It's hard to understand the future from the present. As a follower of Christ, I try to envision what path may lie ahead for me - knowing - having been through it many times - that the way is not clear, that I feel forced into certain situations only to find out that the future I wanted went through the past that I did not want.
So it is for this nation. Right now it is impossible to envision a return to liberty where every law is first judged by the impact to personal liberty and whether the government has the right to impose such a law. It is so distant, this idea of a society based around liberty (the way it was supposed to be before the progressive movement over a hundred years ago got ahold of our government and turned it against liberty) that many can no longer even see it.
Imagine, for a minute, an FCC (we won't argue the right of the FCC to exist right now) that banned any company from registering a mobile telephone where encryption did not absolutely guarantee the privacy of phone calls made over their system and failure to provide this encryption would endanger their license to operate. Very possible, completely doable, but not even attempted by a government in hostility toward the privacy of the individual.
Imagine, for a minute, that a speed limit could not be arbitrarily imposed against the liberty of the people, but the state must first show cause for that limit and studies proving the limit to be a reasonable restriction on the liberty of the people to freely transverse the state and that the limit could and should be regularly challenged in a court of law.
If that seems distant and a little difficult to imagine, you have been brainwashed. No American should even think in terms of being "allowed" to do anything, or forced to give up individual privacy in order to enjoy the benefits of technology. But, it all began before your parents were born and it was done through schools, it was done through incremental steps toward collectivism, where the good of the many out weighed the rights of the one, but that is the exact opposite of the principles that made America a great and powerful nation. (I won't go back into time and reargue the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression ((though that better describes it)) or get into the minutia of every aspect of America from its founding. I won't engage in side arguments for a bit here)
The rights of the one should be the starting place of every law. How does it affect the privacy, liberty or property of Joe the bartender? or the farmer? or the doctor? But, we have let this evil dwell within our society and grow to infect even the patriot brain, it is irresistible to some degree.
But now, look at the America that should be for a moment, one as described above and ask yourself, "How do we get there from here?" Seem impossible? That is exactly the vision you have been indoctrinated to accept.
Consider how the last banking crisis was handled (I say last, because it was only one of many throughout American history and it won't be the last). What if, the property rights of the one outweighed the good of powerful? If the rights of the one was inviolable; a brick wall. Would it not have been better during the last banking crisis that anyone current on their loan with the defunct bank would then be the possessor of the land, home, business with whom the loan was contracted? The contract would be void and the land remain with the possessor. Would it not have been better if after a person had paid off $220,000 of a $250,000 home, but lost his job due to the banking crisis, would not have had that home repossessed, but the $30,000 restructured and/or the home sold say for $180,000 and the homeowner reimbursed for all, but the $30,000 owed on the loan at the time of the default?
Of course it would, but the laws have not been made with individual property rights given their proper due. They have been made for reckless bankers and government agencies and powerful organizations. They have been made to make sure that the banking institutions survive their reckless gambling. I know the banking system is much more complicated than I am making it seem, but that's not the point. The fact is, Americans just rolled over and let themselves get raped with all the guilt and shame of any rape victim.
Now, look at the way the gun debate is shaping up. To own a gun is to admit insensitivity to children, perhaps even hostility and why? Because the state owns you. They have proven it many times and in many ways, especially during the last banking crisis and this whole Second Amendment nonsense is just another way they need to make you feel their power, the power of making you feel guilt and shame for owning a gun.
But, if you look at the issue from the proper perspective, the way most gun owners do, that this is one time they will not feel ashamed and guilty for demanding to be treated like an American; a possessor of rights regardless of what laws the powerful Marxists pass in their ridiculous courts of popular opinion. This time the rights of the one outweigh the good of the many, because the rights of the one are in balance with the good of the many and the gun owners know that deep inside, instinctively, but for the Marxist/Collectivist, the Second Amendment is just another law to be sidestepped, shamed out of existence, ridiculed into oblivion.
Now look at schools in the 21st Century, with Skype utilized by millions of people, probably billions worldwide. With the bandwidth available today. Then ask yourselves, why are the American people still sending their precious children to victim congregation centers more populous than a minor league baseball game with no security system whatsoever to defend them from the heinous acts carried out time and time again by drugged up, emotional cripples over a 20 year period.
Are we to accept that the American people, in this technologically intensive time, cannot figure out how to deliver education any other way? That we must send our precious children into a congregation center with no security system whatsoever, except to hide under a desk or gather in a closet?
Everything the collectivists have done that have cost the lives of all of those students and still, even after the latest bloodbath, armed security in schools is driven from consideration. What do they seek instead? Guns. Why guns? Because of the reason the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor instead of invading California, because they knew that "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." That is the direct quote of Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander In Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
What keeps anyone from invading the United States today? What has changed? It is probably worse for an invader today than at any other time in American history. What would the globalists need to do to "invade" our minds and lives? They would have to remove our ability to resist their totalitarian edicts. They would have to turn us into Sweden, now invaded by "refugees" where a woman is more likely to be raped than in the United States, but who has no recourse to that destiny but a rape whistle. They are not even allowed pepper spray, much less a .32 in the purse.
Take away the Second Amendment and we are just next in line for the absolute devastation of our nation. If the Collectivists want to push this far enough, we will have to go through the past we don't want to get to the future we were always meant to have.
Arm the teachers or disband the schools. Surely we can deliver education better in the 21st Century than the method used in the 18th, when gun ownership and the will to use it to defend children were vastly more prescient.
http://liesofomission.com and http://12roundproductions.com