-8 votes

Guns do not GUARANTEE liberty.

I own guns (period).

I like guns (nuff said).
---Because I like the "awe-inspiring" finality of them"
---I like that I can kill animals with ease with them.
---I like that I can kill humans who would kill me "with ease" with them.
---I like guns because they are dangerous, I like dangerous things.

I like snakes -- because they can get us to eat apples when we are not supposed too. And because they are dangerous (they can kill us).

We do not have "Trout Week" -- We do have "Shark Week"

The Dandelion Hunter was not as thrilling as the Crocodile Hunter
---RIP Steve Irwin
---The videos talking about Irwin's death rank in the 1.2M hits mark
---The videos "claiming" to show Iriwn's death are 2 to 3 times that

"We" humans lovvvvve death and danger.


1) If we did not have guns - would we find are "danger / badazz" fix elsewhere -- say bow-and-arrow or swordmanship or throwin-knives?

2) Have we "had" the kind of liberty Mises talks about (EVER) in this country (while having more guns in civilians hands than in all armed forces combined)?

My argument is that "consumers" (free-choice to buy whatever) with no bailouts are the "rulers-asleep" of this country.

We "rule" not by gun but by decision-authority over consumptive-goods.

We ARE 2/3rds of the "evil-they" revenue stream -- in fact we are more than 2/3rds if you think about it the way I do.

We are engaging "the enemy" in the wrong field.

It's not "guns" -- as there would be FAR FAR FEWER guns available in a free-society ("think" gov't subdization of metal industry, price setting, loopholes, and bailouts) OR we would have evolved past metal guns and flung-ammo tech decades ago (either or) -- it is not guns that that make us free it is CONSUMPTION and the fact that we are asleep to logic Mises presented. Consumer-sovereingty.

Wake Up People -- You've had guns (I've had guns) and corporatism marches on.

They will take your guns VIA corporatist mechanisms -- because you fail to "rule" at the POS (point of sale) and you continue to create wealth in corporatist vehicles (ballot-box) -- by your participation, by your investment, and by your labor.

That is the cold-dark truth of it!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Guns are a backup for when all else fails.

It's true--in a police state with no civil liberties, guns dot protect you much from government. But they can keep you from being loaded in the cattle cars.

Support the Constitution of the United States

Which is suicide, ultimately.

As a single man that's fine but as a family man do you kill your family (and self) to avoid the cattle car or do you take your chances at a future possible escape?

I mean if it's Zombies at the gate, the decision is easy.

But if you "know" the gov't is rounding people up to "clear" an area of insurgents and they are taking you to a place you "know" is populated by the living (by the survivors of civil war and murderous opportunism) -- I think you do what the Iraqis did and "go with them"

Or you must kill your family and then yourself.

This is an absurd discussion -- what idiotic came up with this OP-Thread!!! Hahahahaha.

"They" are not going to take guns away #1
---Way too much profit going to HUGE lobbiers in "legal" gun trade
---Even bigger profit in "faking" gun legislation (50% increase in sales last two months)

"We" have more guns then the Chinese and East Indian Armies combined. #2

Not that the latter is the reason -- it's just that guns don't stop the really negative stuff from happening -- they are only "poetic" in their ability to stop gov't (in modern times).

Guns did not stop capitalism (slavery, forced relocation, forced assimilation, and reservationism) nor did it stop corporatism (currency monopolization and "covert" slavery).

There is no "Corporatism 2" -- it either ends in WWIII or horrific Rebellion (which will turn into 10,000 "mini" wars of opportunism) or it ends via the "conscious-consumer-revolt"

Voting and Lobbying beget Physical Wars -- All Physical Wars begin as Ideological Fanaticism. War is quite literally Consumptive-Control.

To control others consumption (make them buy your shyt, make them use your currency, make them pay for "protection") or to increase ones consumption (by theft of resources). It's mostly both since the Civil War.

Guns may not guarantee liberty

but knowing how and when to use them does.

What happens when a criminal wants what you have and has a gun?
will you pull out your kitchen knife when the long arm of the law comes to drag you off to a detention camp or psych facility with absolutely no due process?

What would you do?


Gun ownership

guarantees the 2nd amendment.
That's one freedom.

You are absolutely right!!!!!!

I've been saying this all along. And the so called libertarians are no different as the rest and just don't get it. They want their cake and eat it too. They want all the goodies that our society offers but they don't want the slavery that goes along with it.

We make ourselves slaves by consuming and supporting the corporations that enslave us. Like a moth to a flame we destroy ourselves.

The only way to win is to quit. Quit supporting the beast.

The bad thing is that it has gotten so out of control that even quitting may not help at this point. For instance, we quit buying Chevrolet and Chrysler autos so the government stole our money to keep them in business. So we may be screwed either way.

But liberty guarentees

But liberty guarentees guns.

As far as your questions about sword play and knives: We've all heard about the genocide in Darfur. A much lesser reported fact to this violence is that the region has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. In fact, they work so well, that no guns are in the region. So, the genocide being committed over there is being committed by machetes and other types of knives. Men, women and children are being hacked to pieces. Now, I am only speaking for myself, and I never want it to come to this, but if I am going to be killed, I'd rather be shot between the eyes than be hacked to pieces by a knife.

We are not even remotely close to a Rwandan machete revolt!


I agree though -- quick gun death versus slow hacking machete death.

Liberty has no effect on individual markets nor specific product demand.

We could have a Misesian Society with ZERO guns in it -- that is very possible.

But not if the guns had to be removed -- that would be theft and "war"

Theoretically that is correct

Theoretically that is correct about the society, but it isn't very likely. As Mises points out, humans act based on their own self interest. And there are a lot of people out there who think it is in their best interest to have and own guns to protect themselves and their families. It is my opinion that a gunless America is an impossibility. There is no way Americans would give up their guns without a bloody war waged against us. I just wish we took the same strong stand for all our freedoms.

A "good" that was born out of slavery or by serf (or indentured

labor) is possibly NOT a free-market good -- sometimes with certainty it is not a free-market good.

Like voting and lobbying (via the ballot box) and any decision acted upon by gov't from 1776-1860(based on ballot box voting) was NOT a free-market good.

Any product born out of slavery or serfdom-labor is NOT a free-market good.

Cotton-Demand from the consumer-side alone (during slavery) was not as high (no-where-near) nor could it have created the bubble that slave-labor, subsidization, speculation, and the factorage system pumped (bubble) it up to be.

Gov't backed low-priced goods can create (often do) "false-demand" which sends false production signals as the Johnny-come-latelies come running in to soak up the profit.

If it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, looks like a duck -- it could be a guy with duck oil, duck call, and decoys!!!

Mining (Coal and Steel) did not reflect a free-market good.
---Gov't Subsidies
---Slave or Serfdom Labor
---Supply Chain
---->Required (one and all) depopulating American Indians -- not corporation paid the cost of this "service" the Military provided.

If you told people "you can have mining to derive your guns, but we have to kill off 100,000 Africans or touch off a 500K genocidal civil war to do it" -- most people if forced to make a public vote would say "no."

Keeping consumers in the dark and consumers want to be in the dark allows for the horror-offshoring to continue without guilt.

What does any of that have to

What does any of that have to do with Americans liking guns?

People "liked" other things before there was "this much" gun


The guns of the revolution were not as accurate, as durable, or as sought after -- "bigger" wasn't necessarily "better" back then.

Everything was held to "market-driven" pragmatism.

A hunter (for hire) would have more weapons than a farmer.

Most gun purchases (at least 50%) are driven by speculation of "no more guns" type legislation -- which is intentional and never amounting to anything as harsh as say the "Brady Bill" because the gun/ammo manufacturers actually lobby to get those type of bills put on the ballot.

It all comes back down to the individual not understanding or refusing to participate in consumer-sovereignty -- the wealthy vote to circumvent consumer-rule, so I'll vote and circumvent consumer-rule.

Tit-for-Tat politics -- piddly, penny-ante, mealy-mouth, trifling, un-manly (or womanly) politics. Which begets war -- which IS war.

RP said you cannot beget a free-market from war.

I say you cannot beget a free-market from voting-lobbying (perpetual side-picking, circumvention of consumer-rule stylized warfare).


Forgive me, but how does my

Forgive me, but how does my individual choice to buy a gun for my own individual reasons equate to war? It seems to me your logic, and more so your inability to state your logic so that it can be understood, are both deeply flawed.

BlackLab (love the name by-the-by)

Had a Black Lab as a hunting dog for 14 years.

The short-version is that "guns" (as we know and purchase them today) are NON-free-market goods.

The Mining, The Manufacturing, The Fuel to Forge, the Supply Chain, and trade instrument ($) are all heavily regulated, subsidized, and monopolized industries or instruments.

To have monopolies you must have a powerful force-agency.

To have a powerful force-agency you must abdicate self-rule (consumer-sovereignty).

The purchasing of corporatist or capitalist "goods" (regardless if they would or would not exist in a free-society) begets MORE gov't.

As we see from 1776 to Today -- More Bigger Badder Gov't each year then the previous.

The better question is "what" would free-market weaponry look like -- would it be metal guns? Would we have vast metals markets without force-agency? If from 1776 or 1790 we had a truly Misesian Free-Society?

The "long answer" requires a bit more work -- I can do it if you still don't "see it" but have patience as this "understanding" is rarely ever related or very little understood. Most Mises Scholars do not understand or have not meditated very deeply on Mises "consumer-sovereignty" -- many of them ignore it. Most "Mises" Scholars are actually Rothbardians -- Rothbard and Mises had fundemental differences in their philosphies.

Mises called Rothbard and Friedman "socialists"


Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river



Dismantling the Pyramid

I like snakes too! I had several as a teen. Not poisonous though. My favorite was a Broad Banded Water Snake that my boyfriend caught for me. I used to let it swim in the bathtub and eat goldfish. I had a hog nose too. It was my 2nd favorite.

I happen think the guns we have, and the grace of God, are the only thing keeping us from a populase cleansing on the magnitude of 20 Million or more. Perhaps gun ownership is what is buying the time we need as we try to figure out how to get ourselves out of this mess.

End the Fed
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

How about a challenge: http://www.dailypaul.com/244168/july-4th-2013-liberty-day-ch...

Come up with a competitive way to rule at the point of sale and instead of stuffing ballot boxes engage the enemy by overwhelming the enemy as Friends of Liberty who will be on those ballots.

How about if we do what Dr. Paul requested and start dismantling the pyramid at the local level.


Guns are useless in the hands of cowards.

Only courage to use force only when necessary and wisdom to know the difference will get us through this.

Your post is true

Guns are tools that can be used for ill and for good. Essentially, they are neutral actors in our situation.

The real rulers of any society is the consumer. Not individually, but as a mass. Your freedom is not determined by how many guns, how much gun training, what kind of firepower you can muster, but whether or not your neighbors will join you.

The problem with relying on guns for anything (other than meeting one-off criminal force with equal force) is that there's nobody to shoot. The police officer who arrests you for pot is enforcing laws and regulations that were passed by some faceless, nameless, bureaucracy or legislature that were voted into office to make these laws...by your sweet little next door neighbor. So who do you shoot when the cops come for you?

I like guns. I like to shoot. I'm pretty good at it. The more I know about guns and ammo, the more I know how utterly useless they are in protecting ourselves against a government still tolerated by the vast majority of Americans. I know that anyone who thinks they can take on the government with a gun is going to end up dead.

We are sliding very quickly toward a fascist police state. Law enforcement is more than prepared for anyone challenging them with a weapon. They've got every militarized toy to respond with. We will not defeat the police state with guns.

One of the first rules of war (after 'maintain the element of surprise) is 'never fight on your opponents terms.' The government and it's cops/soldiers are ready for a gun fight...you're not. That's their terms.

Our terms are what we are willing to condone through the action of working and consuming. No government, no matter how despotic, can control the actions of a population that refuses to support them. That will take education and time. And it may never work.

When (if) society believes in freedom again, guns will hardly be necessary.

But LIBERTY gaurantees GUNS.

And a good barometer of the degree of a nations's liberty (at least ours), is how difficult it becomes for its citizens to obtain and own guns.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I own guns -- I like them.

I just realize that they don't bring liberty.

Now some dead intruders -- yeah and that's fine, no problem with that.

You wrote: "Guns do not

You wrote: "Guns do not GUARANTEE liberty."

My reply is that while an armed populace may not guarantee our liberty, it sure as hell can't hurt. I would go so far as to say that what Liberty we have left today may very well be attributable to our owning the firearms and ammunition that government already knows about. If you had to pick a group of individuals to attack and to subdue, you certainly would not pick the group that you know for certain has a great deal of both arms and ammunition. To do so would be mighty dangerous.

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

If you want to look at history then "no" an highly armed populac

has never guaranteed a free-society (liberty).

Not once in all human history as a matter of fact.

They do no longer need to attack (physically) to steal; in fact they have not had to do that since 1913 really -- before then really.

If you control the valuation mechanism that all assets are termed in, then you control everything.

If we had a free-market from 1776 on would we have a large enough of a metals market to have guns and ammo the way we have today?

If you understand that either by slavery or forced economic indentured servitude do states and corporatists get individuals to work in mines and that you must kill-off of displace indigenous populations to control (from root to the court) said lands then you begin to understand the "true cost" of a vast metals market.

I think if we had free-markets we would have evolved "other" tech to defend ourselves.

Regardless metal guns and ammo would be very very expensive in a free-market without massive gov't subsidies etc.

If you control the valuation

If you control the valuation mechanism that all assets are termed in, then you control everything.


In other words, if you control a currency that's mandated/decreed (read: through fiat), you control what's tied to it. Reminds me of that quote a certain bankster long ago said.

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws. -Who?

Because of this relationship that is control, I'm bamboozled why anyone in his right mind would advocate gold, silver, other mineral or something outside his say-so which invites moving from a currency to a different currency whose owner/issuer/controller is the same. Or if dealing in possibility rather than in certainty, why move to leave yourself open to use the same owner's new currency?

Reader (not necessarily OctoBox), read Niall Ferguson's "The House of Rothschild" volumes 1 and 2 to get an idea of Rothschild control. I believe, however, this family's control dates back before the years most Rothschild writers discuss. Either way on when its dynasty started, for a long time Rothschild has been the source of misery the world over. A few more books, ones I've not read yet, on this family's rise is fairly old book "The Rise of the House of Rothschild," "The Kaballa, the Mother of All Harlots" and "The Post American World, a modern book Obama in a seen in a photo holding and which I don't know if Rothschild is in it; anyway, look for this Obama photo. Old book by John Reeves "The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations," a book Ivy League university Cornell published (and publishes?). Reeves' book, however, misses substantial points, projects wrongly and twists sentiments that people of the time detested Jews when what they detested (in evidence such as books, movies and other materials) rather is Rothschild, a tactic done where Rothschild has been mentioned throughout the years and that is a major onus on who is Jewish. Whoever is Jewish should want to rid his culture of Rothschild. Rothschild is no friend of the Jewish man but is a friend of the person Jewish or not who wants to enslave man.

I return to my original theme but specifically on gold and silver:

Every time I think about people who advocate gold and silver, I think, They know or they don't know. Regardless their knowledge, the outcome of using a new currency whose owner is the same as the previous currency is fatal. This issue, the all encompassing issue, the biggest issue, always saddens and disturbs me about Ron Paul. I think RP knows this advocacy is wrong fatally and because of that comprehension, I believe, it's why in recent years he has moved away from gold standard advocacy to free market money, the (only) way to get free.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Part is true, part is stupid.

First part - true. Closest we came was 1776, and the wart of slavery prevented us from having a free society, then provided the excuse for truly enslaving EVERYONE once again. I think, if we tried (and succeeded) again, we could pull it off, but it would first require massive amounts of education and awakening.

Second part - that's just plain idiotic. I'm sorry, but it is. Our military currently gets *all* of its M-16s, M-4s, and M-249s from a Belgian company, Fabrique Nationale, and yet, Smith & Wesson manufactures an affordable AR-15 called the M&P 15 Sport, which *no* government agency uses. If it weren't for their handguns' popularity with law enforcement, Smith & Wesson would deal almost exclusively with civilians. Why are companies like Bushmaster and Colt still in business, if not for civilian demand? Springfield Armory manufactures the M1A, which sees only extremely limited military use, and no law enforcement use that I'm aware of. Why aren't they out of business? Civilian demand. Inter Ordnance manufactures affordable rifles, and do *zero* government sales. In fact, numerous AK manufacturers deal only with civilians. How come their rifles aren't expensive, even though they get no government subsidies?

What it boils down to is that, while you're well meaning, you have no clue when it comes to the real civilian demand for guns. Don't even get me started on hunting rifles that see *no* military use. If we got the government out of it, guns would be even cheaper. Your claims about metal production relying on Indian-killing is ridiculous, as well. You do realize that iron and copper are more than abundant in many places, right? Besides, in a free society, deals would have been worked out with natives who actually had lands.

BTW, I do have to wonder, what "other tech" would we be using to defend ourselves? Guns are simple, reliable, and very effective. If we can't use metal, I suppose lasers are out of the question.

NCforPaul -- I agree!

If I made the argument you made on my behalf then that would have been stupid.

I said "Regardless metal guns and ammo would be very very expensive in a free-market without massive gov't subsidies etc."

I was referring to the metals and mining industries.

The SOCOM pistol was designed here but produced in Germany -- a proven side-effect of gov't subsidized inflationary spending driving innovation over-seas.

S&W just won a huge gov't contract -- they are outfitting, supplying, training, certifing the ATF -- I think they have a contract with Homeland-Security as well, don't they?

In other arguments (on this page) I said that American Civilians have enough arms to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian Armies.

I will stand-by my statement that in a free-society the cost of guns would be far far far higher (if from 1776 on we had a truly consumer-sovereignty I think we would have innovated around metal guns and metal ammo -- maybe composites?).

So -- yes -- You won an imaginary debate by your own design and no I don't want to get you started, hahahaha.

I said "Regardless, metal

I said "Regardless, metal guns and ammo would be very, very expensive in free market without massive government subsidies, etcetera.

And there would be little need and want for guns. People living their lives would be content, not angry and wanting to own guns.

Nice commentary, OctoBox. I haven't seen you on the DP in a while. I always enjoy your commentary. I'm glad to read you again.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

I'm sorry.

I misunderstood your post. The metals & mining part is a little more reasonable, though I still disagree. Demand for things that use metal equals demand for metal; demand for metal equals production of metal. To suggest that killing Indians was a prerequisite to cheap metal is rather silly, IMO - why would it have been impossible to simply work out deals if we had a truly free society? Without government force to steal with, there'd be no real way to steal native lands. Additionally, how does one go about "stealing" land from hunter-gatherer tribes that own no land? I know plenty of Native Americans weren't hunter-gatherers, but many were.


Indians did have land ownership - according to Tom Woods. It just wasn't couched in European Terms, but intricate and complicated nonetheless.

"Demand" for metal goods was never born from a free-society -- since there's never been a free-society.

Demand for metal only came from mass warring societies.

Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers do not have no where near the demand for metal as do industrial or mass war societies do.

Again -- given what we know from all world history; mining was ALWAYS a slave or peasant or serf or indentured servitude job. Even in America, among white miners -- these men are forced via economic hardship to work the mines.

I think we would have developed sustainable wood and especially composite technology -- less metals and mining (but some for sure).

In the 1840's washer-women would win law suits against coal burning factories worth millions of dollars annually. It was in the late 1840's that this stopped (forcibly by gov't).

As per your question why Indians had to be killed -- In all world history where mass mining takes place the indigenous people were killed off and forcibly relocated (theft).

I don't know why they can't do it otherwise -- people just don't get "progress" by gov't means I guess and refuse to go "nicely" -- Again according to all world mining situations and all world history.

I disagree. I feel owning them does guarantee our liberty....

In a way no other form of active resistance can accomplish. The fact that the government has consistently sought to undermine firearm rights, proves this true.

At every opportunity the government has fought tooth and nail to rip apart our ability to own guns, firearms or have any access to the 2nd amendment. This to me solidifies strong evidence they are scared to death of that scenario.

Again, I do not presume to know all the answers. But I believe we have enough battle hardened civilians, groups and militias to totally abolish this government.

The problem now comes in not the reality of us having the required tools to defend ourselves, but in facing the reality of the hardship that is guaranteed should we not succeed in uniting our message under the same banner.

There is more divisions and differences, attempts to divide the liberty movement that at any point in history. Some say our only recourse is a third party, others say we must "reform" the GOP; while many others vouch for dangerous propositions like violently overthrowing the government at all levels.

The vital piece to remember is all of these scenarios are different, and all will lead to decidedly different outcomes. Not the same outcome we all worked for, and therein is one of our most significant problems.

A violent over-throw will lead us to a hundred thousand dead on both sides, give or take, and a restoration of true limited government. But it will also allow the same deceivers, to take control of our government again by setting up foreign banks and invisible dictatorships just as it occurred with Abraham Lincoln. Don't make the false assumption of thinking that just because they're closed down, they are stopped, never make that mistake.

Oh God -- Not Lincoln again

If you believe one man starts and ends war then you believe in Superman (hero-worship).

Was the South deeply in-debt to the Banks of Eng and Fra?
---More so then the North?

That answer is resoundingly YES.

King Cotton was built on the Factorage System (inpart) and European (especially French and English) Banking.

In fact without the era of King Cotton there would be no "world bankers" -- Cotton was the first turning point in their (Rothschilds) domination of all other markets via monopoly control over currency.

The Super Mono-Crop -- Mono-poly Crop.

Guns are a "mono-crop" controlled by Banksters and Big Gov't.

Show me ONCE when the gov't "lessoned" guns sales?

Everytime they scare people about taking away their guns guns sales go up by around 50%.

After King Cotten it was King Steel then King Banking.

Guns are made from Steel.

If we want to end corporatism I suggest we listen to Mises and meditate deeply on how we are supporting corporatism by buying and using the assets they hold nearly all their wealth in.

Guns have NEVER WROUGHT a free-market.

Not once in all human history. Not even close.

So your argument is moot on that point (that after a prolonged war we'd have the type of gov't we were after).

We own (as civilians) enough guns to arm the Chinese and Indian armies -- that's absurd.

I own guns -- I like 'em.

We've had guns in this country forever and every year since the inception of this country we've moved toward corporatism -- each year the noose gets tighter.

I'm just viewing all human history -- show me ONCE where violence led to a truly free-market as Mises argued for?

The answer is ZERO because we know there's never been that type of society -- not that it hasn't been conceived it just can come from strong-arming people and creating groupists (side-takers).

And there in lies the rub we have to face..

In fact the creator, God, says throughout your Bible that the Pharisees can & will erect new false systems of control outside the United States and they will deceive millions. Their tyranny is in no way limited to just one system, it is connected into all of them. So if you believe in God, then you know that result is assured should it be a violent overthrow.

Reforming the GOP: Again, this path while it seems wiser; will also lead to the same false outcome that is not desired. Lets say we remove them all from their seats. Well, great. Do we really have the power or numbers to stop Obama from just outlawing the GOP entirely?

Have you seen how dictator Obama acts with his own? We are out of options. The Republican Party will soon be outlawed by the would-be dictator, so vowing to "surmount" this obstacle leads ultimately to the end of the road for all of us. It is again, fully futile.

Then there's the third option, which to me is the one everyone should ultimately agree towards invoking. That is moving swiftly into the third party of non-compliance. In this venue, we have already succeeded in getting so many Liberty Republicans and Liberty legislatures elected that it would be pointless to toss in the towel.

So how about we do what we should have always done, and demand they switch their party affiliation to Independent? Switch to the "Liberty" party, & once and for all, dump the Republicrats. Shove the last of them off the planks.

At the moment they switch parties, the wind is knocked out from underneath the dutifully planning controllers. And at that point, in my mind, every candidate and group should start leading by example to boycott and disengage from this fraud of a financial system.

At that point, you will have successfully gutted the GOP; and made an undeniable win for your freedom. Multiply this by all fifty states realizing their financial power that keeps the system in place, and finally, you will gain back your liberty. They only take away more and more of your freedoms, the more you comply to their phony, debt based slave plant. Cease all compliance with the Federal Reserve, cease spending using their currency, and watch "their" weapons fail and their army tumble like weeds. Then and only then, will the R3VOLUTION succeed in its objectives. Then and only then, will you have the power to detain them and end the system. The longer you believe any other option works, the longer you prolong the slave state. Getting everyone in the freedom movement to understand is the TOUGHEST part for they must feel it, This is the samson option: Disengagement from the Federal Reserve is the only way you win.