Interesting Colorado Sheriff's Position on Gun Control

Excellent article!

http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf

Yes -- it's good to see a group of government officials like this getting it right.

  By the way Nina, the LP radicals road trip contingent left SF yesterday and is headed up north. If you call me or email your number, I'll call them and pass it along in case they can make a stop in your area and meet up.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))
                              (415) 625-FREE

Nina,
Thomas Paine makes a good point. And if liberty cannot be achieved in one generation, it cannot be achieved at all. Every plan will fail, that requires more than a few years to execute. There is no such thing as preparing the next generation to achieve liberty. They can only be prepared for the liberty or the servitude they will inherit. They and their children are faced with the same reality as we are. How can they do what we can't?

Many ignorant or insane people believe that it will be from less liberty that more liberty will be built.

Three thousand years of history should be enough evidence to demonstrate the fallacy of that concept. Liberty is capital. Capitalism doesn't work that way. The less capital you have, the less you will get. That means we must use brilliantly, the little capital we have left. `

We need a conversation about how to use the gun-rights issue to gain liberty. Digging-in on the second amendment is not enough. The enemy is already far past the front lines and negotiating the terms of disarmament.

The real issue, is the excessive armaments of the police-state, its over-reach, and its astronomical cost. The regime has gone way past the quartering of soldiers, to buying homes for them in our neighborhoods with our money.

John

John,

You make an excellent point.

Unfortunately, I'm at a loss in coming up with a magic bullet (so to speak!). What do you suggest in starting the conversation?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael,
Yes, thank you for noticing. It is very true and there is an entirely different conversation. It as different as the conversation of the sports-casters and the conversation on the field. One conversation advances the ball.

You and I are in that conversation. We stay in that conversation while more join. It requires discipline.

As well as there was always relativity, for Einstein to demonstrate, there is also a plan to coordinate the necessary power to achieve liberty. The conversation is about executing that plan.

I'm using the years between 1768 and 1774 as a model and the Superbowl's 2 minute warning as a metaphor for the time-line and the stakes.

People who disagree with the conditions I outlined below cannot win. Victory will be achieved by the few who do.

John

John,

How are you defining "liberty?"

What makes you optimistic about achieving liberty?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael,
Liberty is a partner of power and money.
I'm optimistic because achieving liberty is not a democratic process.
It is an enterprise process.

Socialism is a democratic process. No matter how much democracy you do, you still get more socialism. An analogous statements would say, "You can't get sober no matter how much you drink"
The first step to achieving liberty is to stop doing democracy. Then after the socialist fog clears, there is a whole new landscape.

It looks like the venture capital start-up landscape, where the new product is liberty. It doesn't matter how many people are unconscious from the socialist "Kool-Aide", they will not produce the product and they will not wake-up until there is liberty in the "punch bowl".

John

I agree. And after you stop doing democracy, stop doing Statism.

Warm regards, Michael

When power is dispersed or decentralized, then liberty is likewise dispersed (broadly possessed by the many). When power is concentrated, then liberty is only possessed by those in whom the power is concentrated. Thus concentrations of power are inimical to a free society. Money is a form of power, but not the purest or most concentrated form.

  In countries today which lack democracy, power tends to be *more* concentrated in the hands of a few than in countries where democratic elections take place. Thus it would not be a good idea to simply "stop doing democracy" unless the alternative were a system in which power was equally or more decentralized.

  When socialism takes place on a voluntary basis (such as within families or small groups which exist largely on a basis of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'), I do not see this as a problem. Socialism becomes a serious problem when people try to force it on others via government.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))