Main menu

A Ringing Non-Endorsement

(originally launched into cyberspace on 06/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I'm going to do what almost nobody who values freedom is doing
these days: I'm going to suggest that you should NOT vote for Ron
Paul for President.

So who should you vote for? Nobody. Voting is an immoral act. (I
warned you before that what happens on this list is way outside the
realm of "acceptable" political discussion.)

Unlike everyone else running for President right now, Ron Paul
actually believes in something. There are actual principles
underlying his beliefs. He believes in the Constitution. By itself
that doesn't sound particularly noteworthy, except that NO ONE else
running for President, and no one else in either major party
believes in the Constitution. Not one. They give it occasional lip-
service, but in practice they ALL violate it on a daily basis.

Dr. Paul believes, as the Founders did, that the federal government
should do very little, dang near NOTHING affecting the lives of
most Americans. I disagree. The feds should not do ALMOST nothing;
they should do ABSOLUTELY nothing. All the control freaks who call
themselves "representatives," not to mention all the thugs who work
for them (IRS, CIA, DEA, ATF, FBI, FCC, FDA, DOJ, etc.), should go
home, look in the mirror, recognize that they are mere mortals with
no right to rule anyone else, and then they should leave everyone
else alone.

I have a habit of making pro-freedom people argue something they
hardly ever have to argue: that we need MORE government (more than
I advocate, that is--which is none). The difference between dang-
near-no government interference (as Dr. Paul advocates) and NO
"government" interference (as I do) may seem trivial, but it is
not. Yes, if the federal government only did what the Constitution
authorizes, we would all benefit enormously. The problem would
become so small that most of us wouldn't notice it at all. A tiny
little tyranny, affecting a tiny percentage of the people--who
would bother getting riled up about that? Nobody. And therein lies
the problem. Remember, the Constitution is what LED to where we are
now: that tiny little power grew, as the anti-federalists warned,
into a monstrous leviathan.

Let me just add here, if you intend to vote for anyone OTHER than
Dr. Paul, you might as well put yourself in shackles right now,
because you are volunteering yourself (and everyone else) into
absolutely slavery. Why? Because EVERY other politician in office
or running for office believes that THEY and they alone have
absolute discretion over how much they will rob you and how much
they will control you. They acknowledge no limits to their power.
They all view you as their slaves. If you vote for them, you are
AGREEING with them; you are endorsing your own enslavement, and all
that is left is the pathetic attempt to get a relatively benevolent
slave-master (which won't happen either).

If a Ron-Paul-style country would be such a vast improvement over
what we have now (and it certainly would), why am I suggesting that
people should NOT vote for him? Because you have no right to choose
a ruler for anyone else, no matter how benevolent and wise such a
ruler might be. You cannot delegate to anyone rights you don't
personally have, and you do NOT have the right to impose even
little "taxes," even minimal "regulations," even just about those
few matters listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And
by voting, even for someone like Dr. Paul, you are ENDORSING the
idea that whomever gets the most votes has the RIGHT to forcibly
control everyone, even if only in a "limited" way.

Personally, I'd love to see nothing more than a Ron Paul Presidency
(although frankly, I think the powers that be would kill him before
they'd let him take office), just for the entertainment value if
nothing else. But as enticing as that thought is, I cannot and will
not play a game, the scam called "democracy," which implies that
the individual is the PROPERTY of the state, and that our only
choice is WHICH slave-master will own us. If I was the property of
someone else, I would love that someone else to be Dr. Paul. But
I'm not, and I will not act like I am by "voting."


Larken Rose

P.S. Notwithstanding the above, I love to hear Dr. Paul talk,
because it makes such a drastic contrast to the putrid tripe every
other candidate spews. Because of that, when I heard that "Iowans
for Tax Relief" had decided NOT to invite Dr. Paul to the debate
they were hosting, I decided to give them a little grief for it.
Below is what I just sent them, at " This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ". Feel free
to pile on, if you're annoyed at the status quo parasites trying so
hard to keep Dr. Paul's ideas away from the general public.

- -----------------------------------------------------

Your Disguise is Slipping

Dear Frauds,

"Iowans for Tax Relief"? Nice joke. Any organization which would
hold a "debate," and exclude the ONLY candidate who has any
intention of seriously reducing taxation--and I'm sure you know I'm
speaking of Dr. Ron Paul--has no business pretending to be for
lower taxes. You are showing your true colors, and they aren't


A Terrorist By Any Other Name

(originally launched into cyberspace on 06/08/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people
view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a
civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most
heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good
when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly
incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored
glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in
"government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most
people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on.

For years now the government and the media have been condemning the
evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use
the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses
violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end.

As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles,
apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed
state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday
heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I
understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the
place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been
no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting
this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any
special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law
enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever
of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess
they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading
in their spare time.

Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is
NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a
political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob
anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal
terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell)
the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally"

But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his
violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous
or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to
whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the
belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now
surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is
"legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly
see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law

There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the
Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism
perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps
people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is
backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including
deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat
ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast.
Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled
threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled
threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists.

If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American
"law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These
people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and
pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority-
worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or
kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to.

I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the
Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more
people are paying attention to what is really going on up there
(though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be
done in secret, have cut their phone lines).

It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a
supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences
(a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me
who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will
forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be.
You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in
the same.


Larken Rose

Politician Scribbles

(originally launched into cyberspace on 05/21/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Is it bad to break the law? Without thinking, almost everyone would
say "yes." (However, almost everyone could think of exceptions as
well.) Note that the question doesn't say what the "law" is--a
"law" against murder or a "law" requiring you to have that little
sticker on your license plate. The question is about "law" in
general: is it bad to disobey the official commands of "government"?

The terms "law-abiding citizen" and "lawbreaker"--the first with a
positive connotation and the second with a negative one--show how
much we revere "law," in and of itself. But what are we talking
about when we speak of obeying the "law"? In short, we're talking
about politician scribbles.

A bunch of politicians got together, wrote down some command--
either requiring us to do something or prohibiting us from doing
something--and threatened some punishment for failure to obey.
Every such "law" is a threat of violence: if you don't do as you're
told, your property will be taken, or you'll be locked up. It's not
a suggestion or a request; it's a command backed by a threat of

Whether we call something "law" does NOT depend upon the nature of
the command, or what it's about. As long as it was created via the
"legislative" process, we call it "law," and we treat is as
something which--except in rare situations--should be obeyed.

But why? How did I acquire an obligation to obey whatever command a
bunch of slimy politicians might happen to come up with this week?
How on earth can one say that it is good to obey the "law," without
knowing WHAT the "law" in question is? How can it be inherently
good to obey a command, ONLY BECAUSE OF WHO GAVE IT, and not
because the command itself is justified?

I've talked before about justified defensive force and the
unjustified initiation of violence. So-called "laws" are ALWAYS
threats of force, but they can be in either category: justified or
unjustified. For example, I consider a threat like "If you try to
steal my car, I'll punch you in the nose," to be justified. On the
other hand, "Give me your car or I'll punch you in the nose" is
unjustified. But either one can just as easily be "legislated" into
being "law."

Again, the simple truth makes people uncomfortable: either
politicians somehow have the ability to ALERT morality, or their so-
called "laws" deserve no respect at all. Either they can, by
legislation, make an inherently unjustified threat into a justified
threat, or their "legislation" makes no difference to what is the
right thing to do. (In most religions, even God doesn't claim the
ability to CHANGE what is good and what is bad from day to day, so
apparently politicians outrank God.)

In short, respecting "law" is utterly insane. The fact that a
threat went through the "legislative" process has NO BEARING
WHATSOEVER upon whether the threat is justified, or whether anyone
has an obligation to comply with the command. None. Zero. Nada.

The morality of murder does not change depending upon whether it's
"legal" or not. The morality of theft does not change depending
upon whether it's "legal" or not. The morality of hiring a kid to
mow your lawn does not change depending upon whether it's "legal"
or not. The morality of having a beer, smoking a joint, eating a
cheeseburger, driving a car, opening a restaurant, singing a song,
building a deck, shooting a rabbit, buying a gun, selling someone a
hat, or killing and eating your neighbors, does not change
depending upon whether it's "legal" or not.

In other words, what almost everyone calls "law" deserves NO
respect at all. You should fear those commands, as they are backed
by the very real threat of violence, which will be carried out by
people who will "just follow orders" because of their belief in
"authority," but you have no MORAL obligation to obey. (Your moral
obligation to refrain from murder comes, NOT from the fact that
some "law" forbids it, but from such an act being an infringement
upon the rights of someone else.) In other words, breaking the law
is not bad (in and of itself), and obeying the law is not good (in
and of itself).

Such concepts, though based upon very simple, basic, self-evidence
lines of reasoning, make most peoples' heads explode. We are so
trained to bow to "authority" that when someone says we don't have
to, most of the indoctrinated peasants reflexively react with shock
and horror at the suggestion. Why, there would be CHAOS if we
didn't respect "law"! Why? If people respected individual rights,
but had no respect for politician scribbles, what would happen?
Think about it, and see if you can come up with a rational
justification for humanity's authority-worship and fear of freedom.


Larken Rose

(Whether a threat via "law" is justified or not is also NOT
determined by whether the "law" is constitutional. Two pieces of
paper--a constitution and a piece of legislation--cannot make
immoral violence into justified force any more than ONE piece of
paper can.)

Moral Negligence

(originally launched into cyberspace on 05/15/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

"Good citizens" don't like to hear this, but its truth should be
obvious: The biggest threat to humanity, to peace, and to justice
is NOT personal malice. It is the belief in "authority." (Oddly,
most people have the delusional belief that "authority" is what
PROTECTS us from injustice and violence, when the exact opposite is

As one example, in this country about 400,000 people per year are
robbed by "private" thieves, while well over 200 million are robbed
by thieves acting on behalf of a supposed "authority." (The federal
income tax alone hits over 100 million people, while sales taxes,
property taxes, etc., hit just about everyone else as well.) In
other words, "government" robs 500 times as many people a year as
"private" crooks.

The FBI crime reporting system defines "robbery" as "the taking or
attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or
control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or
violence and/or by putting the victim in fear." Tell me that isn't
a perfect description of what the IRS does every day. The fact that
most people don't view authoritarian robbery as "theft" is a big
reason WHY it happens so often. If some group of people is believed
to have the moral RIGHT to forcibly take other people's stuff, of
COURSE they will do it more often than regular people.
The fact is, most EVIL is committed by basically GOOD people, for
one reason and one reason only: because those people believe in
"authority." It would be very convenient to imagine that the many
thousands of individuals who carried out the mass exterminations
under the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and so on, were all
fundamentally evil and malicious. The truth is, they were very much
like most Americans are today: most of the time, they do as they
are told. Their primary sin is believing in "authority."

How many hundreds of thousands of pawns of a supposed "authority"
do things every day that they would never do acting on their own?
Why is it that someone who would never dream of personally
demanding money from a neighbor under threat of force will do the
exact same thing, day after day, for the IRS (or any other level of
"tax" collection)? It's not from malice or personal evil (or they
would do it on their own); it's all a result of "moral negligence."

The difference between malice and negligence is clear. Generally
speaking, it's really nasty to run someone over with a car on
purpose. It's considered significantly less nasty--though equally
destructive--to accidentally run someone over by not looking where
you're going, or by driving while drunk. Of course, whether it's
malice or negligence makes no difference to how squished the
pedestrian is. And while negligence is seen as a lot less serious a
"sin" than malice, it's still pretty dang bad (especially if it
results in someone dying).

Negligence can be summed up as "I wasn't TRYING to do harm; it just
happened because I wasn't really paying attention." And that is a
nice description of the harm inflicted by EVERYONE who works for
the IRS, ATF, DEA, BOP, and just about every other bureaucracy and
"law" enforcement department at every level of "government." They
commit acts of evil, which do real damage to innocent people, but
they completely deny individual responsibility for it. "I was just
doing my job" or "I'm just enforcing the law" is the universal
excuse. They completely dodge their personal responsibility. Just
the way a drunk driver negligently fails to control what his
vehicle is doing, the mind of the bureaucrat fails to control what
his body is doing. He serves as an unthinking puppet, with his own
moral judgment completely disabled by his belief in "authority."

The are two reasons why such "moral negligence" is far more
difficult to combat than outright malice and bad intent:

1) When the VICTIMS of the harm do not see the harm as evil because
of their own belief in "authority," they don't resist at all, and
frown upon those who do. Most people have the utmost contempt for
the mugger who swipes the old lady's purse containing $100, while
accepting it as legitimate and good when an IRS "revenue officer"
swipes $1,000 from that same old lady's bank account and calls it
"tax collection." If the forcible confiscation of wealth is seen as
LEGITIMATE, and resistance is seen as evil ("law-breaking"), of
course the harm will continue.

2) When the PERPETRATORS of the harm are just "doing what they are
told," even the few people who don't accept the "authority" excuse
hesitate to react violently against people whose main sin is being
unthinking drones. Imagine that you are one of those unfortunate
"undesirables" who were carted off to death camps. It is quite
likely that EVERY ONE of the "law enforcers" you would see along
the way--at your house, at the train station, even at the camps
with the gas chambers--is merely acting on behalf of "authority"
and not out of personal malice. Of course that won't make you any
less dead at the end of the day, but WHICH of those well-meaning
(but unthinking) pawns would you be willing to KILL in order to
resist? Because your choice is to do that, or die.

It's really convenient to have a bad guy to hate, and very
uncomfortable when the guy you have to shoot is merely idiotic
rather than truly evil. That is why there was such an uproar when
Hannah Arendt (a Jew) wrote a book explaining that Adolf Eichmann,
the famous facilitator of Nazi atrocities, was not acting out of
personal malice or evil, or even anti-Semitism. He was merely the
classic bureaucrat, an ordinary guy doing what he was told.

Dr. Stanley Milgram, author of "Obedience to Authority," said that
Arendt's assessment of the supposed arch villain "comes closer to
the truth than one might dare imagine." As I've said before, if you
haven't read Milgram's book documenting the results of his own
studies of blind obedience to a perceived "authority," DO. If it
doesn't scare the heck out of you, there's something wrong with

Back to the point, good people don't like the idea of having to
hurt (or kill) people who are merely negligent. If you have to blow
someone's head off, you WANT it to be someone who epitomizes pure
evil, not some stupid bureaucrat. That's why so many Hollywood
movies spend so much time showing what a horrible guy the villain
is: so you can feel comfortable when he meets his gruesome end.

But reality isn't nearly so nice. In the real world, there are only
two choices: 1) good people will use force against basically good
people whose sin is to believe in (and obey) "authority," or 2)
those basically good (but authoritarian) people will commit
dramatic injustice due to their "moral negligence." Neither option
is pleasant, which is why injustice and oppression so often win:
because the GOOD victims of it hesitate to use violence against the
merely idiotic, while the unthinking people who IMPLEMENT the
injustice don't bat an eye before committing evil in the name of

Time for the punch line which, if you're a "good citizen," you
aren't going to like: If you want to foster violence, destruction,
suffering, torture, murder, robbery, injustice and oppression,
teach your children to respect "authority." If not, don't. (Teach
them to respect individual rights instead.)


Larken Rose

Advocating Your Own Enslavement

(originally launched into cyberspace on 05/10/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Many liberals argue that, while there really are nasty tyrants
around the world, Republican politicians like war only because it
preserves their oil interests, allows them to set up puppet
governments, triggers a nationalistic, authoritarian-worshiping
response among the people, creates a common enemy which is a
distraction from their own misconduct, or gives them power in other

Meanwhile, many conservatives believe that Democratic politicians
want a welfare state and all manner of government "programs," not
to help people who deserve it, but to essentially buy votes, and
keep people helpless and dependent, thus increasing the power of

Well, they're BOTH right. What is amazing is how the pack-mentality
of the political-party adherents causes selective blindness. Why is
it they can so easily see the bad intentions of the would-be
tyrants in the OTHER "party," but can't recognize the EXACT SAME
METHODS when employed by the "party" THEY are loyal to?

For example, Rush Limbaugh does an excellent job of illustrating
how the leftist politicians support gun control, public education,
Social Security, all manner of welfare programs, confiscatory
taxes, etc., not because they give a damn about the common good,
but because those things GIVE THE POLITICIANS POWER. Meanwhile, for
some odd reason, Mr Limbaugh (and many others) can't recognize that
the supposedly "conservative" politicians support causes like a
huge military, perpetual war, the bogus "war on drugs," and other
pro-authoritarian agendas, for the same reason: to increase their

When someone associates himself with some group, team, or party, he
WANTS to think well of it (and think ill of its opponents). But the
lengths to which people CHOOSE blindness is amazing. People remain
so focused on some opponent--be it a foreign country or just a
different political party--that they fail to see that there is only
ONE thing their so-called "leaders" ever care about: their own

If you believe Republican politicians care about individual
freedom, you're off your rocker. If you believe Democrat
politicians care about individual freedom, you're off your rocker.
If you believe that the people who run for public office--who try
to get into POSITIONS OF POWER--don't WANT to control you (i.e.,
want to leave you in freedom), you're delusional. Be they
Republicans, Democrats, or anything else, they seek those positions
because they WANT TO DOMINATE OTHERS. Why do you think both parties
so rarely REPEAL stupid authoritarian controls (even those they
pretend to oppose), and instead find some NEW form of government
control to advocate?

There are extremely rare exceptions, and I hope Ron Paul is one of
them. Even Ronald Reagan, who often proclaimed government to be the
problem, not the solution, ended up advocating fascist
authoritarian control via the "war on drugs," among other things.
That's what an authoritarian system does: it encourages ever-
expanding authoritarian power, and squelches any attempt to reduce
such power. The failed "Republican revolution" of 1994 demonstrated
that quite well, showing that even people who proudly proclaim an
intent to REDUCE the power and size of "government" will end up
supporting MORE and BIGGER "government." It's the nature of the
beast. Controlling people is what "government" does; it's what it
IS. Why would anyone expect a system of CONTROL to strive to do
away with itself? You might as well "vote" for a Mafia boss who
promises to do away with the Mafia.

Why would anyone believe that voting between two people, each of
whom is SEEKING A POSITION OF ENORMOUS POWER, would ever result in
more individual freedom? And why do you think everyone is
indoctrinated--by the mainstream media, the "education" system, and
the government--to believe that "democracy" is what leads to
freedom and justice?

If you don't understand how modern tyrants scheme and manipulate,
you will end up inadvertently helping their attempts to achieve
power. (If you vote, you already have.) Your intentions won't
matter. Your goals won't matter. Your principles won't matter.
Their power will increase, and your freedom will decrease. You will
complain, protest, and vote again. And you will get more of the

"The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country,
isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And
where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you
saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing
your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this
happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more
responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but
again---truth be told--if you're looking for the guilty, you need
only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were
afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad
of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of
your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you
turned to [a politician]. He promised you order, he promised you
peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient

That quote is from the movie, "V for Vendetta." If you haven't seen
it yet, see it. And, while I'm giving authoritarian-style commands,
I might as well command you to read my book, "How To Be a
Successful Tyrant" ( ), before you vote
again, or support any "party," or any "government" program, be it
welfare, military, or otherwise. Stop accidentally advocating your
own enslavement. Know your enemy, and stop HELPING him.
Furthermore, think for yourself! I command it!


Larken Rose

Disarmed, in Body and Mind

(originally launched into cyberspace on 04/23/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Below is my commentary on the shootings at Virginia Tech. Actually,
I wrote this over a year ago. It's part of my "Tyrant" book ( ), but it pretty much covers most of what
I'd bother saying about the recent killings. Why was the massacre
attempted? Because someone seriously unstable decided to try it.
Why did it SUCCEED? Because, as far as I can tell, it didn't occur
to many (or any) of his targets to forcibly defend themselves. Why
not? Because they have been trained that way. (See below.)


Larken Rose

(P.S. Remember, this book is talking to aspiring tyrants.)
- ------------------------------------
The Sin of Self Defense

Transforming independent individuals into slaves requires extensive
indoctrination. The way they view life, the world, and themselves
must be molded into an outlook that is compatible with tyranny.
They must be trained to be scared of the world, and always to be
seeking some "authority" to protect and take care of them.
Whenever a problem arises, they should look to their rulers for the
solution rather than taking it upon themselves to fix it.

One of the main problems that the peasants must be trained not to
deal with themselves is violent conflict. It is imperative that
they view you (and your enforcers) as the only protection against
robbery, assault, and murder. In short, they must be indoctrinated
in such a way that they do not even want to be able to defend
themselves. The reason is simple: if the peasants feel capable and
entitled to "enforce justice" themselves, they might just decide to
enforce a little justice against you. And that obviously won't do.

They must be trained to give up their belief in their right to
defend themselves, which is not an easy thing to do. You must
attack "peasant justice" in any ways you can think of, such as: 1)
"Vigilante justice can never be as just or fair as our system"; 2)
"You can't possibly protect yourselves; let us do it"; 3) "If you
have a gun, you'll only hurt yourself"; 4) "If the peasants were
allowed to use force, there would be chaos"; 5) "Private protection
agencies would just deteriorate into competing gangs of thugs"; and
so on. Often privately-enforced justice is referred to as the
people "taking the law into their own hands," which reinforces the
idea that only enforcers of "the law" should ever use force, and of
course the lowly peasants can't be allowed to do that.

The point requires a lot of indoctrination because it is so
contrary to the instinct every creature has to defend itself and
its pack. A few samples of past attitudes show how far the U.S.
empire has come in training its citizens to loathe the idea of
having to defend themselves.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on
the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader
and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property." [Thomas Paine]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who
are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an
unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed
man." [Thomas Jefferson]

Even when it came to defending against foreign invasion, the
founders of the United States of America abhorred the idea of a
"standing army," and preferred instead an armed (and trained)
citizen "militia."

"A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms,
is the best and most natural defense of a free country." [James

"[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them." [Richard Henry Lee]

Even worse, a mere couple of centuries ago, even well-educated,
respected individuals spoke openly about the possibility of the
common folk using violence against their own rulers.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as
they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in
the United States." [Noah Webster]

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to
the liberties of the people while there is a large body of
citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the
use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of
their fellow citizens." [Alexander Hamilton]

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it
but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined." [Patrick Henry]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." [Thomas Jefferson]

Needless to say, that is an idea that you must rip out of the minds
of your subjects at all costs. The common folk should not view
themselves as justified even in fending off a common crook by
force, much less fending off a foreign invader, or fending off you
and your thugs. The revolutionary concept of a "militia,"
consisting of the people in general, which stands ready to forcibly
resist tyranny even from their own "government," must be removed by
any means necessary from the realm of possibilities in the minds of
the peasants.