The cops, ATF, IRS are doing the jobs you/we pay them to do. In fact I have heard it said by an IRS Agent "we love those who screw up their taxes, it gives us something to do and we love those who do it right because they are the ones who pay our salary". It goes for the police as well. The people can put an end to the IRS and the cops as well. All they have to do is to start behaving themselves or change the laws and have a ball or bash in any way they see fit. As long as y'all pass laws these other folks are more than gald to get paid to enforce your will.

The fact that this guy wrote this in 1851 about government in France would seem to say that we today are not all that bad off with government in the US. At least we are no worse than was government 150 years ago. This quote says to those that think that government in the US especially the Feds have arrived at an advanced stage of total corruption are wrong. Things are no worse than they were in 1851. Further it shows a basic human foible to always be against that which is outside of oneself. And the further the governing authority the more we dislike it. On the other hand for some the further we grow as individuals from childhood to young adults, middle age to seniors they more wisdom we gain about the interactive and interdependent nature of the world around us and our relationship to it. BWG kids education is financed substantially by local taxes, 2d. by state taxes and 3rd. by Federal Taxes, I believe the Feds account for about 10%. So Florida is not educating California kids to any great extent.

You are on the right track BWG, voting them out at every level is the right approach. Many on this site think guns are the way to change corrupt government. I don't. I agree with you that it is the vote. Persuasion at the point of a gun is not freedom. Thanks Crystal, I appreciate that you read my stuff, would appreciate what you think was a contradiction. Hey y'all DON'T POINT GUNS AT COPS!

Jim many here have responded to quotes by saying "owning guns is for defending ourselves against corrupt and power grabbing government". Can you explain and expound upon that? I asked Mike to and all he said is that Koreans defended their property when they felt that the police in So. Central LA were inadequate. He has nor have you or anyone else explained or expounded upon when it is appropriate, legal or wise to defend yourselves against police or wise to attack corrupt government. I believe little Jimmy that firing upon police regardless of the circumstances is, under law an attack. Even fighting back when being arrested is a charge of resisting arrest and is thus considered to be an attack or effort to thwart the law. Again can you tell us when you feel it is authorized to fire or otherwise use force against the police or the government.

J Carlton what is the difference between peace and law? Where I come from it is the same thing. Where there is no law there is no peace. We are permitted and encouraged to practice self defense, some police forces I believe may even give courses on it. And we are encouraged to do our own tax returns etcetera. But if you do it wrong, self defense or your tax return, you could be held responsible for things like using deadly force unnecesarily or even murder, and you could be held responsible for tax violations also. You have responsiblities not only to your self but to society (the people) in both self defense and in doing your taxes. Having authority also means being responislbe, Police investigations and IRS investigations may determine if you did it right. Good luck!

Jim, quit blaming the police for all of your failures as a human being. Did the police right the laws about hemp, drugs or filing a tax return? Look to thyself and thy neighbors friend, for there is the problem. The problem is not with the police, the DEA or the IRS. Get a mirror little buddy and stare into it until you get the message.

I give it five for comedy. This sounds like the way life was with mom and dad. This guy was born too early. He would have loved to be part of the MOVE group in Philadelphia where they crapped on the floor, lived with rats and other animals, refused to bathe etc. If we did away with his list of things we would be a nation of Mexicans, radical muslims and drug dealers etcetera. It amases me on how you knucle walkers can ignore the benefits of all of that stuff. We are the way we are with government rules and regualations because that is the way we want to be. DON'T SELF DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST COPS!

This is good and exactly right. It is not the police's fault every time a crime happens. Those here the Mikes and knucle walkers of the world who need to have a scape goat (police or government) for all of their own or societies ills are, well, they are knucle walkers and it is time to grow up. Self defense comes first if it can be had. Most of us cannot perform to the standards of the criminal mind and police are trained to overcome that higher standard. No one has ever said that the police are required to do it all. A philosophy that promotes or defends attacking police or government the very people we hire to protect society is crap.

Self defense is a natural right and no one to my knowledge on this site has abdicated giving it up nor do I know of a single instance in history where it was forbidden. Speaking of history I can not recall this morning at least of an instance of tyrannical police. (The confrontations during civil disobedience in the deep south might qualify except the police were putting tyranny on to supposed "law breakers".) Even the evil (by our standards) and dreaded Gestapo apparently had the support of the people as did the authorities who operated the Spanish Inquistion. By police tyranny I suppose Van Miess means a system where the "police" run things for the benefit of themselves. Not the benefit of the people nor even the benefit of the government, the crown etcetera. If the police are doing the bidding of a tyrannical government it is not truly them that is tyrannical but the government themselves. Now I do know (as do we all) of tyranny imposed by a military force and usually a foreign one outside of the people. That is "the meaning of all struggles for liberty". That local police anywhere and everywhere can act corrupt or tyrannical sometimes I would agree (videoed beatings, prison guard foul ups etc. even tho it can be argued that they were goaded into their actions) and the situations are generally brought to light and corrected but other than that I cannot buy the gentlemans quote. I wish I could give Five Thumbs down. Having police does not abdicate self defense. Some are less capable of self defense than others ie.women and children. Mike you don't know anything about the Waffler majority (may their numbers increase). Self-defense does not include the right to attack or fire upon the police whom you and the people have hired to protect all of us. Such treachery is the lowest form of human behaviour. Maybe that is why the Mikes and the knucle walkers of the world like it so much. Treachery is their name.

If they have not been lawfully removed then they are still serving the people. It is not up to one person to remove them but up to the poeple. They are still there so that is where they are suppose to be serving and doing their jobs. All the complaints are just empty bags of wind.

Get with the "people" and you will be saved. It is when the individual takes on the people by taking on the agencies of the people (cops, FBI, IRS etc) that he gets in trouble. The "people" want you on their side, the side of law, order and civilization, not on the side of attacking them by attacking their sons, daughtes, fathers and mothers who are cops, FBI, and IRS etcetea.

Paine makes several statements here and as always you guys read and remember what suits your worldview. You start with a worldview and look to have it sustained. You support your positions not because they are intrinsically right but only because they are your positions and your ego will not permit you to think or learn anything new. Have you never heard of fraternal groups posting look outs or night watch and then taking turns at doing that. Then later someone does not want to take his turn and several of them hire people to do the watching, the guarding. This is called specialization of labor. Then the group realizes that if they can control the level of arms of the people they are watching their jobs and the safety of all can be further enhanced etcetera. Thus voila! we have society where all is at peace. You are wrong Archer the police are the perfect substitute for self-defense (not all situations but most). Why else has society evolved such a thing. Who the hell wants to sit up all night keeping a look out for his safety. Most people want a good nights sleep. It is shown that in wealthier neighborhoods where there is substantial police presence crime goes down. That is why inner city folks complain that they do not get enough police protection. The same situation exists in Iraq and Afghanistan. More peace keepers more peace.

The cops, the IRS, the FBI, the courts, are doing the peoples business. When they call on you they represent the people. These agencies of the people answer to the people at large in totality not to a single stand alone person whether that person is wacko or not. Where some go wrong is that they do not understand this and think that these agencies are their personal servants. Not true, not true. They are the peoples servants. The individual is not the same thing as the people.

Paine here is saying that law and arms are equally good alternatives. And that an equality of arms among society or no arms at all brings a peaceful equilibrium. The problem being with one who may wish to break the equilibrium with greater weapons. This of course leads to an arms race among the people and the people may be become destitute (not of arms) but of bread and butter in an effort just to protect themselves from each other. Maybe law and law enforcement is a cheaper alternative to an arms race among all of the Hatfields and McCoys in our midst. Instead of spending so much time in self defense the people could employ a securtity force (cops) and thus they could go about their productive ways such as farming, mfg, and education. What a novel idea!

And obvious aside made while he was watching gadiators kill or be killed by each other. Quote is a little vague, who are the ignorant ones the enslaved or the enslavers etc. I can think of many from Tamerlane, Alexander, and Rome for whom the purpose of the sword was to enslave. Bronze, iron, steel. Whoever had the stonger metal and the sharper edge were the enslavers.

PS: When an individual is tried in court the prosecution does not say at the end of his final argument the executive rests. He says the people rests.

Thus Democracy. An individual can not take it away by force. By doing so he is fighting not the legislature or the executive but the people. He may try to overcome the peoples by force under his concept of authority under his or her God. But God is a private personal matter according to ones own conscience and not the same thing as "the peoples" authority.

You guys are doing good today to some extent, but we have to see beyond the idea of whose perspective we are seeing things and see it from an overall perspective. An individual or family who makes a decision to shot or "defend" itself from law enforcement are in theory "defending" themselves or attacking the people in general or society. You started out great Ken from Milford. I still agree that we have rights under God that are different from our rights under law, society, the constitution. John Brown knew this and acted on it. I think he was right. As for as the polygamists well I dunno. Mike the cops apparently had no right to ask for the Koreans guns unless the Koreans were using them illegally. The Koreans however did not fire on the cops which is what we are talking about here. Archer you state your belief that citizens can have the same weapons as soldiers (and I guess police) but then you state that this is just a mental position and not a practical or real one. So it begs the question what the hell is your point? I thought we were discussing the constitutional rights to bear arms and specifically to bear arms against the government. Ken from Washington you are on to something. I think the Jews made a tactical decision to go along peacefully, hindsight of course being 20/20 you are right that they should have gone down fighting. They like most of the world had no idea what was waiting for them. Even the Germna gestapo may not have known what the SS was about to do with them.

Mike did the Koreans attack the police or what? Come on man give a straight answer for once. The Koreans protected their property. Did they kill people without cause or just for property rights or in self defense. I will research the case. I live in a town of "dear hearts and gentle people" so I can't totally relate to all of this stuff. Folks pass my house on the sidewalk all the time. They do not step on my lawn because they know that would be wrong. We love and respect each other and each others property. I travel all over America and find that is the case most places.

Logan your argument about the "no gun sign" is a good one. Most people know the concept of trespass and private property and that they may and probably will be restrained by home owners, neighbors, or police if they are doing somenthing untoward. If I lived in a neighborhood where a majority of the homes had a sign bragging about being protected by fire arms I think I would move. Some like a bunker mentality, I prefer a more relaxed and trusting mentality right up until the time someone tries cross me (Logan speaking of "Rhetoric vs. Reality" the empty prhase of "republic not a democracy" comes immediately to mind.)

Dan Mr. Locke here is saying the same thing. He is saying we have a right to defend ourselves from physical attack from another individual. We do not have a right to physical or armed force against theft. That would also seem to say that we do not have a right of armed force against corruption. Now if someone is robbing you or your home you can order them to stop, keep them at bay, attempt to arrest them, but you are not authorized to shoot them or beat them unless it is in self defense ie. they use force first. You are not authorized to shoot government forces even if they shoot first. Can you give an example of someone who successfully defended themselves from government forces by force of arms. I believe I could give examples of defense from government actions via the court systems, which of course is a different thing from force of arms.

He could have said that man has the right to self defense against bodily harm but not the right to kill over property or theft. Dan you failed to understand my post. You state that under the rights of God you can fire upon or attack Government, I agree. I simply said that under the Constitution you do not have a right to attack or even to defend yourself from government authority. If a cop says you are under arrest and says assume the position, your job is to submit. If you are able to hold him off he will call for reinforcement, right up until the time he must call for state troopers, national guard etcetera until you are subdued. I was not speaking to you directly Dan only generalizing about those on this site who choose Rhetoric over Reality. Some defend this right to arms even to the extent of a citizen having the same fire power as a soldier. One however then said that such a statement is just a mental exercise that the use of such fire power is a different thing. Well words matter and having or amassing private arsenals matter. Just as nations understand the dilemmna of arms races and loose nukes we should understand the nature of dangerous arms in our neighborhoods. You do not understand the philosophy of civil disobedience if you think that those who choose to exercise it also plan on having an arsenal or private army beside or behind them. I get tired of gun owners and the NRA saying that guns are for use or portection against law enforcemet or corrupt government. Give me a concrete example of when this would apply? Have you never heard of Tammany Hall or corrupt sweetheart deals in city halls, Congress etcetera. If the individual acting alone could and should decide that any procedure, act or event performed by government is corrupt and thus had the power to use force of arms "legally" government city, state, federal would be under armed attack constantly. ALL I AM SAYING DAN IS THE IDEA IS A LIE. IT IS RHETORIC VERSUS REALITY. I would get no pleasure from violence. Dan I would get pleasure from having this scourge of false empty thinking be elimnated from our society so that we might move forward into a more positive reality and away from negative empty meaningless rhtoric.

We make people wear clothes don't we!

Good stuff Mr Sponge. Jim wake up my man, wake up, What does the phrase "protecting oneself against corrupt power seeking government" mean to you? At least Mr. Sponge believes in talking. Who decides what is corrupt and power seeking. South Carolina made such a decision, John Brown made such a decision. Muslim radicals in the quise of Al Qaeda made such a decision. While I disagee with all of them except maybe Mr. Brown, I can at least have respect for them. They were not all mouth and no action. I still say you guys are all mouth and no actions. Windbag weasels. I support a well organized militia. I don't support private armies with private agendas. I support civil disobedience and voting and discussion to effect public policy. I do not support jealousy of the soldier ala Archer who thinks any citizen should be able to have any and all weapons that a soldier may have. Even all soldiers do not have access to all weapons. Government and corporations have been sufficiently corrupt and power seeking long enough that those who believe force of arms is the appropriate solution they should have used them long ago. Other than the examples I cited above I submit that you do not really believe your own words. Thus you are WINDBAG WEASEALS thinking you are scaring people with guns and concealed weapons.

You guys who believe in a right to attack the government for cause are just a bunch of wind bag weasels anyway. The government has been corrupt enough long enough that if your arguments had any real legs they should have been acted upon long ago. Come on and bring it on and we can see the lot of y'all annihalted and we would could put an end to this stupidity once and for all. I repeat y'all are just airbag weasels.