Recipe for a novel government

[ozmirage]

Tidbit from the Articles of Confederation that will trigger questions.

I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Who are the people of the United States of America?
Who are the people of the United States who ordained the USCON?
All Americans were not eligible to vote, nor ratify the USCON.
...

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
- - - PREAMBLE, USCON

...
Note the difference between the "United States" and the "United States of America."

An honest preamble:

We, Congress, in order to form a more perfect union .... ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The “U.S. Constitution” is a compact for the United States, in Congress assembled, in order to serve, not rule, the people in the USA.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - - Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

(If they’re not involuntary servitude, they MUST be voluntary. But they only apply to citizens. How did we volunteer to be citizens if we're "born citizens"?)

13th amendment, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

{United States, in the plural, must mean the States united aka "USA" - not the federal government "United States".}

14th amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

{The term “thereof” means of the thing just mentioned. So one who is subject to the “United States” for the purposes of U.S. citizenship means the federal government. United States, in the singular, must refer to the Federal government, a foreign corporation with respect to a State. If it didn't why not use the phrase from the 13th amendment?}

"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation

. . . .

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

. . . .

Can sovereign people have children born subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign corporation? No.
Nor can any government instituted to secure endowed rights, summarily abrogate them at birth, via mandatory civic duties of citizenship.
And for which group was the 14th amendment enacted?

Who lied to us?
Did we trust the wrong folks?


Did "we" ever have a clue?
I think so - - -
.................................................................
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................................
If the federal government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state, then a state government must be a foreign corporation with respect to an “American sovereign”. Now do you understand the joke?

ALIEN - one who is not a citizen of the country where they are living.

Once the "alien" acquires a domicile and becomes a free inhabitant with sovereign prerogatives, he's one of the sovereign people served by government.

[ozmirage]

In the early days of the republican form, those who wished to be participants in the democratic form had to be (a) land owners (b) tax payers (c ) militia men and (d) held to a higher standard of behavior. As you can imagine, few Americans qualified under such strict prerequisites.

But WHY so strict?
Voting as well as public service is a privilege, not a right, and the sovereign people could object to those servants who were deem unacceptable, disreputable or repugnant. Hence the prohibitions that involved victimless crimes.

The Founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in support and defense of the government instituted to secure the endowed rights of the people, did not want undesirables sneaking into the government that was formed by the sacrifices of so many. Thus prospective citizens were on probation.

One of those means of probation was militia duty, from 18 to 50 years of age, meant that a probationary citizen had to do 3 years of service (18,19,20) before eligible to vote at age 21.

Anyone who failed to comply was banned from voting and holding public office. But that had no effect on their status as a free inhabitant.

Of course, under the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic, such notions are not acceptable, and we're urged to exercise our "right to vote" and submit to the glorious collective State.
(The change in voting age to 18 was a sop to deflect criticism during the Viet Nam unWar, that reflected ignorance of the republican form and the drop in status from consent to be governed under the democratic form.)

[ozmirage]

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
- - - or how law isn't really what you thought it was - - -

REBUT- To refute, especially by offering opposing evidence or arguments, as in a legal case; To reject.

PRESUMPTION - Law - A conclusion applied by law as to the correctness of some fact, ordinarily subject to rebuttal by contrary evidence.

OCGA 40-2-1. As used in this chapter, the term:
(2) "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is a rebuttable presumption that any person who, except for infrequent, brief absences, has been present in the state for 30 or more days is a resident.

At first reading, one might assume that a “resident” is one who has been in the state for 30 or more days. That is the desired result. However, if you weren’t indoctrinated to be functionally illiterate, you would perceive the opposite meaning.

“Resident” = person with a permanent home.
Sounds very close to “inhabitant.”

"INHABITANT - One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

Why didn’t they define a “resident” to be any inhabitant with a permanent home?
Why bother with defining a resident residing at a residence?

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something LESS THAN DOMICILE. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

"RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less duration...
Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309

Let’s now re-read the definition with the understanding that a “resident” is a vague term, often referring to a transient.

[1] “Resident” = person with a permanent home.
[2] There is a rebuttable presumption that a person is a resident if he has been in the state 30 or more days.

In plain Inglitch, if you’re in the state less than 30 days out of the year, but you have a permanent home (not a domicile), you’re a resident.

If you’re in the state MORE than 30 days out of the year, you can rebut their presumption - reject the conclusion - that you are a “resident.”

Apparently, you fit the description of an inhabitant - one who has a permanent home. As a non-resident inhabitant, you’re not obligated to perform to rules and regulations that only apply to “residents.”

You have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. . . not tax, regulate nor trespass.

I have not checked all states, but the ones I did, all use the same sleazy legalese to define "resident". The only difference is the amount of time needed to REBUT THE PRESUMPTION.

Check your own state constitution and statutes for mention of inhabitants with domiciles versus residents residing at residences.

" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4

"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.'
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1

“ Citizens, protection of. All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state ; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 7

Residents need permission / license. Nonresidents / free inhabitants do not.

O.C.G.A. 40-2-1(35) “Nonresident” means every person who is not a resident of this state.
O.C.G.A. 40-2-1(36) "Nonresident's operating privilege" means the privilege conferred upon a nonresident by the laws of this state pertaining to the operation by such person of a motor vehicle or the use of a vehicle owned by such person in this state.

The state has no reason to persecute nonresident inhabitants domiciled in the united States of America for failure to conform to rules and regulations that only apply to residents. It would appear that inhabitants retain their endowed natural liberty (dominion over their private property) and personal liberty (travel upon public roads).
Ditto for rules that only apply to citizens, to tax payers, to socialists, and to usurers.

[ozmirage]

Due to the republican form of government, the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America could not "impose" socialism, as it did in other nations. It had to rely on subterfuge to get "our consent."

Regardless of that fact, 90 years of socialism (as of 2023), have severely reduced the birthrate per woman. Thanks to high socialist taxes driving women into the workforce, the escalating costs of daycare and raising children, most socialist nations, including America, will not be able to sustain themselves.

Socialism’s negative effect on family size will result in its inevitable collapse, as not only did socialists run out of “other people’s money,” they also ran out of “other people’s children.” Who else would be taxed to support the ever disproportionate number of dependent elderly and infirm?

This demographic problem is worldwide, in every socialist country. [If the country has a "social security" pension program, it's socialist ] Importing surplus population from non-socialist countries is no remedy, especially if from an incompatible culture.

POST SHTF

After the collapse of socialism, everything will change. When you can't rely on public charity (aka government taxing other people's children), who else will support you in your old age? Your options are private charity* or your family. Ergo, you had better marry, have a large brood of children, and or build up an extended family network for long term security as well as enhanced prosperity.
Blood ties are superior to collectivism.
(*Many fraternal organizations offered private charity for their members.)

Examples of large scale private charity:
Moose Haven and Moose Heart.
http://www.moosehaven.org/
http://www.mooseheart.org/
Boy’s Town
http://www.boystown.org/nebraska-iowa

We must abandon socialism (and all other genocidal practices).
We must abandon usury and the limitations of money madness.
We must generate prodigious surplus usable goods and services, so we can be generous to those who are in need.

Once we're back to the endowed rights of the republican form, the servant government won't have the resources to fund socialist charity.
Do you have a backup plan?

[ozmirage]

AS MANY HAVE NOTED - things tend to fall down, and go "boom." One of the reasons we suffered government was their promise to help secure our rights.
When / if SHTF, and chaos erupts, what options do we have?
- hunker down
- emigrate ASAP
- surrender
- - - - - - - -
Though solo survival has its merits, over the long term, the best strategy is cooperation in building prosperity.
One of the best ways to preserve and secure our persons, property and liberty is preparation & defense. If we don't do it, who will? And how much will it cost us?
- - - - - - - -
I'm a fan of fortified villlages, not just for protection from predators, but as a means to deal with NATURAL DISASTERS. Of course, if you're insulated from harm, they cease to be disasters.

One version, the Dual Ring Village, was discussed here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1064508

Folks who team up, withdraw consent, and stop being taxed, governed, and (ahem) cooperative with the "glorious" State may expect unpleasantness, from unscrupulous predators and parasites.
Thus being prepared behind robust barrier walls should be far better than relying on insurance claims, timely appearance of FEMA, or any other "first responder" to the vagaries of life.

The cooperative community should enjoy greater prosperity, since it should be an efficient means to produce surplus usable goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed.
For example, a dual ring village composed of five story ring buildings, featuring mixed use development, provides convenience, reduced time and distance, and a ready pool of shoppers for the enterprises and businesses located there. In fact, with a little forethought, the DRV can be configured to provide champagne lifestyle with a beer budget. Ex: home delivery / room service. Laundry service. Community pool. Prewire bedrooms to allow for remote monitoring of vital signs by the village polyclinic (or anxious parents), providing a low cost alternative to hospitalization. House calls by health care providers could be like doing “rounds” in a round.

Close proximity to vocations & private enterprise, reduces or eliminates the need for private transport - another painful expense - especially since gubmint is forcing us to go 'lectric.

As one grows older, it becomes more apparent, that one is dependent upon the compassion and charity of others. Thus having a lot of surplus makes it easier to be charitable. Poverty and want is unpleasant even if equitably distributed to the masses.
This translates into building a lifestyle that consumes less to achieve one's necessities, luxuries, and even opulence. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.

Money (& its madness) is not a remedy, and frankly, the scarcity of the money token throttles trade and thus prosperity. The "socialist paradises" are finding they can't "tax other people's children" due to the consequences of genocide (reduced birthrate). Socialism is unsustainable, as recipient populations grow faster than the taxpayer population. Discouraging women from having large families has a devastating consequence. Each generation's ability to support the former, shrinks, as population declines. (Curiously, non-socialist nations are cranking out prodigious amounts of surplus progeny.)

Visionaries who pool resources, buy a chunk of land sufficient to support agriculture and construct a dual ring village, have a better chance in the post-socialist world. Become "Punk" Amish - high tech - but low resource consumption - which is anathema to the current paradigm of prodigious consumption, easy credit, and dependence on the State. (How else can they "skim" vast fortunes from us?)

Create your own ideal vision of rural, suburban and urban life, without the inherent problems and failings that "making money" minds have given us. Live in a verdant paradise, surrounded by nature, good neighbors, and in comfort.

[ozmirage]

Kibbutz - the socialist solution?

"The kibbutz (Hebrew word for 'communal settlement') is a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education; the fulfillment of the idea 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'; a home for those who have chosen it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

COLLECTIVE PROSPERITY : As late as the 1970s, kibbutzim seemed to be thriving in every way. Kibbutzniks performed working class, or even peasant class, occupations, yet enjoyed a middle class lifestyle.

{Without the false distinctions of money madness and wage status, the equitable trade within the kibbutz provided a higher standard of living.}

Obvious benefits : economies of scale, commercial sized pool, laundry, kitchen, food production, food processing, child care, “country club” amenities at bargain prices.

Video about meals at a cafeteria : 3 shekels = $0.96 US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIOl1RG6NbQ


YET - Inherent danger from money mad cultures, inflation, and usurers. (Avoid debt! Many kibbutzim were ruined by financiers who forced them to privatize so they could cash out.)
- - - - - - - - - - -
An insightful video about the dynamics of community is "Keeping the Kibbutz"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_the_Kibbutz
The film was broadcast nationally on PBS World and over 75 PBS stations, and continues to air on individual PBS stations.
...
http://lookbacktogalilee.blogspot.co...g-kibbutz.html

Ironically, what the producers presume are "capitalist" changes to the "socialist Kibbutz," are actually perversions of usury and money madness.

Beyond that, there are many instances that show the power of cooperative living.

The key features I found fascinating were the intense personal relationships and concern for their fellow Kibbutzniks that continued even after socialism was discontinued.

The saddest part was where the old timers were mourning the loss of "their" extended family. (And other aspects of the community such as communal meals in the dining hall, the emphasis on being of service to other members, and unselfish evaluation of conditions)

I wonder if one had a moneyless community, would there be the same problems?

[ozmirage]

- - - - - - - - - -
DREAD ZONE
- - - - - - - - - -
The parasites and predators rely on :

_ _ Money madness & the desire for money (instead of what that money can buy)
_ _ Usury (interest, in money), the abomination, and mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system
_ _ Consumer demand for ephemeral products; so that there is always a market for goods and services, that are “rationed” by the limited amount of current money tokens in circulation
_ _ Skim, taken by myriad intermediaries, who get a slice of retail transactions, without providing any equitable value in return
_ _ Submission to the glorious State; so the masses are compelled by mandatory duties and voluntary obligations to enrich the creditor and collectivist.

BANE DRAIN

_ Sovereign, productive people, who trade and barter without using “official” money tokens, and don’t prodigiously consume (“wrong" demographics), are not enriching the bankers and any other parties that take a “skim” of the transactions.
_ Those who dwell in disaster resistant domiciles do not need to gamble with underwriters (insurance companies) and thus cut down on their profits.
_ By reducing resource consumption, while increasing the production of surplus usable goods and services, they generate prosperity that is NOT taxable nor vulnerable to the parasite class.

SCENARIO

A community of non-consenting folks establish a cooperative community, in tandem with an agricultural enterprise, building a disaster resistant system.

<> By not exercising any revenue taxable privileges, they are exempt from taxation (44.4% or more could be owed).
<> By not borrowing from any usurer, they don’t have to pay debt service. If one was paying on 30 year mortgage, it’s not unusual to pay back twice and thrice the selling price. Plus we can add in those pesky insurance premiums that protect the creditor. Based on the rule of thumb that housing costs should not exceed 30% of income, the elimination of interest can drop that by 50% or more, to 15% of net profit.
<> By living in a high population density village, where one doesn’t need an automobile to access necessities, vocations, education, recreation, services, shopping, etc, one can save 10-15% of one’s budget. Of course, there are covert costs, hidden in property tax levies, gasoline taxes, etc, to fund infrastructure and subsidize other aspects of the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony. Again, one is exempt from paying those “hidden” costs.
<> By occupying a super insulated, frugal dwelling, one could reduce the need for fuel / energy to maintain comfort. If one also had on-site energy capture systems (solar power, direct & indirect; biofuels (alcohol, methane); wind powered turbines & pumps; etc), those costs can be further reduced, or eliminated entirely.
<> By raising one’s own food, via gardening, aquaculture, verticulture, small livestock, etc, one can reduce the food budget expense from 10-12% of one’s income.
<> With any abundance of surplus, one can trade with others to acquire what you desire. And one can suspect that “outsiders” will be interested in “buying” your high quality production, providing cash for those off-site purchases in their “asylum.”
<> By these, and other means, one can reduce the need to work for “their” money tokens, and be sovereign, free, and independent (to the extent that you wish to be). In this way, one can truly have long term security and not wind up in some nursing care warehouse, left to wither away, in the glorious People’s State.

Live long and prosper.

[Anchor]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Imagine an America where 97% of the people are sovereigns, untaxed and unregulated. And only 3% of the people are subject citizens, taking upon themselves the civic duties to secure endowed rights by operating the courts (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals) or the militia (defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic) and NOTHING MORE.
No matter who is elected, with only 3% of the budget and population to rule, what mischief would they create? Who are they going to bribe and tax? It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Thus we now see what the Founders established - a form of government where the abusive tendencies of government were reined in by consent of the governed. Where the pressure to have an ever growing government is offset by a lack of power to indiscriminately tax and spend. And where the civic minded citizens could evaluate their members for higher office, choosing only the best and brightest... and bravest.

I've often wondered, in a hypothetical land where everyone is 100% sovereign - and not 100% altruistic about how they go about living with others, how are the inevitable disputes resolved?

What you outline above may contain my answer, which is why I read it a few times and slept on it before commenting.

How is it assured that 3% of people step up to perform the civic duties required?

Where did the ratio of 3 in 100 come from?

[ozmirage]

Posted by Anchor (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Imagine an America where 97% of the people are sovereigns, untaxed and unregulated. And only 3% of the people are subject citizens, taking upon themselves the civic duties to secure endowed rights by operating the courts (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals) or the militia (defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic) and NOTHING MORE.
No matter who is elected, with only 3% of the budget and population to rule, what mischief would they create? Who are they going to bribe and tax? It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Thus we now see what the Founders established - a form of government where the abusive tendencies of government were reined in by consent of the governed. Where the pressure to have an ever growing government is offset by a lack of power to indiscriminately tax and spend. And where the civic minded citizens could evaluate their members for higher office, choosing only the best and brightest... and bravest.

I've often wondered, in a hypothetical land where everyone is 100% sovereign - and not 100% altruistic about how they go about living with others, how are the inevitable disputes resolved?

Reminds me of a segment from "How The West Was Won," where a group of pioneers got waylaid by a gang of pirates, and wound up having to fight their way out of it.
In simpler terms, tolerance of evil is unmerciful to the next victim.
Hence the termination of future options.

What you outline above may contain my answer, which is why I read it a few times and slept on it before commenting.

How is it assured that 3% of people step up to perform the civic duties required?

There is no certainty who will exhibit such traits. But hopefully, those who do won't be lured by wealth and power to seek public office.

Where did the ratio of 3 in 100 come from?

It was claimed that only 3% actually participated in the Revolutionary War, hence the government that they founded was designed to exclude those who stayed on the sidelines, etc.
That was one of the reasons for universal militia duty for citizens.
If you didn't have the courage to take responsibility for the safety of the system, you shouldn't have any power to direct it.

[ozmirage]

From the "Did You Know" file :

Did you know that there are NO works of fiction, science fiction, books, TV shows, nor movies that depict the "republican form of government"?
You will find innumerable examples of democracies, monarchies, empires, warlords, oligarchies, police states, etc, etc.
You will NOT find one example where the people are the sovereigns, and the government is their servant, not their master. And without consent of the governed, these governments can do nothing more than secure rights.
This is how you know the breadth and scope of the world's greatest propaganda ministry. They have successfully eradicated all knowledge about it.

(One of my favorite science fiction authors, Robert A Heinlein, a graduate of Annapolis, was clueless about the RFOG. In all his works, he never came close to it.)

P.S. A republic is NOT synonymous with a republican form.
Nor is it a "constitutional republic." The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON. In fact, no constitution can create a republican form.
The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but NOT a republican form.

Not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form, its source and origin.

[ozmirage]

Self Evident Truths

All men have Creator endowed rights - but what are they?

Endowed rights include but are not limited to life, liberty (natural and personal), absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers and other associated privileges and immunities; based on all harmless actions in support of that life, liberty, exclusive ownership of one’s domain, etc. In addition, all harmful actions in defense of that life, liberty, and or property, are exempt from criminal prosecution, regardless. And any criminal or civil liability rests on the predator(s) / parasite(s) who instigated the subsequent damages incurred from defending endowed rights.

That sums up the law under the republican form of government.

Of course, if one consents to be governed by parasites and predators who infiltrated government under socialist democrazy, things may be reversed, and the guilty protected, while the innocent are prosecuted and punished.

Never ask government to give you something or do more than secure rights. No matter what government "gives" it first must be "taken" from somebody else, minus a cut for the "management." Anything beyond securing rights, invariably involves the loss of liberty or property, as well.

Once you consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

References:
Declaration of Independence, 1776
Articles of Confederation, 1777
US Constitution, 1787, 1789 (amended)

[ozmirage]

Non-Americans often wonder why Americans have a "thing" about firearms. It probably goes back to their dislike of being subjects / slaves.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- - - Patrick Henry

All slavery is based on consent of the slaves. People who don't consent, and fight to the death are never enslaved. The dead make poor slaves.

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
- - - Samuel Adams

You can never have an efficient totalitarian police state, when it has to be “benevolent” and fearful of millions of armed citizens. And you can’t disarm millions of armed citizens when they won’t tell you where the arms are. And you can’t arrest them until you criminalize their disobedience to “reasonable” gun restrictions and “common sense” registration. And you can’t tolerate their belief that they have an “endowed right” to self defense against tyranny, that supersedes your political power of the bigger gun.

• An Armed Populace Fears No Government.
• A Disarmed Populace Fears All Government.
• A Criminal Government Fears Guns.
• An Honest Government Appreciates the Assistance.

The Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America will never cease in its efforts to disarm the people, so that it can "efficiently" dismantle those pesky institutions that guarantee a republican form of government.

“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army,... and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; ... the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms...”
- - - James Madison, Federalist Paper #46.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

THIS is why America's governments are so stable when compared to those in Europe, and elsewhere. Our governments are servants of the sovereign people, and even if they had superior arms, they would be outnumbered and defeated.
No covert power in control of the servant government can do its will with impunity. It must rely on deception and fraud to get the consent of the governed, for without such consent, it is powerless.