To understand gun politics, one must first understand politics in general and how it is driven by human nature. One informal definition of politics would be the organization of methods and means to get others to do one's bidding. It is a quest for dominance and the subjugation of others. It is the natural result of combining man's thinking and reasoning abilities with his natural drive for survival and natural instinct towards dominance. Personal politics and domination can be readily observed throughout all layers of society, beginning with marriage and sibling rivalries. It is most noticeable in the office, throughout the corporate structure, and between competing businesses. It is observed amongst the ranks in the military, especially between senior officers. It is the driving impetus within each of the political parties and can be viewed in its most sophisticated form throughout all of government. Although not openly observed, political dominance is most potently exercised by the ruling elite, which is those at the pinnacle of society's pecking order. Politics is always about dominating and subjugating all others. It is quite natural if Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection is to be believed.

In its earliest organized form, politics emerges in tribalism and closely mimics the instinctive social behavior of certain primates and other species of socialized mammals. Class distinctions are made between the ruling elite (e.g., the tribal chief and his subordinate lieutenants) and the subjugated members of the tribe or clan. Class distinctions are retained from generation to generation as tribal chieftains pass down their tribal supremacy to their progeny. The strongest members of the disenfranchised subjugated class will attempt to overthrow the tribal chief so as to establish their own dominance. If this is not feasible because the tribal chief is too potent, they often will leave the tribe or clans (with their family members and kin) so as to establish a tribe or clan of their own. With many tribes or clans occupying the same lands, intertribal rivalries develop, and because they often must compete for limited resources, these rivalries often develop into intertribal warfare. Again, all of this can be considered quite natural.

The natural evolution of tribalism is feudalism. Strong tribal chieftains with the skill of making war exchange this ability for the servitude of the people they protect. There is no change in class distinctions. The ruling elite is now the feudal lord and his family and the subjugated are the feudal serfs or peasants. At the feudal level, politics becomes significantly more sophisticated as feudal lords attempt to subjugate each other so as to acquire their estates and power. All of this is driven by man's natural instinct to dominate (as through the process of natural selection). The most successful of feudal lords acquire the estates and serfs of defeated feudal lords. It is through this process that counties, baronies, duchies, and kingdoms arise. And all through this process class distinctions are retained - the ruling elite (lords) and the subjugated (serfs and peasants).

As feudalism evolved, class distinctions became more sophisticated as did the interaction between the classes. Likewise, politics between them also became commensurately more sophisticated. Feudal lords, barons, dukes, and even kings found that wielding raw power was not enough to retain complete dominance. Because all people need material things (commodities and services) by which to live, economic power eventually became almost as important as raw (military) power. Under feudalism, feudal lords retained economic power by taxing those they subjugated. Feudal peasants were required to give as much as twenty-five percent (25%) of all they produced to their lord in exchange for protection against other feudal lords who might raid their master's estates.

Taxing one's subjects became increasingly difficult because members of the subjugated working class were the only ones that actually produced all of the necessary goods and services consumed by all. Members of the ruling class would not and did not provide these things for themselves. Skilled members of the working class eventually came to organize themselves into powerful guilds and by doing so, assumed a certain amount of power and dominance of their own. Feudal lords at all levels found that if their subjects could find the means to organize themselves economically, they could also find the means to organize themselves as a fighting force. Indeed, many lords conscripted their own subjects as men-of-war to fight battles. Archers, particularly, were conscripted from the selected subjects of subjugated class, whereas feudal lords fought almost exclusively in single combat, donning armor and riding upon horseback. Many peasant revolts did, in fact, arise where most were brutally put down. To mitigate the possibility of revolt and insurrection by the subjugated peasant classes, feudal lords passed a decree that only those of the ruling class (nobility) may keep and bear arms. Others that chose to do so would be put to death.

Feudalism has by no means disappeared. In fact, it is the primary form of government to this very day, albeit often shrouded under a veil of commerce and democracy. Nothing has changed, except the sophistication by which feudalism is manifested. Class distinctions still remain, even within the United States which has no history of feudalism as it was practiced in Europe, China, and Japan. There still remains the ruling elite and those that are subjugated by them. As citizens rather than subjects, Americans have better opportunities to be those amongst the ruling elite, the subjugated, or both at the same time, whereas one might lord over others in one realm and be subjugated in another. Most Americans, however, rarely get beyond petty politics and are generally limited to the realm of the office, the corporate place of business, and perhaps their neighborhood if they are inclined to civic activities.

Major corporations behave like large feudal estates and those that own them wield their power accordingly. To thwart such overpowering dominance, many workers have organized themselves into unions, just like skilled feudal serfs organized themselves into guilds. As in feudalism, the most dominant of the ruling class constantly move to acquire the power and estates of other members of the ruling class. Instead of acquiring lands (as wealth) as in the feudal era, they attempt acquire tangible assets and ownership of corporations (as wealth). As in feudalism, wealth is used to acquire more wealth, and with it, evermore power and domination. Corporate estates have replaced feudal estates, but the politics have not changed one bit.

At the pinnacle of corporate power is the ability to influence, even dominate government rule. This is manifested at all levels by the most powerful of ruling class. A distinction must be made here between those of the ruling class within the realm of petty politics and the ruling elite that dominates government. This distinction is important because those of the ruling elite that dominate government (to various degrees) will also dominate all realms of petty politics at the same time, where petty politics can be likened to the feeble politics and attempts to dominate others amongst serfs during the feudal era. Within the domain of government, the ruling elite is those with real power as measured by the ability to dominate. Members of the ruling elite may, or may not, be elected officials. Members of the ruling elite may have ideological views anywhere along the spectrum of politics, from far Left to far Right and everything in between. Ideological views are by no means as important as the exercise of power and the ability to dominate government rule. Free elections, such as in a democracy or constitutional republic, neither thwart nor diminish the very real power of the ruling elite. The ruling elite is distinguished from mere political figures in that they wield real, tangible power rather than representative power as do elected officials. Members of the ruling elite that hold elected office retain both.

The distinction of roles between the ruling class and the subjugated classes has not changed. The ruling elite provides protection for their subjects, now in terms of material rewards, in exchange of production and labor. In the realm of government, the ruling elite provides protection, in the form of welfare (security) and the military, in exchange for taxes and submission. The working class under feudalism were all sharecroppers. They did not own the lands they farmed. They were required to give the first portion of their crops (as much as 25%), as income, to their lords as taxes. The working classes today are also (in a very real sense) sharecroppers, but most do not know it. Like feudal serfs, they are required to give the first portion of their labor and production to those that rule over them in government in the form of taxes, albeit taxes today are far, far higher than they were during the feudal era. And like feudal serfs, people do not own their lands. Instead they have a deed to their lands, but remain subject to government rule as to what they can, and cannot, do on their lands. Nothing has changed.

The source of power amongst the ruling elite is that they have the great ability to award those that submit to them. These awards come in the form of providing the means for their subjects to advance themselves in their own quest for power and dominance. This is the key of all politics. Feudal lords rewarded faithful lieutenants by giving them a share of the estate and requiring of them utmost fealty. In this manner, feudal lords acquired their military fighting force. Those that broke their pledge of fealty found their doom at the hands of the feudal lord's other faithful members. Likewise, the ruling elite within many of today’s societies rewards their subjects with power and personal advancement, also requiring a pledge of utmost fealty. Breaking this pledge of fealty carries commensurate consequence invariably executed by other members of the ruling elite's faithful. The greater the ability to reward and/or inflict consequences determines the power status of any that would be considered amongst the ruling elite.

The ruling elite (in the realm of government) within the United States exercise their power and influence primarily within each of the political parties. This is where both ambition and vulnerability is highest and subjugation is easiest. It is also where political action is most corrupt (for this very reason). Here, members of the ruling elite attempt to completely dominate the party's central committees and party apparatus, and by doing so, the ruling elite control the ballot box. The rewards that the ruling elite are able to provide their most talented and faithful subjects is either advancement up the party ranks and/or being placed on the ballot for an elected political position. In essence, the people are quite often left to vote between appointees of the ruling elite at election time. In these cases, the one elected to office is at the bidding of the ruling elite rather than at the voters. For if the elected official does not submit to will of his true masters, he will very likely and quickly be replaced by one who will. For this very reason, principled and openly honest individuals find it so very difficult to be elected into office. All members of the ruling elite will avoid any individual that they cannot control. Thus, the key to undermining the great power held by the ruling elite is through the honesty of genuine grassroots efforts, whereas the key to grassroots efforts is contained in the economic power held by the voting masses.

The unspoken goal and objective of the most ambitious of the ruling elite is totalitarianism. It is the end game of total dominance. It is driven by man's natural instinct to dominate. At this level, material wealth no longer has meaning except as the means to give political rewards and wield raw power. Personal wealth is no longer and objective. It has been replaced by the goal of personal power, whereas the ultimate goal is to subjugate everybody. Many have attempted reaching this goal and many have succeeded. Others have succeeded only to have their power wane and then fall. This was the prime objective during the feudal era and it remains the prime objective today. The method of reaching this objective remains the same. It requires amassing all power and concentrating it all in one place, one portion at a time.

The more power is distributed amongst more people, the more difficult it is to acquire and concentrate power. Each source of power must be conquered before it can be seized. The corollary is also true. The more concentrated power is held, the easier it is to amass in one place. Democracies and constitutional republics attempt to distribute power amongst all of the people, and by doing so, makes amassing power all in one place or amongst as select group of individuals very difficult. Unfortunately, the politics of wielded economic power can and does corrupt the process as individuals sell out their votes in return for economic rewards and elected officials sell out their fealty to the people in exchange for advancement and personal power. Capitalism circumvents political corruption to a degree because it distributes economic needs and economic resources widely throughout the populace. In essence, this distributes economic power. A free economy makes it almost impossible for members of the ruling elite to dominate the people because they cannot easily or long control economic market forces. At best, members of the ruling class can only compete amongst themselves for domination. And so they do.

Socialism is the bane of freedom because it necessarily concentrates economic power all in one place. By doing so, socialism provides the opportunity for the most ambitious members of the ruling class to seize economic power, which in turn necessarily trumps all other forms of power. All people need the economic means to live and survive. Thus, those that dominate economic power proportionally dominate all people within a given society. Those that hold all economic power have complete dominance over the entire society. Here we find that socialism and totalitarianism go hand-in-hand. Wielding complete economic power is far more potent that wielding military power simply because those that would revolt against an economically empowered government (held by the ruling elite) still require the economic means to live and survive. In other words, a totalitarian socialist state subjugates the people of a given society through siege warfare. In its rawest form, those that do not submit will die.

It is therefore no surprise that world governments, being dominated by the ruling class as they are, lean toward socialism. It is the golden key in acquiring, concentrating, and amassing all political power. It lure amongst the most ambitious of the ruling class is far too powerful to resist. Some have already seized this power in their own respective societies. In its most potent form, socialism is revealed as communism. In each of these cases, the raw political structure of feudalism is revealed, invariably in very brutal forms as the ruling class completely dominates and subjugates the entire populace. In most cases, the power of the ruling elite is held in the person of but one man. In all cases, the people so subjugated in these societies suffer terribly, often with their economic needs being unmet.

Some amongst the academic elite would argue that communist states (and socialism, in general) fail not because they are poor systems, but because they have not been managed properly. These academic elites are gravely mistaken because they fail to understand that driving impetus behind socialism and communism is not that of economic equality through the equal distribution of goods and services, but rather a quest for absolute power by the members of the ruling elite. They fail to realize that those that control a socialist or communist economic system wield absolute power over all the people. And they fail to realize that even if such power is at first held by those with benign or benevolent intent, it will soon be seized by those amongst the ruling class who lust for absolute power. The lure is simply too great and the target is impossible to protect for long. The folly of socialism is that it makes totalitarianism, even despotic tyranny, inevitable.

The one and only ward that protects against the totalitarianism of socialism and absolute tyranny is a well-armed populace. It is here that raw economic power meets brute force. The ruling elite may indeed find the means to amass all economic power by which to subjugate the entire populace, but such power does precious little good when they are faced with the prospect of their own execution. A well-armed populace is a potent check against those with absolute political ambition. It is not, however, one that cannot be conquered. Those that wield great economic power have the means of meeting brute force with brute force by purchasing military might and deploying such might in an utterly ruthless fashion. There are no laws or rules that can be fashioned to stop such use of force. This is realpolitik in its most brutal form.

The most dangerous time for those attempting to assume absolute power is after they make their bid for such power, but before they have the time to safeguard it with their own security forces. They are vulnerable to attacks from other, equally ambitious and prepared, members of the ruling class just as they are vulnerable to an armed revolt from the populace. In many nations, the bid for power comes with the help of the nation's military. Without the military's support, a bid to seize power is futile. Thus, it becomes incumbent upon one with the absolute ambition to seize power to woo a major portion of the military for support. This task is accomplished in the same fashion as in all politics. Fealty is exchanged for advancement and rewards. If a major portion of the military can be conscripted as a security force, those who would seize all power would have enough might to keep the political opposition at bay. This leaves them facing an armed populace as their very last obstacle.

The most sophisticated amongst the ruling elite know that a bid to seize absolute power by brute force would never work, even for a moment, in any of stable democracies or constitutional republics at any time in the foreseeable future. The principal reason is that economic power is simply too widely distributed to amass in one place and amongst a select group of individuals. Without the keys to economic power, and the great might it holds, the quest for absolute rule is impossible. Thus, to meet their final objective, the most politically ambitious amongst the ruling class find that they have three major goals.

The first of these goals is to concentrate and amass absolute economic power. The very best means to do so is through socialism, which by definition concentrates all economic power. Those seeking absolute rule must necessarily ensure that they are the key players in establishing and maintaining socialism as the form of government, for that is where the power is. The deliberate move toward socialism is readily observed in many of the democracies and republics throughout the world. It is also readily observed within the structure of the United Nations. The groundwork for totalitarianism is being laid, perhaps even at a worldwide level. This very same move is also readily observed within the United States, despite its long history of economic freedom and personal liberty. The political objective is every bit the same in America as it is in all other nations: totalitarianism through absolute rule. This objective will be much more difficult to obtain within the United States because it remains the most economically free nation in the world, however as the world's only remaining superpower, the rewards to those who would meet their objectives make worth all of their efforts.

Those amongst the ruling elite that would seek absolute power can be referred to as the socialist Left. It would seem that the term "socialist Left" is redundant, and in a manner, so it is because, by definition socialism is the Left. However, in American politics, as well in many other nations, the Left is used to describe that portion of the political spectrum that ranges from the very middle all the way to the far Left, where pure socialism (communism) resides. Politicians and elected officials of the Left have ideologies that vary commensurately. Furthermore, most politicians have political views that vary from issue to issue, whereas in some issues their views might be moderate, other views to the far Left, yet other views might even be on the Right. What is true for that generally ascribing to the Left is also true for those generally ascribing to the Right. For this reason it is well to differentiate those on the Left from those who completely ascribe to socialism on the far Left. It is these individuals that are described as the "socialist Left". They have but one objective, as noted in the prior paragraph: absolute rule through a totalitarian socialist state. They constitute the most ambitious of all the ruling elite. They are the enemies of freedom and liberty.

It is important to note here that members of the socialist Left (and their fellow travelers) are not organized as in some vast conspiracy. Instead, they are linked together in their passion for the same political ideology. The true believers in socialism have faith in their beliefs to the point of religious fervor. They believe that they, alone, have all the answers to all of the problems that plague the nation – even the entire world. They see themselves as benefactors, not potential tyrants. No child grows up with the desire to become a monstrous dictator any more than a child grows up wanting to become a heroin addict. The battle to be fought here is not between men, but rather between principalities. The fight to defend freedom and liberty is a spiritual battle more than anything else. It will be fought between those each ascribing to their own political beliefs, where the winners will be decided based upon the depth of their beliefs. We must also keep in mind that there are indeed those that will utilize socialism, not for its ideology, but for its ability to concentrate power. These are the ones seeking absolute power.

With the first goal being that amassing absolute economic power by establishing socialist rule (which, incidentally, can be done while retaining democracy), the second goal is to suborn and/or obtain fealty from a large part of the military. The very best fashion to do this is to place flag officers with ideologies closest to the socialist Left in key positions through appointment and reward the most faithful with both military and political advancement. Likewise, flag officers and others of high rank that ascribe to ideologies of the Right are to be weeded out. While this is being accomplished, the entire military social organization and structure is to be groomed with the ideologies of the Left, and ultimately those of socialism. Some of this can be accomplished under the guise of diversity and equality social programs. It is really nothing less than social engineering with a very captive audience. It is a time-consuming process as those ascribing toward the Right must be either weeded out or kept from positions of high authority. This very process is currently underway within the U.S. military establishment.

The last goal of those amongst the ruling elite seeking absolute power is to completely disarm the populace. In almost all of the other democracies and constitutional republics that have already incorporated large portions of socialism within their government structure, disarming the entire populace has already been completed. (The ruling elite in these other nations is still in the process of suborning significant portions of their respective militaries and amassing economic power. The ruling elite within some of these nations is closer to obtaining their political objectives than others obtain. In some nations, the final quest for absolute power resides within the ruling elite, itself, as the most powerful members fight amongst themselves, each seeking to dominate the others; each seeking to make himself king. The final winner will then make a bid to assume all power, invariably through stealth and without fanfare.)

Unlike these other nations, the well-armed populace of the United States still remains a very potent obstacle to overcome for those amongst the ruling class seeking absolute power. It is for this very reason that the socialist Left, beginning in the mid-1960's when President Lynden B. Johnson began pushing his socialist agenda (e.g., "The Great Society"), launched its all out campaign to outlaw the private possession of firearms within the United States. For the ruling elite amongst the socialist Left, it is an absolutely necessary goal. A well-armed American populace could very well extinguish any bid for absolute power.

This is the true nature of gun politics. It has not changed one bit since the advent of feudalism. Feudal lords fearing an armed rebellion by their subjects, which would consequently permanently remove them from power, banned those of the working class (e.g., their subjects) from keeping and bearing arms. The Founding Fathers of the United States, completely aware of the class distinctions between the ruling class and the subjugated classes, tore away a significant portion of this distinction by pledging a guarantee, through the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and as a significant component of the Bill of Rights, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There would be no such class distinctions between nobility and the working class. Firearms would keep the political playing field rather level. Since the time of the founding of America, this was very well understood. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was intrinsic to American society and was never questioned until the socialist Left started their rise to power. For more than two hundred year the right of the people to keep and bear arms protected the nation from those of the ruling elite with unquenchable ambition.

With the ultimate objective of obtaining absolute rule, the ruling elite amongst the socialist Left has nothing to debate. They are not seeking compromises or accommodation; they are seeking to rule over all the people through socialism. Such absolute rule requires no compromises and does not seek accommodation. Any and all such shows of compromising and accommodation are nothing less than duplicitous and deceitful. When their objectives have been fully obtained, those in absolute power will do away with all previous compromises and accommodations. And there will be no one to stop them.

The so-called gun debate that currently rages on in the news media and in the mouths of a great many politicians is nothing but a ruse perpetrated by the socialist Left. To them, it is nothing but a matter of stealth and political expediency. In order to obtain their ultimate political objective, it is of utmost importance that the entire American populace is completely disarmed. Since they do not yet have the political power necessary to disarm the civilian population by dictate, the socialist Left (and their unwitting fellow travelers) is about the business of undermining the right of the people to keep and bear arms by directing those members in government that they have suborned to pass increasingly more restrictive gun control legislation, aimed specifically at the armed, law-abiding citizens of America. They are not debating the issue one bit.

The contrived gun debate serves the socialist Left in two important ways. It serves as platform by which misleading, duplicitous, and deceitful propaganda is propagated amongst the general public, which in turn is employed to hide their true intentions and political objectives. Just as importantly, the gun debate serves to entangle their political opposition, especially those strongly aligned with defending the Second Amendment, from organizing any potent political action. While principled gun owners and other conservatives are debating the issue, the socialist Left is busy undermining and removing the rights of the people.

It is very important to understand the so-called gun debate for what it truly is. Not only are most of the arguments put forth by the socialist Left both duplicitous and deceitful (quite obvious to those with reasonable analytical abilities), but the entire gun debate, itself, is every bit as much duplicitous and deceitful. The duplicity is that members of the socialist Left pretend that they are debating, making compromises, and willing to reason. They most certainly are not! Their objectives are already foresworn. Principled gun owners and conservatives are never taken in by the duplicitous gun control arguments issued by the socialist Left. Instead, far too many are taken completely in by the duplicitous nature of the gun debate, itself. They have become like trout rising to bits of feathers and silk thread that makes up the fisherman’s fly.

The time for debating is long past over. In fact, the time for debate never really began, except for that is small local communities overlooked by the power brokers of the ruling elite. It does no good to debate the opposition when the opposition is not talking, but taking hard action. For principled gun owners and conservatives, action is required. Mere words and political posturing, no matter how well intended, is not nearly enough. It is not even close.

Organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America (GOA) have been taking action, but most of it is of the ordinary politics of various campaign contributions, letter writing campaigns, and debating gun control in the news media. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has taken considerable action, but still finds itself bogged down by the duplicity of the gun debate. Much more action is required than this. The action that is needed is that of real wielded power – the very same as employed by the members of the ruling elite. Polite suggestions to elected political officials is by no means near enough. In this battle, suggestions must be replaced a big stick – similar to that as envisioned by President Theodore Roosevelt when he exhorted, "Speak quietly, but carry a big stick!" By all means, those in the public eye must retain all manner of politeness and courtesy, but behind all kindness of speech there must be that big stick. After all, this is the real language of diplomacy.

To elected officials, the big stick is represented by the very real possibility of permanent loss of held office and any chance for further advancement or obtaining power. The great fear of this particular consequence can remove an elected official from the thrall of the ruling elite that might presently own him. In order for there to be any real deterrent, the ability to inflict such consequences must be real and willingness to inflict such consequences must be understood. In part, this was accomplished by the Republican sweep of 1994. Unfortunately, this form of strong political pressure was not maintained and was not evenly applied to members of the Grand Ol’ Party that gave only lip service as they capitulated to their own personal lust for power. It is now time for Congress to be spanked again by the big stick.

Action of this nature makes a good beginning. But at this level, it remains a power struggle between the ruling elite of the socialist Left and those representing the defense of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is a battle between the wealth of socialist Left and the funds raised by organizations such as the NRA and GOA. In this realm, the battlefield is far too level to ensure success. This battle must be taken to the streets and to the people. This is where great amounts of untapped power lies hidden. It must be said that if gun owners are not willing to fight for their freedom and liberty now, while the price remains relatively inexpensive, they most certainly will not fight for their freedom and liberty when the price is measured in blood. They fight to defend freedom is not later, after the ruling elite of the socialist Left have made their bid for absolute rule. The time is now. Principled gun owners and conservatives must revolt.

Wielding political power does not necessarily mean bloodshed. Sophisticated individuals wield power through a system of rewards, consequences, and intimidation. By informal definition, a revolution can be considered power wielded by the subjugated against those who would lord over them. People become subjugated because they allow themselves to be. It may very well be that the only alternative might be death, but nevertheless a choice remains. In the modern world amongst the stable democracies and constitutional republics, people make their choice and allow themselves to be subjugated by the promises of rewards. Most often, this promise comes in the form of the security of the welfare state. It was generally the same thing in the feudal times, as well. The carrot was promised security, while the stick was very unpleasant consequences.

The problem with the promise of security is that the neither government nor the power of the ruling elite that dominates government can deliver it. Meanwhile, those that have bought into the promise of security find that they are no longer free citizens, but have become subjects. In the end, they lose both freedom and security. The remedy for a subjugated is society is revolt. In the simplest meaning of the word, those subjugated stand up and say "No!" to their once-lords. It is the politics of civil disobedience and noncompliance to "law".

This was one of the principal methods employed by certain guilds during feudal medieval Europe to enact their own revolt. Members of these guilds simply organized themselves and collectively refused to deliver their goods and services to their feudal lords. If the baron, duke or king raised taxes, they raised prices proportionally. Some guild revolts succeeded better than others did; many were put down with ruthless violence. Nevertheless, these revolts enacted by guild members long ago serve as model of realpolitik and how the people might wield power against the ruling elite. It is a model that principled gun owners and conservatives must now employ against the socialist Left and their quest for absolute rule.

First and foremost, elected officials in government must be made plainly to understand that the gauntlet thrown down by the socialist Left has been picked up; the gun debate is now seen for what it is – a duplicitous ruse by the socialist Left; principled gun owners and conservatives refuse to allow themselves to be subjugated and will not comply, in any fashion or through any means, with any demand made by government upon them that infringes upon their right to keep and bear arms; and any attempt on the part of government to force the people into submission will be met with resistance if not outright revolt. This is the announcement of intent and serves notice. This is important because elected officials must understand that it will no longer be a matter of politics-as-usual.

Principled gun owners and conservatives must organize themselves into a potent political force. For the present time, there is no such organization. There only exists but a shadow of the required organization through membership of the NRA, GOA, and similar groups and through a benign network of sportsman fellowships. One of the great services that organizations such as the NRA and GOA could provide is to develop organized voting blocs amongst principled gun owners and conservatives. One of the political goals of these voting blocs would be to identify and organize fellow conservatives within wards, precincts and districts with an objective of becoming elected into each party’s central committee apparatus at all levels. This movement is already underway and has been for quite some time amongst social conservatives. A great many more principled gun owners and conservatives must join the fray. The internet can provide a very potent means of building a well-organized conservative political network.

The purpose of organizing principled gun owners and conservatives in this fashion is to begin depriving the ruling elite individuals within the party apparatus that they can easily take control of. Each ward represented by a principled gun owner and/or conservative removes one potential political pawn. Developing an organization of ward and precinct captains helps ensure evermore dominance in the central committees. This is accomplished by identifying like thinking conservatives living in the ward (or precinct) through voter registration lists and soliciting their personal political involvement (rather than the customary financial contributions). Those most likely to involve themselves can be identified through their voting records, which is part of the voter registration list and can be obtained by each county board of elections. The goal here is to empower voters at the expense of the ruling elite. It is this type of political action that Founding Fathers originally had in mind to govern the nation. Understanding how the ruling elite have corrupted it and perverted it allows provides us the means of fixing it.

Principled gun owners and conservatives must be made to understand that voting is not anywhere near enough involvement, not even voting in the primaries. To get at the roots of the problems faced, it is not good enough to choose between those appointed to the ballot by the established ruling elite. Generations of the same names and same families can no longer be considered as representing the people. They are either amongst the ruling elite already or have been suborned by the ruling elite long, long ago. It is time for new blood unencumbered by past pledges of fealty. Why shouldn’t this new blood be that of principled gun owners and conservatives? Do we not have confidence in our conservative beliefs? Are we not well capable of taking care of ourselves and our own? Of course, we are!

This is the quiet revolt of all principled gun owners and true conservatives (not all conservatives are true conservatives; country club Republicans cannot be considered true conservatives if the vote for leftwing social legislation). The time for it is well past due. And it might not be enough. Already the constitutional initiative of Congress has been usurped by odious executive diktats issued by the most corrupt of all chief executives in history. Already unscrupulous lawyers are openly attacking the right to keep and bear arms as they prostitute themselves before the ruling elite by filing litigation against gun manufacturers on their behalf. More potent action may yet be still required.

Civil disobedience and noncompliance of laws restricting and infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is already a given strategy. Beyond this, there remains available many additional means to brandish political power. If principled gun owners and true conservatives can be successfully organized to this point, they will have the ability to call for a general work strike, for example, repeatedly applied and lasting as long as necessary to produce a significant economic impact. It would be a demonstration of resolve. Likewise, a tax revolt could be initiated where participants file their W-4s with as many exemptions as allowed, followed by not filing any tax returns at all. If but one-eighth of all gun owners participated, owing an average of $2,000.00 in taxes, the government would be hit with a $20 billion shortfall in collected tax revenues. These are but two methods of taking action. Developing an underground resistance might be the next step. These are but ideas at this point - not plans. The most important thing to do is for principled gun owners and conservatives to wake up, get organized, and become thoroughly involved. Sending financial contributions is not anywhere near enough. Real participation is required – now.

In all these cases, principled gun owners and conservatives must involve themselves. They will find that they will have many allies, who might not be gun owners, but who will equally resist the advent of a totalitarian socialist state. Keep in mind, the real issue at hand is really not about the right to keep and bear arms. This battle is but one that is necessary to win the looming war to defend freedom and liberty against the ultimate objective of the socialist Left. The time now is just as dire as it was for the Founding Fathers. If principled gun owners and conservatives will not engage in battle now, what will they do when the price of freedom is measured in blood?

Return to Sons of Liberty Home Page