I generally don't think of politicians as "Masters". They work for me, or I do my best to undermine them and remove them from office. So far, I've done pretty well, after I moved from Massachussets. Could not get rid of either of the bums in the Senate.

Good to dissent and be the vocal minority while skirting the tyrant's violent revenge. Better to die in the cause of freedom then live in tyranny. Best to live victorious with the threat extinguished and liberty secured for the next generation.

Better in the case of national interest to apologize after acting decisively in the national interest. Especially in the case of a superpower. I may not personally like some of the choices, but without all the facts I am not qualify to make those choices. Nor do I feel compelled to assume the shame of generations past. The white man pushed the red man aside in settling the USA. Was that moral? In the light of today , no. Was it in the overall national interest? Yes, unequivocally. We can discuss it today only because it was done. Would we do it again today? I think we would find a way to make it palatable to the people, if it were in the national interest. Remember we are talking about the actions of NATIONS, not individuals.

I am more important than the collective..to me. The collective knows that and is in fact built upon that fact. I risk myself (my life here fellas) for the collective by my individual choice for my individual reasons. It certainly is not because I think the collective is more important than me, and anyone that really thinks that the collective is more important than themselves does not deserve to be a citizen of a republic - even the USA.

Back to the quote gentlemen, it is coming from a Quebecois, a group that could well take the province of Quebec out of Canada and make itself an independent nation. Without arms to enforce that decision by the People of New France, should they elect to go the route of independence, their vote would be shallow indeed. And I believe that the Canadian Government's policy of civil disarmament is more aimed at keeping the independence-minded French in check. Hardly a noble role for this esteemed government.

And not everyone is cut out to defend themselves, so those unable or unwilling to do so want to hobble those of us that are able and willing. Let's be frank, I don't trust anyone with my security and safety more than myself, and LEAST of all the government. And I work for the goverbment!! Ponder that Reston, and let's not beat up on this gentle soul gentlemen.

I could not find it either David. Is it possible that the Ministry of Truth has been active? How about it Editor, can we get a look atthe source. I detest the man anyway, but I would like to be able to find the reference myself, for the education of others.

But let us not let that sword rust too well. That is how the liberal government-as-God wackos expect to disarm us. They need to be firmly convinced that we will not submit and that we (The People) are capable of killing them all and restoring a proper republic. They should fear that above all else, and thus mind their manners and their already invasive presence in our lives. A precious balance to be sure....

Bang on Helorat!! (Even if you are an aviator.) I am an Infantryman, currently in the employ of the US Army - but I was an Infantryman before I was in the US Army and I will be one after I retire. And I am busily engaged in my spare time in educating and training the next generation of Infantrymen. Greater love has no man then he who would lay down his life for his buddy.

Amazing how the simplest words are often the wisest? We the people keep our arms to prevent tyranny from within and invasion from without. Any politcal party or politician that attempts to disarm the people should be charged, prosecuted, and imprisoned for civil rights abuses. Or we can just shoot them and be done with it. If that is distasteful to you as an American, than I humbly suggest that you move yourself and your posterity back to England, where the government will protect you from yourself (but not others).

The Clintons were and remain dedicated to a two tiered system of justice, laws, politics, and economics. One for the 'ordinary' and another for 'elites' such as themselves, the enlightened. Such cretins can exist only by duping others. Give me inept bunglers in power any day over the likes of these types, that will enslave and disempower the masses. It is good that they really don't get it.

Pretty ironic. Again, the US public must export the concept of an armed citizenry to the far corners of the world. The basic human right is security. When the right to arms is non-existent so are all the other rights. In the cause of Liberty, world-wide disarmament of civilian populations must be rejected as a tyrannical measure in and of itself, despite any and all flowery words and ideas that it is wrapped up in.

Well folks, it is an absolute pity that the country that first espoused the idea of an armed citizentry against the threat of tyranny (England) is in the state it is today. Ignoble, brutal, and in sad decay. The US public must do everything in it's power to root out the proponets of civiil disarmament. Even if it causes bloodshed and economic chaos in the short term, it will preserve our republic for the next 200 years.

Wisdom here folks. And a further benefit is that which Robert Heinlein brought to our attention, "An armed society is a polite society." Might add a bit more civility to our public discourse.

Yes Beer is Good. Damn the namby pambies that would extinguish all the fun out of our lives. They are the same ones that don't trust the People with Arms (weapons, guns, whatever..)

I always wondered where this quote came from.

Well, the government is supposed to spend our money to further the interests of our country as determined by the leadership. That is what we elected them to do. If this bothers you, perhaps your understanding of the federal government's job needs some refreshing. If you want to give charitably - do so on your own with your own money, not mine.

Montana is known for having good sense. No wonder he's one of their sheriffs.

Well this may be disturbing only if you consider money as an object in itself. I regard money as a means to obtain real objects. That I am so readily able to buy an object with someone else's money at little to no cost renders this 'profound' observation absurd in the extreme.