Is Our Country Worth Dying For?

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom… Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Click to expand...

darrenlobo said:

What the discussion should be about is disarming the government. There is a massive imbalance between the power of the government and the power of the people. Not only the military but the law enforcement establishments here are overwhelmingly strong. We need to start shifting power away from the government by putting these functions back in the people’s hands where they belong. One of the lesser known Founders, Tench Coxe, explained it well:



There is only one way to guarantee our lives and liberty. That is to be stronger than those who seek to take them are.

This is why the Founders warned us against having a standing army. They knew that such a force would be used to oppress. Today, the “standing army” that we have to worry about domestically is the huge law enforcement establishment. I’m talking about not only state and local police but also agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ad nauseum. Rather than deploy troops on the streets they use law enforcement to control us.

Gun owners today can’t stand up to the law enforcement establishment much less the military. People that advocate civilian guns to counter-balance the government’s weapons are engaging in a dangerous fantasy that is rightly ridiculed. In the US since the government can’t disarm us completely they have armed themselves to the hilt. This has a similar effect as disarming us. One only needs look at the militarization of the law enforcement establishment to see this. There is only one answer and that is institutional change shutting down those agencies while building up the private means of defending ourselves.

Click to expand...

darrenlobo said:

What the discussion should be about is disarming the government. There is a massive imbalance between the power of the government and the power of the people. Not only the military but the law enforcement establishments here are overwhelmingly strong. We need to start shifting power away from the government by putting these functions back in the people’s hands where they belong. One of the lesser known Founders, Tench Coxe, explained it well:

There is only one way to guarantee our lives and liberty. That is to be stronger than those who seek to take them are.

This is why the Founders warned us against having a standing army. They knew that such a force would be used to oppress. Today, the “standing army” that we have to worry about domestically is the huge law enforcement establishment. I’m talking about not only state and local police but also agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ad nauseum. Rather than deploy troops on the streets they use law enforcement to control us.

Click to expand...

darrenlobo said:

Gun owners today can’t stand up to the law enforcement establishment much less the military. People that advocate civilian guns to counter-balance the government’s weapons are engaging in a dangerous fantasy that is rightly ridiculed. In the US since the government can’t disarm us completely they have armed themselves to the hilt. This has a similar effect as disarming us. One only needs look at the militarization of the law enforcement establishment to see this. There is only one answer and that is institutional change shutting down those agencies while building up the private means of defending ourselves.

Click to expand...

yellowfin said:

Weaponry is only one aspect. The far greater disparity is in communication, funding, organization, and logistics. It's not that they have 100,000 armed people and we don't, because we probably do, it's that they can get them in the same place at the same time pursuing the same objective. Whoever can do that wins.

Click to expand...

​

EL1227 said:

Government by definition, by nature, by history and by its very existence is police power. Government could not exist without police power, and public policy as defined by government is police power in action. It is the manifestation of police power ... the codified implementation of government force.

When governments lose their police power, they collapse. Every act of government and its politicians is motivated by its police power ... protecting it, and expanding upon it.

Black’s Law Dictionary. “Police power is the power of the state to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and state constitutions, and especially to the requirements of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government.”
Marshall v. Kansas City, MO. 355 SW 2nd 877,883.​

Don't be fooled by Black’s Law's definition, “to limitations of the federal and state constitutions...” Police power is not limited and does not come about by due process, but by gradual usurpation and seizure of your mind, your body and your wealth through incremental deception. The interest of the state in all matters prevails over the individual. Police power is sovereignty of the state over mind, body and soul. To believe otherwise is to live an illusion. e.g. Boiling Frogs





Agreed 100% ...

Police power goes far beyond the definition given in Black’s Law. It's the subtle and hidden power of government to persuade the public mind, which is why the media is part of our manipulation. Government persuasion is the indoctrination of the individual through the media, and along with church, public school, fraternities, to sacrifice person, individuality and property for the “greater good” of the group. Group is ultimately translated as government authority.

Once we yield our minds to government force under the pretense of “the greater good” or “the national interest,” there is no need to concern ourselves with “the right to bear arms.”

As Washington noted:​

​

Could this be the reason that the 'deep state' is fiercely fighting against Trump's 'Drain The Swamp' crusade ?

Click to expand...

EL1227 said:

Government by definition, by nature, by history and by its very existence is police power. Government could not exist without police power, and public policy as defined by government is police power in action. It is the manifestation of police power ... the codified implementation of government force.

When governments lose their police power, they collapse. Every act of government and its politicians is motivated by its police power ... protecting it, and expanding upon it.

Click to expand...

And if we enquire how these unhappy nations have lost that precious jewel liberty...we shall find their miseries...proceed from this, that their necessities or indiscretion have permitted a standing army to be kept amongst them..

Click to expand...

..no nation ever preserved its liberty, that maintained an army otherwise constituted within the seat of their government...

Click to expand...

...the Israelites, Athenians, Corinthians, Archaians, Lacedemonians, Thebans, Samnites, and Romans; none of which nations whilst they kept their liberty were ever known to maintain any soldiers in constant pay within their cities...

Click to expand...

It's the misfortune of all countries, that they sometimes lie under an unhappy necessity to defend themselves by arms against the ambition of their governors, and to fight for what is their own; for if a prince will rule us with a rod of iron, and invade our laws and liberties...we...must patiently submit to our bondage, or stand upon our own defense; which if we are enabled to do, we shall never be put upon it...

Click to expand...

This subject is so self-evident, that I am almost ashamed to prove it: for if we look through the world, we shall find in no country, liberty and an army stand together; so that to know whether a people are free or slaves, it is necessary only to ask, whether there is an army kept amongst them?

Click to expand...

darrenlobo said:

Govts that grow too powerful collapse too. As they become more powerful they get out of control & chaotic.

Click to expand...

kcbrown said:

While that is strictly true, the amount of time it takes for that to happen can be in the thousands of years. See, e.g., Egypt's ancient despotism as an example of that.

Historically, tyranny has dominated the equation. Not liberty. It's not even close. As such, while it may feel nice to believe that liberty is something that people crave generally, what they crave more is control over others, even if they are themselves to be controlled in turn. Between that and the fact that, for most liberties, any given individual liberty is something that only a minority of the population is interested in exercising, it becomes easy to see why tyranny dominates the historical landscape.

Click to expand...

It is certain, that all parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is absolutely impossible, that any nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties; nor can any nation perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests: And yet, though all men see this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined in their turns, to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and their country.

Click to expand...