The mindset of collectivism is that we are all one, and therefore all responsible for the group -- the individual thinks of himself as a 'we' rather than a 'me.'

A free country of personally responsible citizens has little need of government. Government has become a massive employment program constantly seeking new things to do for us, ultimately making us dependent upon their services instead of delegating it ourselves. Government needs to justify itself at all times -- why are we paying you? So government NEEDS CRIME -- that is their business. If they focused on eliminating crimes entirely they would all be out of a job. SO the point is not to stop crime but to create crimes in order to pay salaries. The justification is the same as from a Church, but the thing is that the government was not formed to be a charity, but for the purposes of protecting the lives, rights, and property of the People who formed it. It was not to gradually take over every 'service' provided by oneself, one's family, one's company, one's congregation, such that I need no power of my own but to simply obey and follow the program assigned to me. Government invents new crimes every day; the last thing they want is an armed populace showing up when they've gone too far.

Statism is the subsidization of crime -- Absolutely!

Robert, RBESRQ is you. ;-) Please tell us what changed your mind.

Hey, Robert, you said in a previous post today that you now carry a concealed weapon with license. Your previous comment (RobertSRQ) above seems to contradict. What happened? ;-)

Robert, you've been on this site for years (as RBESRQ above) -- when did you switch your position on personal gun ownership? Perhaps some of the liberals could benefit from your reasoning. ;-)

Irrelevant, Shuttleworth. The fact that millions of military-grade arms are owned and distributed throughout the country serves as a CHECK against legislation that further erodes our rights. Sure, usurpation is happening slowing, but an armed populace at least keeps it slow. The government is already acting outside of its Constitutional boundaries, and the vote is unable to stop it. How far will our government go and how far will the People allow it? If the People have been disarmed in mind and body, who do they think they are? Doesn't matter what they think, they have no power and must obey those WITH the power.

Mick, that is worthy world view; however, it ignores a reality that man is a wild animal and the civilization that has risen up is one of might makes right. The enlightened world view takes it further -- violence begets violence, all people should be treated with respect, we have natural-born 'rights', the violating of which having real world consequences. Realizing all this can be due to one's religion, education, desire to know 'how it all works,' upbringing -- as well, one's ignorance of this can also be due to the same. The very real need to be able to defend oneself against those who lay claim to your property, person, labors, and life cannot be ignored. You are anti-slavery? Well, how to keep yourself from being enslaved?!

Remember, violence is the act. I may have no weapon and I may act violently. The violation/crime is the violent behavior, NOT the mode or method of violence. To possess a weapon for protection is not invoking violence at all. Just like not throwing a punch even though I have the power to do so is not violence until the punch is thrown.

Trying to protect the people from what they MIGHT or COULD do is totalitarian -- it lays claim to the responsibility that belongs to the individual. Positivist law -- laws that dictate -- are contrary to a republican form of government. There are only statutes that can say 'you shall not do...' not 'you SHALL do ...' Recognizing the difference is the key to understanding a free and responsible People which is the foundation and premise of a free people.

Why is the Dalai Lama living in exile instead of in Tibet? What role did communism, guns, and violence play? Do any of us have the right to NOT be commanded, robbed, enslaved? What is to prevent that? The Dali Lama has armed guards -- a hired gun is still a gun. The fact that the gun-grabbers cannot seem to grasp is that guns are what keep this all in check -- when the balance of powers change, it is due to the guns being pointed in different directions. Remove the defenses, and watch the invasion.

The entire premise for the need of government is founded upon our inherent right to self-defense. We have organized a common defense of our liberties foremost. All the rest is gravy.

Yes, it is war! It is the authoritarians against the responsibilitarians -- the War of Authoritarian Aggression. The authoritarians dictate -- nothing is to be left 'as is.' All is to be defined and redefined, numbered and ordered, then commanded. Being drunk and deluded with power, authoritarians lose touch with reality as they strive for their Utopia. The responsibilitarian does not escape his/her responsibilities -- Nature provides, we need only work in harmony with it, we do not seek power over others, merely the liberty of choosing our own way.

I like it! Thank you, Mike, for your analysis, excellent points.

Absolutely! This is the very premise of the Declaration of Independence and even Liberty itself. It's not about personal weapons, it's about personal power. How much power am I 'to be allowed' to have? Whether power be in the form of a gun or money or property, 'who' decides how much I am required to have and how much I must 'give'? Yes, there are those that abuse their power, use it to rob and plunder -- this is why weapons are used for protection. But when the government attempts to rob and plunder, only an armed people (not just a single person) can stand up to it, without ever firing a shot. Armed guards do not need to fire their weapons -- their presence serves as a significant deterrent, obviously.

Yes, right, but the War on Drugs escalated with 'Just Say No' during the Reagan years, to be escalated more with each president thereafter. I'm not to keen on "Government exists to protect us from each other" either.

I guess the point he was trying to make is that political discourse was the primary 'right' to protect, as it had always been subject to regulation from authoritarian governments (i.e. England, Europe, Asia, etc.). With campaign finance laws, the intent is to regulate political speech -- it has nothing to do with money, as even Hillary outspent 2 to 1 and couldn't change voters' minds. They just don't want competitors who can't raise as much money but are better representatives of the people at large.

Frankly, I don't believe anything coming from the press or government -- I only try to figure out what the purpose is for the piece of propaganda they are selling -- like the Russia narrative that seemed out of place when it first came up, then we see the plan unfold... The thing is that these people actually believe whatever they broadcast is gospel and that we are all automatically believers (like them). Luckily, despite the non-stop media narrative, there are still plenty of people who DON'T believe it (which isn't hard). Delusion is their game, and self-delusion is a prerequisite.

Waffler, the Constitution is a CHARTER for the government -- the difference is clear, the charter contains the rules for the government (other people). IF the government BREAKS THE RULES, then the people/states who chartered the government can dissolve it due to BREACH OF CONTRACT which is a deal breaker considering the amount of power involved.

Weapons in the hands of the citizenry is a constant check against a potentially rogue government that acts outside the boundaries of the rules. The purpose of the Constitution was to protect the rights of the people, not to 'rule.' The people rule the government through the Constitution -- if the government will not obey, then what alternative is there? Succession. History proves that succeeding is often bloody, and if unsuccessful, the 'union' will no longer be optional, and new laws are usually written to secure the permanent dependence of the 'rogue' state. Arms in the hands of the citizenry didn't stop the Civil War, so there is no guarantee that freedom will always win. But the battle continues with each generation -- either they make it their own, or not.

Rings true for me. All of life is a dialogue with the 'world' which responds to every word/action. Learning to discern is separating the wheat from the chaff. The art of life is not just to 'get' the message, but to 'live' the message. ;-)

It doesn't matter how much truth I hear, if I haven't asked the question, there is no place to put the answer. Realization of the truth is the result of a truthful dialogue. You want to know the Truth? Speak truthfully and listen to what you say. ;-)

Mike, some State constitutions have some arms restrictions written in them, like Colorado. So do the States have the right to amend state constitutions that would restrict further the rights to arms even if the federal constitution did not? If we remember that constitutions are rule books for the government, then the 2nd Amendment remains a prohibition on federal government, and States can amend their own Constitutions to prohibit or lift prohibitions to their State governments.

Come on, Robert. You are already responsible, you live according to your own conscience and bear the consequences. If ruling oneself is optional, and apparently conditional, who makes the determination? A Hegelian dialectic logical fallacy.

Robert, you will never 'see it' until you 'embody it.' Promote individual responsibility rather than gun control, population control, health control, education control, revenue control -- all those 'controls' rest with the individuals themselves.

A fundamental truth.

All human 'laws' are in relation to a specific jurisdiction. America is a collection of sovereign states, made up of sovereign counties, made up of sovereign individuals. There are 'rules' for making the rules, they are not to be established without the consent of the people. For the most part, the rules set forth are for those in service to the people (government). It says what they can and can't do. For every 'law' there is a jurisdiction -- Germany cannot make laws for England, New York cannot make laws for California, police in one jurisdiction cannot 'enforce' laws in another jurisdiction.

The corruption in 'law' is the usurpation of jurisdiction. That is to say, making and enforcing 'laws' without the authority to do so. The UN is but a council, with a jurisdiction of its own members only. But little by little, the UN is trying to become its own sovereign power with its own court and a WORLD jurisdiction. Just as the US federal government was confined to its own jurisdiction and 10 square mile land, with time and corruption of the law itself, now the federal government has extended its jurisdiction across all the states, writing laws that apply to every citizen, rather than for the state governments, and once every state became beholden to Washington DC, they gave away the issuing power of currency to a private bank, which now rules the federal government.

With time, the UN could do the same thing -- it's already happened to the smaller nations which are perpetually under the thumb of the IMF/World Bank.

I agree with you Robert, I just don't understand how you can advocate in previous posts for the very socialist policies that created the Leviathon in the first place. There is not a social program today that could run without credit or subsidy with money that is borrowed out of thin air for which taxes pay the interest. THAT is the process for centralization and perpetual debt, which the powers-that-should-not-be lay upon the people of every nation, as if THEY were the debtors!

The goal of central government is to replace voluntary charity with mandatory taxes that are to pay for 'social services.' The usurper always usurps for the common good. Whenever the 'common good' is put into the hands of a committee, it is no longer 'common' at all. I suppose since you don't believe in God, you don't believe in the congregations of people who embrace the principles of their religion. Your version of socialism sounds to me like a religion with the same calls to action.

Every state that has joined the union, even after the original 13 colonies, has its own Constitution and was formed by the land patents signed by the President at the time of their joining. The Constitutions are nearly identical to the US Constitution, and the premise is of course the same: a charter by the sovereign people of the State, made up of representatives from all the state counties. Further, sovereigns drive on the right side of the road not because 'laws' have been forced upon us, but because we have AGREED to the rules of the road, to an agreed upon process for circulating traffic, for taking responsibility for any damages, for protecting travelling at high-speeds. We sign agreements all the time, why? Because we are consenting, not being ruled. Our signature is our word. Now the real issue is that we sign things to which we do not agree, then break the rules and get punished. Try not signing up for a Social Security number -- it's voluntary, but try to find work without it. How about every time a screen comes up to accept 5 pages of terms of conditions in order to go to the next page -- who reads that? What have I just agreed to?

A sovereign republican government is founded upon the consent of the People. Our signature is our consent.

Rather than be misdirected yet again, can we not simply admit that our voluntary association in congregations, companies, associations, towns incorporated into counties, counties into states, and states form a federal compact are all by AGREEMENT. We make agreements with each other with terms that we agree to in our sovereign capacity, that is to say I am a man of my word. The agreement may include penalties for breaking any of the terms, even the agreement itself could be voided should a member break the agreed upon rules.

With a republican form of government, the people make the rules for the government, not the other way around. Once a hired servant administering according to the agreed upon regulations exceeds his/her mandate, a violation occurs.

In commercial associations, this is considered contract law, and is regulated by the commercial / equitable / colorable law jurisdiction. When a government is chartered, it is established according to common law, and the government 'corporation' and its officers are strictly regulated by the people who chartered it and to whom the government employees are beholden. To prevent the government corporation from abusing its powers (as history has been replete with examples), the US Constitution explicitly spelled out what those duties were and how they were to be 'powered.' It should be noted that the primary purpose of the government corporations, whether city, county, state or national, was the preservation of the lives, liberty, property, and 'pursuit of happiness' of the common people. A system of electing representatives and structure of government was established to balance powers, to prevent an easy take-over of the nation, with many checks and balances.

The 'glue' that holds this republic together is the collective integrity of keeping our word. Our signature, our promises, our consent, our honor -- our word. Which is why the honor and integrity of our government employees and officers must be held to the highest standard, for to put so much trust in persons in seats of power is a risk very great. We are the sovereigns, our association is by agreement according to the terms of those agreements. Should the servant attempt to become the master by changing the rules, the master does not have to surrender. He may have to fight off a mob. But what is the alternative? It is a big responsibility, but there it is.