POLL: 65% of Gun Owners Say They Won’t Vote for Pres. Trump Over “Red Flags”

[Swordsmyth]

The American Firearms Coalition has just released an online poll of more than 20,000 gun owners conducted over the last 18 hours indicating that 65% of gun owners say they will not vote for President Trump if he signs “Red Flag Gun Confiscation” into law. The shocking poll numbers echo what many grassroots gun activists are seeing and hearing across the country.

More at: https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2019/08/shock-poll-65-of-gun-owners-say-they-wont-vote-for-pres-trump-over-red-flags/

[Swordsmyth]

If gun owners wish to defeat “Red Flags”, the American Firearms Coalition is encouraging them to sign their Stop Red Flags petition at www.StopRedFlags.com.
And send an email to the White House OPPOSING Red Flags using this link:
https://www.votervoice.net/AFC/campaigns/64831/respond
You can also support the work of the American Firearms Coalition by joining using this link . . .
Never Compromise! Join AFC -> JOINAFC.ORG (http://joinafc.org/?fbclid=IwAR3f4bvoGSDLMQylDNvk4Ux8Z1Cp3ESV4QfndLgr PCKR_UtgrAjgZs5RcDs)

[oyarde]

Thats great news . Guess they will be voting for bernie .

[PAF]

If gun owners wish to defeat “Red Flags”, the American Firearms Coalition is encouraging them to sign their Stop Red Flags petition at www.StopRedFlags.com.
And send an email to the White House OPPOSING Red Flags using this link:
https://www.votervoice.net/AFC/campaigns/64831/respond
You can also support the work of the American Firearms Coalition by joining using this link . . .
Never Compromise! Join AFC -> JOINAFC.ORG (http://joinafc.org/?fbclid=IwAR3f4bvoGSDLMQylDNvk4Ux8Z1Cp3ESV4QfndLgr PCKR_UtgrAjgZs5RcDs)


While this is a good start, I believe Trump, knowing that elections are coming up and knowing how the system is supposed to work, is leaving it up to the STATES (10th Amendment); he has already "set the tone" among the states, while washing his own hands of what he instigated. Along with "red flag", another example: raising the age to 21, which states are doing.

It is imperative to contact your State Legislatures directly and let them know to OPPOSE raising the age and all red-flag "laws", statutes and ordinances.

[CoastieInColorado]

Thats great news . Guess the will be voting for bernie .

Yeah, that'll show him.

[Anti Globalist]

They'd be right to do that if it ends up being the case.

[enhanced_deficit]

Not surprised but this kind of damaging attitudes have been shaped over past couple of years. So disappointed in Steve Bannon and Coulter as they were some of the earliest conservatives to criticize MAGA's inner most leadership team just because he fumbled couple of times during Wall money-gov shutdown, DOMA, DACA dealmaking with Pelosi-Schumer.
They set the reckless trend of attacking the most populous POTUS in entire history. Since then it's been an avalanche of folks on the Right "turning on him (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521272-How-much-trust-do-you-put-in-current-President-s-promises-and-statements&p=6831597&viewfull=1#post6831597)".
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521272-How-much-trust-do-you-put-in-current-President-s-promises-and-statements&p=6831597&viewfull=1#post6831597)
These shifts very dangerous for GOP-Adelson/Zionism wing's 2020 chances.



Related

Conservative Gun Owners Of America leader on Trump: 'He's a fraud and has betrayed us twice now' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519979-Conservative-leader-on-Trump-He-s-a-fraud-and-has-betrayed-us-twice-now&)

Big sink: Troubling Fox News poll shows 2020 loss (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534651-Big-sink-Troubling-Fox-News-poll-shows-2020-loss&)

[Origanalist]

Another Republican Bows Down to Gun Control

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Mike-Turner-Congress-1200x630.jpeg


Another Republican is kowtowing to gun control.

Mike Turner, the Congressman for Ohio’s 10th district, released a statement on his website where he advocated for legislation that “prevents the sale of military style weapons to civilians, a magazine limit, and red flag legislation.”

Turner declared that the “carnage these military style weapons are able to produce when available to the wrong people is intolerable.”

He has also jumped on the “red flag” bandwagon which is becoming widespread across the nation.

He stated:

We must pass red flag legislation to quickly identify people who are dangerous and remove their ability to harm others. Too often after mass shootings, we hear there were early warning signs that were ignored.

Turner is part of a growing coalition of Republicans led by Congressman Dan Crenshaw, Senator Lindsey Graham, and now, President Donald Trump, who believe that “red flag” gun confiscation orders will somehow fix this problem.

As the days go by, it seems that a bipartisan form of gun control is coming down the pipe.

This will likely be the toughest battle that gun rights supporters will be facing in recent years.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/another-republican-bows-down-to-gun-control/

[Brian4Liberty]

“Red flag”. A wonderful new scheme that combines loss of due process and the tragedy and abuse of SWATing.

[Anti Globalist]

Whats the NRA's position on these red flag laws? I'm guessing their public opinion is that they're against it but in private they actually support it.

[shakey1]

Thats great news . Guess they will be voting for bernie .

Feeling the bern are we? :D

[shakey1]

Whats the NRA's position on these red flag laws? I'm guessing their public opinion is that they're against it but in private they actually support it.

I think the GOA is all we got left.
https://gunowners.org/category/press-center/

[r3volution 3.0]

While this is a good start, I believe Trump, knowing that elections are coming up and knowing how the system is supposed to work, is leaving it up to the STATES (10th Amendment); he has already "set the tone" among the states, while washing his own hands of what he instigated. Along with "red flag", another example: raising the age to 21, which states are doing.

It is imperative to contact your State Legislatures directly and let them know to OPPOSE raising the age and all red-flag "laws", statutes and ordinances.

It looks like there will be a federal bill to encourage (read: bribe/threaten) the States to pass these laws.

[Swordsmyth]

Thats great news . Guess they will be voting for bernie .

Yeah, that'll show him.


Or staying home.

But if Trump passes Red Flag laws we might as well elect a communist and then kick of the revolution while there are still people who believe in liberty, if the frog is slow boiled much longer it won't have the strength to jump out of the pot.

[Swordsmyth]

Whats the NRA's position on these red flag laws? I'm guessing their public opinion is that they're against it but in private they actually support it.
They claim that they can be done with proper due process, I don't trust them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Or staying home.

But if Trump passes Red Flag laws we might as well elect a communist and then kick of the revolution while there are still people who believe in liberty, if the frog is slow boiled much longer it won't have the strength to jump out of the pot.

People who can't be bothered to spend five minutes voting for liberty won't be risking life and limb for it.

If there's ever a revolution in the US, you almost certainly won't like the outcome.

[Swordsmyth]

People who can't be bothered to spend five minutes voting for liberty won't be risking life and limb for it.
This isn't about people who never vote, it is about people who regularly vote but won't vote for someone who is boiling the frog slowly instead of turning down the heat.


If there's ever a revolution in the US, you almost certainly won't like the outcome.
That depends on who wins.
We will have a fighting chance in a revolution, we won't have any chance at all if the frog is boiled slowly.

[r3volution 3.0]

This isn't about people who never vote, it is about people who regularly vote but won't vote for someone who is boiling the frog slowly instead of turning down the heat.

I was referring to the ~99% of the electorate who vote against liberty every election.


That depends on who wins.

We will have a fighting chance in a revolution, we won't have any chance at all if the frog is boiled slowly.

Any crisis we're likely to see will be a fight between illiberal factions (some variant of NAZIs v. bolsheviks).

Libertarians would do well to stand aside in that situation; crack a cold beer, enjoy the show, wait for better days.

[Occam's Banana]

Another Republican Bows Down to Gun Control

[...]

Another Republican is kowtowing to gun control.

Mike Turner, the Congressman for Ohio’s 10th district, [...] declared that the “carnage these military style weapons are able to produce when available to the wrong people is intolerable.”

So conversely, the "carnage these military-style weapons are able to produce when available to the wrong "right" (i.e., government-approved) people is intolerable tolerable" ...

[Swordsmyth]

I was referring to the ~99% of the electorate who vote against liberty every election.
We don't need them and they will be forced to choose a side when the shooting starts.




Any crisis we're likely to see will be a fight between illiberal factions (some variant of NAZIs v. bolsheviks).
Nope, Republicans may not be perfect but they aren't NAZIs and they are more liberty oriented and more able to be educated than the leftists.


Libertarians would do well to stand aside in that situation; crack a cold beer, enjoy the show, wait for better days.
That's a recipe for being exterminated if the left wins and for being rejected and not listened to if conservatives win.

[shakey1]

65% of Gun Owners Say They Won’t Vote for Pres. Trump Over “Red Flags”

Would you???

[r3volution 3.0]

Republicans...aren't NAZIs

And the Dems aren't bolsheviks, but in any terminal crisis, both will have further radicalized.


That's a recipe for being exterminated if the left wins and for being rejected and not listened to if conservatives win. not participating in a war between two leftist groups

That's the idea.

[shakey1]

Would you???

Perhaps a poll is in order. :confused:

[Swordsmyth]

And the Dems aren't bolsheviks, but in any terminal crisis, both will have further radicalized.
They are already bolsheviks and Republicans aren't going to turn into NAZIs.




That's the idea.
It's obvious you want us exterminated if the left wins and rejected and not listened to if conservatives win.

[r3volution 3.0]

They are already bolsheviks and Republicans aren't going to turn into NAZIs.

It's obvious you want us exterminated if the left wins and for being rejected and not listened to if conservatives win.

Whatever you say

[Occam's Banana]

People who can't be bothered to spend five minutes voting for liberty won't be risking life and limb for it.


This isn't about people who never vote, it is about people who regularly vote but won't vote for someone who is [...]

Voting is utterly irrelevant. Liberty has never been won by sticking marked-up pieces of paper into boxes - and it never will be.

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) as long as people continue to play by the system's rules - for example, by voting for "liberty" (or for the right "someone," or for whatever) while continuing to comply with and submit to the system and the operation of its various cooptive, dissent-neutralizing and/or pressure-relieving "safety valves" (such as elections).

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start refusing to submit and become willing to engage in active non-compliance against the system (instead of trying to play to it) - that is, unless and until people start "throwing the tea overboard" instead of continuing to pay for and drink it ...

Barring that condition, vote all you like, for whomever or whatever - but it will make absolutely no difference in any substantially libertarian sense.[1] It may produce some amount of social and political upheaval and chaos. It can (and demonstrably does) produce quite a bit of populist demagoguery (and anti-populist counter-demagoguery). It might even produce some degree of "shooting disturbance," so to speak. But irrespective of the outcomes of any elections, as long as enough people continue to accept and respect their product, they will not result in any meaningfully libertarian "revolution" ...



[1] Once possessed of it, states do not willingly relinquish any substantial amount of power (no matter how civilly they may be asked to do so by people who politely and compliantly mark up special pieces of paper designed for that purpose).

[r3volution 3.0]

Voting is utterly irrelevant. Liberty has never been won by sticking marked-up pieces of paper into boxes - and it never will be.

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) as long as people continue to play by the system's rules - for example, by voting for "liberty" (or for the right "someone," or for whatever) while continuing to comply with and submit to the system and the operation of its various cooptive, dissent-neutralizing and/or pressure-relieving "safety valves" (such as elections).

There won't be any libertarian "revolution" (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start refusing to submit and become willing to engage in active non-compliance against the system (instead of trying to play to it) - that is, unless and until people start "throwing the tea overboard" instead of continuing to pay for and drink it ...

Barring that condition, vote all you like, for whomever or whatever - but it will make absolutely no difference in any substantially libertarian sense.[1] It may produce some amount of social and political upheaval and chaos. It can (and demonstrably does) produce quite a bit of populist demagoguery (and anti-populist counter-demagoguery). It might even produce some degree of "shooting disturbance," so to speak. But irrespective of the outcomes of any elections, as long as enough people continue to accept and respect their product, they will not result in any meaningfully libertarian "revolution" ...

[1] Once possessed of it, states do not willingly relinquish any substantial amount of power (no matter how civilly they may be asked to do so by people who politely and compliantly mark up special pieces of paper designed for that purpose).

There will be no meaningful and lasting change (for the better) through either voting or revolution, I agree.

But there will also be no such change through mass non-compliance.

[Occam's Banana]

But there will also be no such change through mass non-compliance.

By itself, no, there won't be. Non-compliance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I think the GOA is all we got left.
https://gunowners.org/category/press-center/
Don't forget the NAGR and The Second Amendment Foundation

[Son_of_Liberty90]

By itself, no, there won't be. Non-compliance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
I think this needs elaboration. Just what exactly needs to happen?

[Occam's Banana]

I think this needs elaboration. Just what exactly needs to happen?

More non-compliance, for one thing. ;)

But this isn't math. There is no "exactly."

Things are too contingent for anything but general prescriptions. For example, note that I said, "There won't be any libertarian 'revolution' (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start [blah-blah-blah-ing]" [emphasis added]. I can't even tell you how many people will be "enough." No one can. There are too many other particulars that can and will vary from one time and/or place to another. Under one set of circumstances, even a majority might not be adequate, if it is too slight. But under other circumstances, less than a plurality might suffice. Hell, even just a relatively very few people might be "enough," if they are in the right positions at the right time and act in concert. It all depends ...

But playing the system's game by the system's rules (e.g., by voting) and then compliantly accepting and respecting the results will certainly fail to accomplish any substantial change of a libertarian nature ...

[Swordsmyth]

More non-compliance, for one thing. ;)

But this isn't math. There is no "exactly."

Things are too contingent for anything but general prescriptions. For example, note that I said, "There won't be any libertarian 'revolution' (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start [blah-blah-blah-ing]" [emphasis added]. I can't even tell you how many people will be "enough." No one can. There are too many other particulars that can and will vary from one time and/or place to another. Under one set of circumstances, even a majority might not be adequate, if it is too slight. But under other circumstances, less than a plurality might suffice. Hell, even just a relatively very few people might be "enough," if they are in the right positions at the right time and act in concert. It all depends ...

But playing the system's game by the system's rules (e.g., by voting) and then compliantly accepting and respecting the results will certainly fail to accomplish any substantial change of a libertarian nature ...
But voting can still be part of the solution, it can make the difference between the different sets of circumstances.

[Occam's Banana]

But voting can still be part of the solution, it can make the difference between the different sets of circumstances.

Not in any sufficiently reliable way that would allow for an endorsement of voting as an effective strategy.

Probabilities (of either occurrence or success) are not evenly distributed over the range of "sets of circumstances." For example, consider the last of the few "sets of circumstances" I briefly enumerated in my previous post. I was not suggesting that it was particularly likely. I was merely illustrating the fact that active non-compliance need not be "mass" in nature in order to be effective. Now, it could be that one or more of those persons "in the right positions at the right time" are in those positions at that time because some of them were elected. But it could also be because they were appointed after their predecessors were assassinated. But this would not serve as an endorsement of assassination as a general strategy. Likewise for endorsements of voting vis-à-vis the former scenario. And even apart from that, the scenario seems to warrant a general endorsement of voting no more than the possibility that one might strike it rich warrants a general endorsement of playing slot machines ...

[kahless]

We need this poll number to go higher so old man Trump shits his pants and backs off.

I already can't get past the bump stock ban but would have still voted for him to stop a further slide of our rights considering how bad the Democrats are. But if he does this or anything else on guns then no point voting for him. A safer bet would be for MAGA to support the break-up of the US rather than support Trump. Let the Democrats crucify Trump and his family. We will just sit by and laugh because he betrayed us, his base.

Trump should know we have families and we put our families first before his daughters feelings or his feeling good from virtue signalling to his enemies.

[Swordsmyth]

Not in any sufficiently reliable way that would allow for an endorsement of voting as an effective strategy.

Probabilities (of either occurrence or success) are not evenly distributed over the range of "sets of circumstances." For example, consider the last of the few "sets of circumstances" I briefly enumerated in my previous post. I was not suggesting that it was particularly likely. I was merely illustrating the fact that active non-compliance need not be "mass" in nature in order to be effective. Now, it could be that one or more of those persons "in the right positions at the right time" are in those positions at that time because some of them were elected. But it could also be because they were appointed after their predecessors were assassinated. But this would not serve as an endorsement of assassination as a general strategy. Likewise for endorsements of voting vis-à-vis the former scenario. And even apart from that, the scenario seems to warrant a general endorsement of voting no more than the possibility that one might strike it rich warrants a general endorsement of playing slot machines ...
But voting doesn't really cost you anything, they will happily impose their will on you even if you don't do it.
It's like getting to play the slots for free.

[Swordsmyth]

We need this poll number to go higher so old man Trump $#@!s his pants and backs off.

I already can't get past the bump stock ban but would have still voted for him to stop a further slide of our rights considering how bad the Democrats are. But if he does this or anything else on guns then no point voting for him. A safer but would be for MAGA to support the break-up of the US rather than support Trump. Let the Democrats crucify Trump and his family. We will just sit by and laugh because he betrayed us, his base.

Trump should know we have families and we put our families first before his daughters feelings or his feeling good from virtue signalling to his enemies.
This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" until the news cycle changes and maybe push the Demoncrats to try and go ever more extreme before the elections.

[kahless]

This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" until the news cycle changes and maybe push the Demoncrats to try and go ever more extreme before the elections.

One can only hope. If it was not for the bump stock ban I would say sure he is playing the game and will back off, that we will see allot more done on what he ran on but anything more proves it is just a sham Presidency.

If it is a sham Presidency it still does not matter how I or anyone voted or even if you just simply just sat home. It makes no difference. It is like a script playing out no matter the party, with the country always moving in the same direction.

[PursuePeace]

This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" until the news cycle changes and maybe push the Demoncrats to try and go ever more extreme before the elections.

My thoughts, as well.
And it's def. a red line for me.

[Occam's Banana]

But voting doesn't really cost you anything [...]

Not true. It costs me my time and convenience - not to mention the mental distress and spiritual anguish of having to decide which asshole's name to put a checkmark beside ...


[...] they will happily impose their will on you even if you don't do it.

Or even if you do. That is why actively non-compliant resistance is a necessary condition for change, but voting is not.


It's like getting to play the slots for free.

I have no objections to others playing the slots, if that's what they want to do. I am also not one of those who makes the absurd claim that playing the slots is an "act of aggression" and is thus some kind of NAP violation. Hell, I've even yanked on the one-armed-bandit myself - I caucused for Ron Paul. (Not because I thought there was a chance in hell I would hit the jackpot, though - I just did it for the sheer psychic gratification.[1]) But I do object to being told that I am an obstructionist if I don't play - or that I am some kind of subversive trying to lure others into defeatism by pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes (if you'll allow me to mix metaphors) ...



[1] And even that wasn't wholly untainted by the aforementioned spiritual anguish - the slate was a mix of Paul & Romney delegates ...

[Swordsmyth]

Not true. It costs me my time and convenience - not to mention the mental distress and spiritual anguish of having to decide which $#@!'s name to put a checkmark beside ...



Or even if you do. That is why actively non-compliant resistance is a necessary condition for change, but voting is not.



I have no objections to others playing the slots, if that's what they want to do. I am also not one of those who makes the absurd claim that playing the slots is an "act of aggression" and is thus some kind of NAP violation. Hell, I've even yanked on the one-armed-bandit myself - I caucused for Ron Paul. (Not because I thought there was a chance in hell I would hit the jackpot, though - I just did it for the sheer psychic gratification.[1]) But I do object to being told that I am an obstructionist if I don't play - or that I am some kind of subversive trying to lure others into defeatism by pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes (if you'll allow me to mix metaphors) ...



[1] And even that wasn't wholly untainted by the aforementioned spiritual anguish - the slate was a mix of Paul & Romney delegates ...
I wouldn't ever attack you for choosing not to vote even if I think it unwise, those who tell others not to are a different matter though.

[Occam's Banana]

This is a red line for me too, I hope this turns out to be a lot of talk to look "reasonable" [...]

Looking "reasonable" isn't doing us any favors. It's that "Overton Window" thing ...

Given his talk, the question now isn't "will this be bad?" It's "how bad will this be?"

[Swordsmyth]

Looking "reasonable" isn't doing us any favors. It's that "Overton Window" thing ...

Given his talk, the question now isn't "will this be bad?" It's "how bad will this be?"
I agree.

Even if nothing passes he has hurt the overton window just like with the bumpstock ban.

[Pauls' Revere]

Then leave the GOP fuckers! This is pretty easy.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

This is a bad, bad move, both by Trump and people like Dan Crenshaw. Let this blow over and die on the vine, no one will hold it against them.

[Gumba of Liberty]

More non-compliance, for one thing. ;)

But this isn't math. There is no "exactly."

Things are too contingent for anything but general prescriptions. For example, note that I said, "There won't be any libertarian 'revolution' (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start [blah-blah-blah-ing]" [emphasis added]. I can't even tell you how many people will be "enough." No one can. There are too many other particulars that can and will vary from one time and/or place to another. Under one set of circumstances, even a majority might not be adequate, if it is too slight. But under other circumstances, less than a plurality might suffice. Hell, even just a relatively very few people might be "enough," if they are in the right positions at the right time and act in concert. It all depends ...

But playing the system's game by the system's rules (e.g., by voting) and then compliantly accepting and respecting the results will certainly fail to accomplish any substantial change of a libertarian nature ...

I agree, we don’t need to vote harder and we don’t need a revolution, we need an American Renaissance! We need to educate and inspire the people to love liberty before this whole thing comes crashing down. Up here in North Jersey (behind enemy lines) and Eastern PA we are changing the game and incentivizing people to give freedom a chance (by cutting the state out of American life!). Please check us out and spread the word if you live in the Northeast. We will be coming to a State or Commonwealth near you: sonsoflibertyso.com/pdc

If you live in the area, we will have a booth at Vets Summer Fest at Vasa Park in Budd Lake, NJ today and Blairstown Day (NJ) tomorrow. We’d love to see any of our RPF brothers and sisters there if you can make it!! Have a good one guys and stay strong - there’s is nothing better than fighting for good when the odds are stacked against you! 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[jmdrake]

Thats great news . Guess they will be voting for bernie .

Or vote 3rd party....or write in Ron Paul...or not vote....or...

[Son_of_Liberty90]

More non-compliance, for one thing. ;)

But this isn't math. There is no "exactly."

Things are too contingent for anything but general prescriptions. For example, note that I said, "There won't be any libertarian 'revolution' (peaceful or otherwise) unless and until enough people start [blah-blah-blah-ing]" [emphasis added]. I can't even tell you how many people will be "enough." No one can. There are too many other particulars that can and will vary from one time and/or place to another. Under one set of circumstances, even a majority might not be adequate, if it is too slight. But under other circumstances, less than a plurality might suffice. Hell, even just a relatively very few people might be "enough," if they are in the right positions at the right time and act in concert. It all depends ...

But playing the system's game by the system's rules (e.g., by voting) and then compliantly accepting and respecting the results will certainly fail to accomplish any substantial change of a libertarian nature ...
Sorry, 'exactly' was a poor choice of words. What I meant was: what action would it take for more effective pushback? It sounds like what you are talking about are thoughts in this book I was looking at:
https://www.amazon.com/Citizen-slave-Understanding-American-Sovereign/dp/0805998780


Citizen/Slave, “Understanding the American Sovereign Spirit” is a treatise that describes with acute accuracy what freedom, liberty and justice really means, how the American people have been tricked out of their sovereignty by stealthy legal illusions, and how the people can repair America by regaining control of their individual unalienable rights.

Citizen/Slave explains the problems in detail, how they evolved, how they became erroneously accepted by the people, what the legal illusions and realities are, and what the American people can do to save their individual sovereignty and country, thereby creating a totally free and prosperous society with safe guards that can never be corrupted again.

Sprinkled liberally throughout this book are quotes from numerous well-known personages from history which remind us of immutable principles that have been overlooked in our fast pace modern world.

Citizen/Slave puts together the pieces of the puzzle for understanding the long forgotten common sense principles of creating justice, and why governments and societies either succeed or fail. Without these organized foundational principles, like a boat without a rudder, societies and governments will waffle in the uncertain tides of confusion and injustice that has been the downfall of every great society.

Citizen/Slave is a “must read” for all people young and old, lay people and professionals, students and professors alike. Understanding the principles expounded in Citizen/Slave are as important to the freedoms, liberties and justice of people, as reading, writing and math is to functioning in the modern world. Citizen/Slave is a simple roadmap for catapulting society into the next step of human evolution

I'm reading through some of it now, and he discusses the dichotomy of state sovereignty vs laws that apply to the DC government only. Also, how many statutes are uncsontitutional and how most Americans should exercise noncompliance. Here are some page previews:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DW2kBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

[oyarde]

Or vote 3rd party....or write in Ron Paul...or not vote....or...

I have bee voting for Pauls so long last time I wrote me in . Going with that again.