What does it take for people to wake from complacency?

[JustSomeDude]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As national health care and cape and trade nears, our tyrannical government continues to chisel away our liberties and freedoms. Our state is continually less free. As the 17th amendment further eroded the checks and balances between state and federal governments, now more than ever is it necessary that state's rights (and individual rights for that matter) be protected by an armed citizenry WILLING to act.

What does it take? What level of tyranny is required for one to act with force in defense of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

[Irving]

There is no unified body that I'm aware of (if there is one, some one write down the name and pass me a note). No leader to get people motivated.

I see this attitude all the time,but never see it backed up. I'm just as angry about the erosion of my rights and the creation of unnecessary legislation as anyone. Now that we've got that out of the way, what kind of force are you talking about, and how can you justify it? Are you willing to be the executioner when someone is only guilty of ignorance?

If you were in charge of some fantasy militia, where would you start your crusade at?

[JustSomeDude]

Are you willing to be the executioner when someone is only guilty of ignorance?

If you were in charge of some fantasy militia, where would you start your crusade at?

I'll lead if no one else will.

And I would not act against the ignorant with force, I would simply try to inform them. The ignorant and blasé are not my problem. My motivation for a unified revolts rests solely with those in power in our government. I don't blame mobs for their complacency - only those who've led them to believing that such a state is from where success is born.

[Irving]

Do you blame the masses for voting for them?

[JustSomeDude]

Do you blame the masses for voting for them?

It's a chicken/egg question... do I blame the people who continually vote for politicians who promise to "give" them something? Or do I blame the politicians for doing the giving, only as means of attaining political power? I don't think it's easy to single out one or the other. We have led ourselves into this situation, even after our founders went to great lengths to avoid the tyranny under which they fought to free themselves from.

I think, for the most part, America has been a highly successful experiment in freedom. However, if I were to nit pick one fault of our constitution (and it is a pretty big fault at that), it is that it does not provide the states a way out (short of secession) from sweeping federal regulations/mandates that they may not agree with. I think it is because the founders planned for a thorough checks and balances system that would never allow for a tyrannical government to exist, thus eliminating the need for such state sovereignty measures. However, with the passage of the 17th amendment, those checks and balances were eliminated (on a state level).

However, to answer your question, I ultimately place the fault on egotistical and arrogant politicians who have felt the need to "do something for the people" in attempts to gain political power. This is the basis of elitism, and the root of the tyranny we face today.

[Irving]

Politicians are so afraid of being a "do nothing" politician, but those are the best kind.

A good politician is like a condom. It sits idly in your pocket until you have need of it, protects you from ills when they are present, then when you are done, you toss it in the trash and go get a fresh new one. Don't get attached, don't use them twice, and don't fall too hard for the snazzy advertising.

**I just made that up. Something similar has probably been said before.