A regulated economy is just that, REGULATED. Its not freedom, there is no liberty within it. The government through regulations, taxes, welfare, stimuluses for the purchase of some products and penalties for the purchase of others; controls the flow of money. Its common sense that whoever controls the money, controls the house and everyone in it. This control over the economy is what aggrandized the power of men (if that is what you want to call them) like hitler, stalin, castro, saddam and the rest of the evil faces in the ash pile of history. They took their throne of power with either force or false promises of economic prosperity; they kept them by controlling the money, strengthening the force and limiting the prosperity. Are we the American People so dumb that we do not recognize this tragic pattern of history that will one day force us to beg the government for our daily bread? Or are we so lazy that we refuse to swim out of our own ignorance and accept the personal responsibility that both personal and social liberty require? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, than we are wholly unfit for the liberty that our Forefathers gave us, that our Veterans fought for, and our Heroes died for. Like all societies throughout the course of human events, we will get the government that we deserve.

These are the first lines of Common Sense. Everyone should read the rest of it. Its a short read and well worth it.

Travelingsprige...Thank you for your well educated response to a rather ignorant Popeye. And I especially thank you for your military service. I also have no knowledge of any section 11 in the U.S. Constitution. My copy has seven articles, none of them having any more than ten sections, followed by 27 amendments. No section 11 can be found outside of Popeye's imagination. Reagan did not give government any authority over religion, he did not try to make it a law to pray on this day, he merely gave his personal wishes that everyone would do so. He was hoping that We the People would pray for our new leader on the day he starts the job. No one, atheist or otherwise should have a problem with a single person within the borders of this nation praying that God blesses this country and its leader.

The current usurpations have been brought on by political parties and the complacency of the American People. Most of us don't even vote. We all love the blessings of liberty, but too many of us are not willing to accept the responsibility that comes with that freedom, DEFENDING IT. If We the People don't defend our own liberty, no one will.

It is natural for the People to divide themselves into at least two parties; one conservative and the other liberal. However, neither of the parties within the government are actually liberal or conservative. Each of them, wishing only to aggrandize themselves with more power, merely attempt to appeal to the conservative or liberal portion of the public. These two parties have so monopolized the government at every level that the honest candidate that is perfectly in tune with the will of the People, being not a person of parties, has little to no chance of serving his/her country in any legitimate office. People are left with an either/or choice in which on many occasions neither is correct or in harmony with Public Opinion. Politicians from both sides are more considerate of their party's agenda than the needs and wants of their constituents. They plan depending on partisanship, bipartisanship, and political leverage rather than just doing what is right for the American People. This causes both paths, Democratic and Republican, to lead to despotism; we are forced to vote for the lesser evil that moves more slowly. Our political system has only one more party than Nazi Germany. If one of these, Democrats or Republicans, can by some strange and miraculous circumstances claim an absolute or long-standing victory over the other, our republic may come to mirror that fascist state in which one party rules all. In the end, we must either reform this two-party system or part with our liberty; one day it will not be an option to have both.

sorry, I don't mean the final anti-Christ spoken of in Revelation, I mean people like Jim Jones and others that claim to be speaking for God in order to aggrandize themselves.

Wow Waffler...We finally agree on something. Jesus spoke of anti-Christ coming and claiming to speak for Him. We should be doubtful those who claim to speak for Him, investigate their preaching and compare it with the teachings of Christ. We must, as you put it, use our brains and not be coerced by a false doctrine.

Waffler...The places you have described have strict gun laws. That is what allowed tyranny to take root in the first place. How long did these people suffer from the totalitarian rule of their government? A lot longer than they would have if they were armed. An armed populace is not just useful for fighting against tyranny, it is a deterent from tyranny ever occuring. A government that fears its citizens is by far more honest and submisive to the will of the people.

Why is it unworthy Dick? Is it over your head?

Waffler, if Jefferson were alive today he would think circles around your ass and get so deep you'd drown in your own stupidity. And if he would have kept his mouth shut, this nation wouldn't be here. It's not surprising that socialist control freaks like yourself would want to silence patriotic heroes like Thomas Jefferson. You watch too many wild west movies. Guns weren't outlawed. When the sheriff needed a posse to pursue an outlaw, he was aided by an army of ordinary citizens with arms in their hands ready to establish justice. They did not trade liberty for order, they traded a barbarous society in which there were no laws to defend their rights for an establishment of justice to ensure that everyone's rights were not infringed by another's sinful deeds. Guns played no part in the transaction.

Then tell me Waffler, since you believe yourself to be such an intellectual giant, if everyone in both houses of congress decided that from this day foward there would be no more elections; they will serve for life and select there own successors and they sign it into law, what will you do about it? You can call that a fantasy if you want, but it is a possibility and I am not willing to leave any possible way for my liberty or the liberty of my children to be taken from us. I'm not talking about taking up arms against a democratically elected government; I'm talking about using arms as a last line of defense of my life and liberty, whether its against a criminal, an invader, or God forbid, my own damn government. You seem to think that I believe I should grab my gun evertime I disagree with the President or Congress. I believe a gun should only be used as a last resort; as long as we can sway the government without a gun we won't, but when the voice of We the People is finally silenced, our guns won't be. You should read Federalist Paper No.46. And by the way, our Founders said that this is the only reason we have the 2nd amendment. Are you saying that Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington are intellectual midgets?

Just to add to Carlton's statement; Florida is now considering an open-carry law that would allow anyone without a felony charge, restraining order, or a court date to carry a gun in plain sight to all public places (except for schools, court houses, etc.). There is also another bill that would allow those with a concealed weapon permit to carry on all state universities. When one state representative was asked why their state was reducing the number of anti-gun laws while other states were adopting stricter ones the congressman said, "Everytime we've loosened our restrictions on firearms and allowed more law-abiding citizens to carry, the crime rate has significantly dropped."

Waffler...The vote does not completely save us from tyranny. Governments, no matter the form, tend towards tyranny and lean farther from the purpose of their original establishment as they grow older. Being able to democratically select our representatives only slows this process, it doesn't stop it. There is no controversy that we are less free than our forefathers were. In fact, we have less rights and privlages than any American generation before us. The government takes your rights one law, one bill, one generation at a time. A government becomes completely tyrannical once it takes away your ability to choose its officials. But it will never be able to do so if its citizens are heavily armed. If its citizens give up their arms, there is nothing to stop the government from taking away your right to vote and every other right you love so dearly. The government may not suddenly resort to tyranny as soon as it takes away our guns, but it will be one major step closer. It may take another generation or two before this government no longer rules by the consent of the governed. The governed being our children that will remember us as being the generation that left them with nothing to fight with.

Reston...How is the right to bear arms no longer appropriate to the current world? Has today's government proved wiser, more noble, or more trustworthy than the government of our forefathers? Are there less people throught our land that will break any law they have to (including gun laws) to illegally take what they want than there were years ago? Is mankind less greedy, sinful, or governments less apt to become tyrannical than they were in the 18th century? Have we somehow figured out how to just get along? Until we do, until there is no more clash of culture or opinion and not one ounce of greed or lust of power in any living being's heart, until there are no more laws broken or governments necessary; the innocent citizens will need their guns, because the criminals and the tyrants will have theirs.

dick...You're right, its not socialism to control ones ability to defend himself. It's communism.

I'm sorry you feel that way RBESRQ. I'm puzzled as to why you atheist envoke such passionate discontent just because my faith is contrary to your opinion. Does my belief threaten you so dearly? Your faith in people rather than God will in the end, leave you greatly disappointed. Once the time comes that people are no longer able to bless you, I pray that God does, as He will for me when I enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And God doesn't nor will He ever need people; people (including you) need God.

The reason this nation at times engages in pre-emptive action is because of the Soviet Union. After WWII many officials wanted to attack the Soviets while they were weak. They could see that this communist regime would one day be strong enough to threaten our very existence. After four years of the largest war this world has ever seen, we were not willing to fight any longer. Just a few years later Kruschev was threatening us with the bomb, we had the Cuban Missle Crisis, and we came within a hair of ending the world as we know it. I agree with all of you that the pre-emptive action taken by our government was probably not the right decision; but just because it was not a wise choice in the past does not mean it won't be the necessary course in the future. We cannot remove the option of destroying our enemies in their infancy. We cannot give up our ability to crush the ant before it becomes a lion.

Carlton, you are correct that there is indeed a problem concerning our ability to watch those in charge of our own country and prevent them from pursuing their own agenda. The truth is, we cannot look over the shoulder of every official in power all the time. We cannot prove or disprove all of their statistics or accusations. However, there is within the Constitution a safeguard against longstanding agendas and that is a constant change of men. Throughout the recent history of this republic, We the People have not used this power frequently enough. We should change our representatives more frequently and refuse to allow anyone to be a career politician. If this were the case, the agenda would change as often as the person occupying the seat; it would not live long enough to take root. Our immediate interests and present security would be the only constant agenda.

Liberty is a right, not a privilage. God has blessed us with liberty and damned us with the responsibility of keeping it. We must accept our differences and allow each other to express clashing opinions and ideas; and we must force the government to do the same. If a populous, group, or individual allows themselves to be silenced and gives up their own ideas and identity to clone another's, they are not free. They have failed in their duty to ensure liberty for themselves and have chosen to fall victim to tyranny. And since they failed to preserve liberty, their children will be forced to either conquer it or live whatever deplorable life they can without it.

Waffler...Thank you for not trying to be politicaly correct. You have revealed the content of your character. By comparing those of us who believe government should be kept small, with hitler and the nazis, you have revealed your lack of understanding of the true principles of liberty and justice. I now know that you are as ignorant as you are arrogant. I now know that you are someone that I must oppose rather than support.

There is a bill being proposed that would make it illegal to speak against government officials. This has been done before by John Adams. That great generation regarded this unjust law as an infridgement on their rights and voted him out of office for Jefferson who pardoned all who were convicted of this non-criminal offense. Why should we not do the same? Has the meaning or purpose of the freedom of speech changed? It is just as true today as it was then that when people are unable to express their discontent for present policies and propose better ones, liberty does not exist. There is also the language of political correctness that our society forces upon itself. We have convinced ourselves that it is wrong to speak of certain issues, address certain groups, say certain words and question certain people. This language of political correctness is not communication, its the restraint of communication. While it does not silence our voices, it does mask our intentions and disguise our character. Political figures say what is politicaly correct in order to appeal to those who believe differently. If they would speak their mind and reveal their heart, we would know what type of person we are voting for, what their intentions are, and what to expect from their leadership. If someone has discontent for my race, religion, political view, or economic status, I would rather them look me in the eye and let me know about it rather than hide like coward who is ashamed of his own beliefs. I will know where he stands and whether I should stand next to him or across from him, in front of him or behind him. If each of us were to express our ideas openly, we could weigh our differences and choose the best alternative; we could combine our similarities and acheive a common goal.

No matter how moderate or peace-preaching a nation is, it will always have enemies. War, at times, is inevitable. There is always someone, somewhere in the world pursuing an evil agenda to dismantle what we have and duplicate their own society here in our home. Pre-emptive action is not always the right course, but it is true that the best defense is a good offense. America has at times chosen to go to war in some distant land rather than allowing that war to come to us here at home. I do not have all the facts to provide an opinion of whether we should have went into Iraq or Vietnam. But I do know this, if we would have invaded Afghanistan when trouble first arose the towers would still be standing, if we would have engaged in a pre-emptive strike on the axis powers, we could have prevented Pearl Harbor, kept our Pacific fleet intact, ended the war years earlier, and saved possibly millions of lives. So a pre-emptive strike is not always wrong either. Before it is engaged, it must be given the utmost consideration and we must have a fool-proof plan of action from beginning to end.

Waffler...Do not mistaken "society" and the "state" as being the same thing. They are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and the state by our wickedness. Society promotes positively by uniting our affections, the state promotes negatively by restraining our vices. One is a patron that encourages intercourse, the other is a punisher that creates distinctions. Society everywhere is a blessing, but the state even at its best is but a necessary evil.

Reston...Are the socialist that advocate for the State to pass laws that give them the fruits of someone elses labor, anything other than the self-centered who are out for themselves and no one else? And we are all forced to live together. Each of us need the benefits of society but we can never create a civilization in which everyone agrees on everything; parties and factions will always exist and we have no choice but to live with it.

Waffler...You are correct that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are more important than financial gain. But life requires labor. Food and products have to be produced in order for life to continue. Liberty requires that everyone be able to choose an industry, invest as much labor as he wishes into that industry and keep the fruits of his labor. Happiness requires many different things for different people, much of which cannot be purchased with money or sustained with wealth. But nearly everyone can agree that some things that are necessary for happiness include food on the table, clothes on our backs, and a roof overhead; each of which are brought to us by business. You see business is entangled in many of our rights. Our economical system and our political system depend on each other. We cannot be socially free unless we are economically free. We do not have the right to life, property or the pursuit of happiness if someone else controls our avenue for acquiring them (business). In order to protect our own liberty, We the People must be able to control our own business without government interference.