-felons to bear arms, etc., all of which I believe violates the Second Amendment.
Are you seriously suggesting that people who were convicted of a serious crime should be free to own weapons that make mass killings easy? Also, gun control does not prevent you from owning a gun, therefore it is not unconstitutional.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...and I'm talking about the REAL OUTLAWS (murderers, robbers, etc.)
Oh, that's cute. Now tell me, if we made guns more difficult to acquire and kept assault rifles out of the public hands, where are those outlaws going to get them? As it stands, criminals who would normally be barred from getting guns can obtain them legally with shocking ease, either through a gun show or by stalling the background checks.
TODAY'S CORRUPT GOVERNMENT got to its worst when they started requiring human beings to have birth certificates sometime in the 1930s.
But of course! How could we not suspect that an attempt to provide someone with an indisputable form of identity is really a convoluted conspiracy...oh wait. Tell me, do you also believe in chemtrails?
Do they mention all the letters that he wrote to his friends in support of slavery after 1790?
"In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.”
This isn't as difficult to understand as you try to make it sound. The reality of the time was such that giving up slaves without all of society doing so would leave you a failure, with no means of competing in a slaveholding society. Making use of slaves in a society that was not yet ready to give them up was just a matter of practicality. At the time, there were no better opportunities for either the master or the slave.
This is why Jefferson advocated the creation of a nation specifically for former slaves, so that the servants could be emancipated and then survive in a society where they would certainly be treated as equals. He foresaw and feared the horrors of Jim Crow decades in advance.
The truth is, when Thomas Jefferson realized he was making a 4% profit yearly on black children, he never spoke another word of emancipation -- they have the letters that Jefferson, himself, wrote. He beat the children and only ever freed a handful of slaves (one, only after his brother took his place) he didn't even free them when he died. A hypocrite of the highest order...I can see why you like him!