on the soviet union under joseph stalin nazi germany under and off hitler throughout history authoritarian regimes have inflicted oppression extortion enslavement terrorism torture and murder of on innocent people many americans firmly believe and confidently proclaimed that such a thing could never happen in the united states but is this just wishful thinking or is there something fundamentally different about the united states that renders it immune to the tyrannical oppression that has plagued every other major empire in history the first step in analyzing the claim that it can't happen here is to identify and define what it is many people have an over simplified almost comic book type view of tyranny an image of the obviously malicious dictator wringing his hands while cackling maniacally about ruling the world in the real world tyranny has always come about under the guise of defending the nation protecting the people and creating law and order to gain power a tyrant at least to begin with needs the support of the people a successful tyrant cannot openly exhibit malice and lust for power but must craft his message so as to convince the people that his intentions are noble that he wants truth and justice to prevail and that the way to make that happen is to give him power and control authoritarian regimes grow by exploiting people's fears worries about economic troubles crime foreign invaders and so on and convincing the people that the solution is for a political leader to be given total control so he can protect the people from the evils of the world this is always the template out of which tyranny grows no matter how repressive or brutal regime becomes those in power will continue to claim good intentions and will insist that extraordinary government powers are necessary to protect the people and to create justice and order throughout history every time humanity has taken a step away from freedom and towards tyranny it was done in the name of serving and protecting the nation and the people but because every candidate every political party every regime claims to be for peace and freedom for truth and justice for protecting the innocent and defeating the wicked how can the potential tyrants be recognized and kept out of power every tyrant claims to have noble motives insists that the people should trust him and promises to use his power for good finding the truth therefore requires one to look past the politician's words and to focus instead on his actions there are several basic philosophical principles which tyrants always seek to undermine and destroy in any country determining whether these principles are being respected or violated indicates whether that country is headed towards tyranny or is already there historically speaking it is a relatively new concept to suggest that there are limits to what rulers may do to their people the magna carta eight hundred years ago expressed the radical idea that even the king should be subject to certain restrictions subsequent english law and later the us constitution specifically describes certain things that those in power can never have the right to do several examples of this are found in the first ten amendments to the us constitution collectively known as the bill of rights this would include freedom of speech freedom of religion freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures freedom from being forced to testify against oneself the right to be armed the right of an accused to a trial by a jury of his peers and so on the bill of rights did not claim to create any of these rights but instead a den a fight such rights as inherent to humanity preexisting and outranking all manmade authority of any kind rights that should never be violated even if the majority supports such violations and even if those in power claim that such violations are urgently necessary and are being done with the best of intentions the authors of the bill of rights were well aware that once these principles are abandoned the end result will always be unbridled tyranny with that in mind we will examine several of these fundamental principles to see where they have been respected and where they have been violated the us constitution describes a very restricted limited role for the federal government to play the ninth and tenth amendments the last two in the bill of rights declare not just that there are some things the federal government may not do but that it may not do anything except for what is clearly and specifically authorized by the constitution congress was not intended to have the power to control regulate or prohibit whatever it wished but to have power only over certain specific matters such a concept cannot be found in the founding documents of the notorious tyrannies in history on paper this would seem to be a fundamental difference between the united states and many other regimes but has that difference translated into reality the federal law books today are full of thousands of pages of laws imposing taxation regulation and sometimes criminalization of matters which the constitution never put under federal jurisdiction including education health care food retirement plans caring for the poor air travel trains cars alcohol tobacco drugs firearms explosives gambling communications employment practices farming wildlife and all manner of production and manufacturing in order to acquire and maintain power over such matters politicians appointed judges to manufacture legal excuses for ignoring the constitutional limits on federal power of no the constitution itself does not say that the courts are the ultimate deciders of what is or is not constitutional none the less shortly after the constitution was written the us supreme court simply declared itself to be the ultimate judge of constitutionality since then the federal courts have gradually whittled away at the concept of limited powers fabricating justifications and rationalizations for violating the principle one significant example occurred in one thousand nine hundred two when the supreme court ruled that congress could regulate and control a farmer growing in consuming his own wheat on his own property under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution the outrageous rationale was that the farmer growing in consuming his own wheat though such activity is neither interstate commerce might have an indirect impact on interstate commerce because if the farmer had not grown his own we he might have purchased wheat elsewhere which might have travelled through interstate commerce if he had and so with the obvious pre meditated intention of drastically expanding federal power the court simply manufactured a new legal excuse for putting nearly everyone and everything under federal control recently the supreme court fabricated another new legal principle out of thin air to allow president obama to force citizens to purchase private health insurance as a result congress can now not only tax regulate control and for anything it pleases but can even for citizens to spend their own money on certain products or services bringing to an end even the flimsiest facade of a federal government of limited powers both major political parties have enacted legislation far beyond anything the constitution ever authorized while continuing to appoint judges who will give their blessing to such actions and this is often occurred with public approval by people more interested in the promise of being protected and taken care of than they are in the fundamental principles of freedom ultimately the american politician and the american voter have cooperated to completely destroy tyranny to examine is the concept of due process which dictates that when the state intends to take someone's property or freedom it may not do so arbitrarily but may do so only by way of the legislative process providing individuals with an opportunity to challenge the claims and actions of the government at an open and fair hearing before a neutral judge and in criminal cases the government may not punish people based on mere accusations or suspicions but must provide evidence sufficient to convince a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has violated the law while the fifth amendment mentions the right to due process merely having such words on paper does not necessarily mean the principle will be adhered to in the real world indeed similar concepts contained in the constitutions of red china and the soviet union failed to stop those authoritarian regimes for murdering millions of human beings without charges or trial the constitution of the why our republic the government of germany preceding hitler's rise to power was very thorough regarding the concept of due process saying quote the rights of the individual are inviolable limitation or deprivation of individual liberty is admissible only if based on laws persons deprived of their liberty have to be notified at the next day on the latest by which authority and based on which reasons the deprivation of their liberty has been ordered immediately they have to be given the opportunity to protest against the deprivation of liberty technically the y our constitution was still in effect during nazi reign however article forty eight of that constitution provided that in cases of national emergency the government could suspend nearly all civil rights including the right to due process the idea that a government may not do certain things unless it decides to give itself permission to in the name of some emergency obviously contradicts the concept of unalienable rights and though the us constitution does not authorize anyone to suspend the principle of due process the us government has spent decades fabricating excuses for circumventing and undermining the principle the violations are not so blatant and drastic as those committed by the soviet chinese and nazi governments but are still significant for example by way of asset seizure laws relating to drug prohibition federal and state governments in the us now directly confiscate all sorts of property cash cars boats houses and so on that is merely alleged to be related to profits from the drug trade without a warrant or court order and without having to prove anything in some cases simply possessing a large enough amount of cash is by itself grounds for government agents to steal it without the need for any trial charges warrant or even any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity then there is the concept of eminent domain whereby the government can simply take private property for its own uses the government is required to provide just compensation for private property it takes with the government deciding what counts as just and until recently private property could only be taken for public use meaning government purposes that changed in two thousand and five when the supreme court proclaimed that governments could take private property from one person and give it to another based soley on the likelihood that doing so might create jobs and increase the government's tax revenues now any government federal state or local can forcibly take any piece of property from one person and give it to another on the claim that doing so might help the economy one of the most widespread violations of due process can be seen in the u s criminal justice system in the vast majority of cases where an individual is accused of a crime in the united states there is no trial no jury no public hearing no proof of guilt no evidence presented and therefore no opportunity to challenge or rebut the evidence this complete denial of the right to a fair public trial by a jury of one's peers is done via a procedure known as plea bargaining ensure the accused is told that if he confesses his punishment will be less harsh than if he demands a trial when faced with the potential expense embarrassment fear stress and pain involved with being prosecuted by a government w virtually unlimited resources even many innocent defendants confess relieving those in power of having to prove guilt concept such as innocent until proven guilty having one's day in court the state having the burden of proof the proof needing to be beyond a reasonable doubt and the right of the accused to not testify against himself are all destroyed by threatening and intimidating a defendant into accepting a relatively lenient punishment for a crime which may never have happened the underlying message is a very old one confess whether falsely or truthfully and your suffering shall be reduced to make matters worse all defendants who submit to such threats are required to sign a statement saying that they were coerced into confessing many countries recognizing that plea bargains amount to forced confessions prohibit the practice but in the united states it is how the vast majority of criminal accusations are settled without evidence without a trial without the government ever proving anything but the ultimate contempt for due process evolved relatively recently in the us with the bush administrations claiming the right to indefinitely detain individuals without trial or charges meaning someone could be imprisoned for life without ever being formally accused of any wrongdoing or even if he was charged put on trial and found not guilty even more drastic than that is the policy again condoned by the bush and obama administrations saying that the president has the power to issue orders to kill individuals outright foreigners and u s citizens without warrant trial or charges the result of all these policies is that notwithstanding what the fifth amendment says about due process the federal government can take the property freedom and life of any individual it chooses without any due process at all related to the concept of due process is the concept of the presumption of innocence the idea that the government may not treat people like criminals detaining searching interrogating or punishing them unless and until there is specific evidence indicating that a crime has been committed the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants based on probable cause and approved by a neutral judge before government agents can search one's person belongings or property but again the mere existence of words on paper does not by itself guarantee anything by the image of a nazi k g b or stasi agent stopping people at random demanding to see their papers questioning them about where they are going and what they are doing in sharp contrast is the image of an american having the right to be left in peace the right to remain silent to refuse to answer questions and to refuse to allow himself or his property to be searched without a warrant however that distinction is fading as those in power continue to invent new ways to circumvent and undermine the principle of presumption of innocence under the guise of combat ing drugs terrorism and illegal immigration among other things for example random traffic stop now regularly performed at so called border checkpoints that can be anywhere within one hundred miles of the border to stop drivers at random to ask if they are in the country illegally is in principle no different than stopping every driver to ask if he has robbed anyone when there is no reason to suspect that he has because of the fifth amendment even one who has committed a crime cannot be compelled to say so as a result the implication of random traffic stops is that guilty people need not admit it while innocent people may be arrested for not professing their innocence as has already happened with people who had committed no crime being violently assaulted and charged with resisting arrest or obstructing justice simply for not cooperating with warrantless suspicion list detention and interrogation at so called sobriety checkpoints every cars stopped briefly search from the outside and the driver is asked if he has been drinking because such stops are usually brief and minimally intrusive and are done in the name of combating drunk driving many people accept or even praise the practice despite it being an obvious violation of the fourth and fifth amendments the mentality is that if it stops one drunk driver than it is worth it but once the premises accepted that presumption of innocence should be abandoned in the name of safety what argument would remain for example against the idea that if it prevents one violent crime or one terrorist attack then the police should be allowed to conduct random unannounced raids of private homes without even a reason for suspicion every totalitarian police state has grown out of such a mindset and the tactic of detaining and interrogating people at random is not limited to traffic stops americans have long since grown accustomed to being questioned and having their belongings rummaged through before boarding a plane but since nine eleven two thousand and one anyone who wants to fly must now be subjected to an electronic strip search or a thorough physical pat down which in many jurisdictions fits the legal definition of sexual assault this is the natural progression of things once a fundamental principle is abandoned many americans now blithely accept being treated like criminals in the name of safety and security being detained interrogated and searched without any reason to believe they have done anything wrong and this now occurs not just at airports but in certain housing projects in parts of new york with the new stop and frisk policy on the houston bus system and elsewhere the response has been mixed with some praising the tyrannical practice as a good way to reduce crime and others objecting to the obvious violations of privacy and civil rights whether such practices will continue and expand depends largely on whether the people will tolerate it which in turn depends upon whether the people understand and care about the basic princip of liberty some americans who are still aware of their rights when stopped and confronted by the police without cause refused to consent to a search or questioning and instead ask am i free to go or am i being detained and if i am being detained what is your probable cause to suspect that i have committed a crime even doing this no matter how politely often results in open hostility from the police and condemnation and insults from other americans who view such actions as the behavior of a criminal and troublemaker this demonstrates the growing rift between on the one hand those who have accepted the authoritarian attitude that one should without question or hesitation cooperate with whatever someone in a uniform tells them to do and on the other hand those americans who still understand and respect the fundamental principles of individual liberty the concept of presumption of innocence also implies a right to privacy regarding one's records and correspondence one's papers as the fourth amendment puts it however the way the federal income tax is currently applied destroys the financial privacy of americans based on the claim that all income all expenses almost every type of financial transaction is relevant to determining an individual's income tax liability the us government claims the right to demand by way of an i r s audit almost every type of personal financial record imaginable without a warrant and without even the accusation that the person has done anything wrong and there are countless other ways in which presumption of innocence is being eroded warrantless spying on all sorts of communications agents being allowed to write their own search warrants rendering the entire concept of a warrant pointless so called sneak and peek searches the national security letters the legality of which cannot be challenged because the ones being spied on are never told that it happened and those who find out are threatened with imprisonment if they tell anyone else in spite of the fourth amendmen today americans are not secure in their persons or their houses or their papers or their affects the concept of presumption of innocence has been abandoned by both major political parties and by a large portion of the american and the fact that the us constitution also mentions freedom of speech has not stopped those in power from trying to silence dissent directly and indirectly examples of direct censorship would include the sedition act of seven hundred ninety eight the forcible confiscation of newspapers and the arrest of news editors during the civil war and a second sedition act passed in one thousand nine hundred eighteen but for the most part those in power in the us have had to rely on more subtle indirect methods dissuading people from speaking out using veiled or not so veiled threats insults or intimidation to create what the supreme court calls a chilling effect this can take different forms such as the government demanding that dissident groups hand over a list of their members which was ruled unconstitutional in one nine hundred fifty eight or federal agents monitoring certain individuals or groups openly or covertly based upon their political beliefs or keeping lists of those critical of government and characterizing them as potential terrorists or stopping in questioning people based on what their bumper stickers or t shirts say the goal of all such tactics is to use intimidation and harassment to discourage people from speaking their minds or from associating with others who do the recent demonization of all manner of groups conservative and liberal which have been critical of current government policies and the hurting of protesters into so called free speech zones are further examples of indirect attempts to silence dissent another tactic that is not exactly censorship but has the same goal is those in power exerting undue influence over the media by giving preferential treatment and more access to news outlets sympathetic to the agenda of those in power and using connections and influence to persuade news agencies to slant the news a certain way or to downplay or simply ignore certain events and stories in two thousand and five the story broke that the bush administration had even produced numerous propaganda pieces which were then aired in the mainstream media as if they were news reports with the obvious goal of using what americans  be a free press to sway public opinion to favor those in power more recently the federal government was caught having agents create numerous fake personas to use on social media websites in an attempt to discredit those critical of the government and create the appearance of a more pro government public opinion such tactics are used to weaken dissenting opinions by drowning them out with government created pro authoritarian messages posing as news reports or the thoughtful opinions of concerned citizens but despite such dissin from asian tactics and the attempt by those in power to publicly malign or denigrate any who oppose their agenda for the most part freedom of speech remains alive and well in the united states especially in t media which now dominates the internet which those in power have been unable to control unlike the philosophical principles of limited powers due process and presumption of innocence the principle of freedom of speech is still understood and cherished by nearly all americans dissent and protest is in fact becoming more and more widespread despite government efforts to undermine it through spying propaganda vilification and intimidation perhaps the most conspicuous difference between the us constitution and the constitutions of other countries is found in the second amendment which describes the inherent right of the people to be armed during the founding of the country federal ists and anti federalists alike openly upon that the people should always remain armed not merely to defend against common criminals or foreign invaders but to retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government armed populace is essential to the idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish any government that has become destructive of individual liberties as the declaration of independence says in contrast the constitutions of many tyrannical regimes have claimed that all political power belongs to the people but never gave any teeth to that idea by allowing the people themselves to remain armed most regimes claim a monopoly on the use of force asserting that the police and military exist to protect the people without mentioning the fact that historically what the people have most often needed protection from has been their own government tyrants have often pushed the idea under the excuse of safety and preventing crime that only the police and military should be armed in retrospect their motivation becomes clear those who seek to control and exploit a population do not want the people to have the ability to forcibly resist for decades some american politicians have exhibited a similar attitude recently the us government has dramatically escalated its attempts to disarm the general public or at least to significantly limit the firepower possessed by the people even though nothing in the constitution puts such matters under federal jurisdiction and even though the second amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from an acting any so called gun control twice near ruby ridge idaho in one thousand nine hundred two near waco texas  three the us government has carried out what can only be described as violent paramilitary assaults against private citizens in their own homes not because anyone had been threatened or harmed but only because someone was allege to be in possession of certain guns or gun parts which the federal government had declared to be illegal randy weaver's home was attacked his son was shot to death his wife was shot to death as she stood in her own home holding her baby and mr weaver and a friend were both shot but survived the entire incident stemmed from the fact that mr weaver was alleged to have sold two shotguns whose barrels were slightly shorter than allowed by law in the waco incident the original paramilitary assault the deadly shootout the prolonged sieg the prolonged physical and emotional torture inflicted on the branch davidian by federal a finally the fire that destroyed the entire compound the entire incident which cost the lives of eighty american men women children and babies was all the result of an unsubstantiated rumor that david koresh was in possession of parts that could be used to convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic firearms that incident occurred under the leadership of janet reno with some exceptions in the us private ownership of fully automatic machine guns and various explosives has been illegal for many decades for the past twenty years some of been trying to ban even semiautomatic military style rifles and the high capacity magazines for such weapons not only has disarming the general public been shown to increase crime but these particular types of weapons have never been used in more than a tiny percentage of crime yet they receive most of the attention of those in government pushing for gun control perhaps because such weapons while not at all ideal for the common criminals due to being unwieldy expensive and difficult to conceal are ideal for resisting an authoritarian police force or standing army in any country it is to be expected that those in power those who seek out political office and believe it is their place to manage and control society will not want those whom they control to have the means to resist those doing the controlling of course those in power always claim that their motive for disarming their subjects is to preserve law and order and keep the despite the many examples of brutal oppression which have historically followed public disarmament those currently in power in the us have managed to convince a large percentage of americans to enthusiastically demand th themselves be disarmed most americans simply cannot imagine that their own government has any intention of violently dominating and controlling the people just as the people of china russia and germany no doubt couldn't imagine it however in addition to the recent all out push for so called gun control the us department of homeland security recently ordered over one and a half billion rounds of ammunition which comes to five bullets for every man woman and child in the country purchased by an agency that is not involved in international war but is purely about domestic law enforcement one does not buy such a quantity  it hollow point designed to do maximum damage to the human body unless one is planning for a large scale armed conflict add to that the gradual militarization of many local and state police forces several thousand armored vehicles ordered by homeland security and perhaps most shockingly the admission by the top law enforcement official in the country under the obama administration that he believes that it would be both legal and justifiable not just to kill foreigners abroad not just to kill u s citizens abroad as has already occurred but to kill u s citizens on u s soil without charge or trial if the president decides they are a threat to government in recent years various flyers and memos from state and federal law enforcement agencies have surfaced showing what those in power consider to be signs that someone might be a threat things such as asking for the legal authority for a traffic stop making frequent references to the constitution or constitutional rights concerns about loss of liberty and expanding government power and particularly concerns about violations of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in other words anyone who is aware of the fundamental principles which prevent tyranny and who is concerned about the violation of those principles is in the eyes of some in power a potential terrorist if it any point any group of americans decides to resist any one of the numerous infringements on their unalienable rights going on today as the declaration of independence says is their right and duty the government can simply declare the resistors to be enemy combatants which according to those now in power would justify murdering the resist outright without charges and without a trial under every tyrannical regime every new violation of civil rights was committed in the name of law he who disobeyed were deemed criminals and any who forcibly resisted were called rebels insurgents or terrorists using this template tyrants have inflicted one act of aggression after another against the people and then violently crushed any opposition or resistance that arose in the name of inforcing the law preventing crime and keeping order every law every regulation every policy of every government is imposed upon the people via armed and forcers so when those in power seek to legislatively violate the fundamental principles of individual liberty in the end the only real guard against tyranny is the ability of the people to forcibly resist their own government in hundred seventy six and today that ability relies mainly upon one thing firearms despite decades of trying u s politicians have so far failed to disarm the american people even the recent full blown nationwide campaign of emotionalism and fear mongering designed to scare the people into tolerating or even demanding public disarmament has only resulted in record numbers of firearm and ammunition sales those who seek dominion over others ball wiese claim that they need the power in order to protect and serve the people indeed the most horrific examples of man's inhumanity to man have been done in the name of the people and the common good the preamble of the constitution of what became the most murderous regime in history states that the chinese people have often fought quote for democracy and freedom and that after mouse communist revolution quote the chinese people took state power into their own hands and became masters of the country every tyrannical regime pretends to represent the very people that oppresses the constitution of the u s s r asserted that it was the job of the soviet government to quote ensure the maintenance of law and order and safeguard the interests of society and the rights and freedoms of citizens if there is one commonality among all tyrants mal stalin lenin hitler mussolini pol pot and countless others it is the collectivist philosophy the idea that it is justifiable and even noble to sacrifice the rights of the individual in the name of serving some greater good all successful tyrants whether politically categorized as far right or far left built their regimes on the notion that if some authoritarian master plan benefits society as a whole then the ends justify the means and individual rights can and should be ignored this idea is the antithesis of the concept of unalienable rights and individual freedom collectivism whether it takes the form of communism socialism nationalism fascism or even democracy has been used over and over again as the excuse for violent oppression and over and over again people have fallen for  collectivist ideas because on the surface they sound al true istic a noble an individual can feel good about giving up some of what is his to benefit his neighbor his community or his country to be part of something greater than himself but there is a fundamental difference between on the one hand someone voluntarily choosing to help his fellow man and to co operate for mutual benefit and on the other hand having the state force in whatever those in power say is for the common good the former is the basis of a civil society the latter is always the basis for tyranny as elsewhere often the candidates who enjoy the strongest public support and the past politicians who are now most respected and revered are the ones who violated the principles of liberty most boldly and dramatically today candidates from both major parties give lip service to the concept of unalienable rights but betray and violate it in almost every action they take americans may scoff at the facade of democracy that existed in the soviet union because the right to vote is obviously meaningless when there's only one party on the ballot however being given the choice between two candidates neither of whom has any respect for the principles which prevent tyranny may strengthen the facade that elections matter but still renders the ability to vote a useless tool against totalitarianism the only presidential candidate for decades who showed true loyalty to the basic principles of liberty was openly hated scorned ridiculed vilified slandered and suppressed by both major parties by the entire political establishment and by the mainstream media whenever there is a powerful elite that chooses the candidates offered to the public whether the powers that be offer up one candidate two or ten voting can never be an effective way to prevent tyranny many americans understand that pure democracy which is simply mob rule can lead to tyranny but imagine that having a democratic constitutional republic prevents it but the most brutal regimes in history began as democratic constitutional republics the people's republic of china the union of soviet socialist republics the democratic people's republic of korea and the y m our republic out of which nazi power grew without a firm adherence to the fundamental principles of liberty the particular structure of the ruling class does nothing to prevent widespread oppression and injustice indeed the degree of oppression in the american colonies under the rule of a king was in terms of taxation regulation intrusion and interference far less than what is now done to the american people by their own supposedly limited democratically chosen constitutional republican form of government the country which was designed to have the most limited pro labor the government ever because it has abandoned most of the fundamental principles of freedom has become the most powerful authoritarian empire in history with the biggest standing army the biggest taxing machine and the most intrusive regulatory system in the world all things the constitution was supposed to prevent making it plain that having a constitution allowing elections and having a republican form of government does not prevent tyranny many believe that the only proper civilized way to combat tyranny is through political action by getting involved in the process campaigning running for office supporting this or that candidate or party however the track record of such political action warding off oppression and tyranny has been a dismal failure largely because at least at first nearly always has the support of a well intentioned but deceived and misinformed public whenever a majority falls for the promises of some new would be ruler pitching state power and control under the guise of the pleasant sounding collectivist philosophy the inevitable result cannot be avoided by having the minority playing the game of electoral politics in the us since before the  even dry on the constitution there were individuals and groups ardently trying to preserve freedom and prevent tyranny even the constitution itself was a victory for those prefer a more centralized government control and a defeat for the anti federalists who voiced concern that the principles of individual liberty were already in danger patrick henry for example refused to attend the constitutional convention famously saying i smell a rat for well over two hundred years since then various well meaning individuals and groups have enthusiastically lobbied petition campaigned and voted trying to defend the concepts of individual liberty against the steady encroachments of increasing government power through it all the size and scope of government control expanded and personal liberty decreased other than a few tiny temporary blips the hard work of countless political activists who pour their hearts and souls into seeking a political remedy not only failed to return the country to constitutional principles but even failed to break even to at least hold authoritarian power and control at existing levels common sense dictates that when those in power are the ones making the rules playing by the rules will not protect the people from tyranny freedom advocates who limit themselves to working within the system when the system was designed and built by those who crave dominion over others ultimately have no chance of success history bears that out in the us and elsewhere americans value their first amendment rights the truth is that the ability to complain and protest in and of itself does little or nothing to prevent tyranny the right on paper to criticize the government did not stop chinese troops from massacring unarmed protesters in tiananmen square it did not prevent the brutal crushing of all dissent and protest in north korea it did not stop st murdering millions of his critics and political opponents whenever there is a contest between the words of dissenters and the guns of government enforcers tyranny wins and freedom loses elections political action petitions and protests are all tactics designed to try to persuade those in power to change their ways to alter their laws all such tactics everything that can be done within the realm of politics amounts to asking nicely for those with power to show mercy and restraint and to grant their legislative permission for the people to be free but tyrants have never been swayed by polite requests for justice and mercy indeed th all of history little or nothing has been accomplished by those who have begged for justice and appealed to the consciences of those in power even those making the most well reasoned heartfelt pleas were at best simply ignored and at worst murdered no tyrannical regime has ever been ended by people politely asking for justice in short the only thing that has ever prevented tyranny has been outright disobedience and resistance the countless well meaning individuals who have believed that the moral and civilized way to effect political change is to vote petition and beg for reform while continuing to obey the edicts of their rulers have done little or nothing to prevent tyranny history shows all too clearly that only those capable of contemplating direct disobedience and resistance against their own government have ever actually prevented or ended the resistance may be nonviolent as in the case of the movement led by gandhi in india or it may be violent as in the case of the american revolution and the methods of disobedience and resistance may vary for example the injustice of legally enforced slavery in the united states was undone largely by the underground railroad and by jurors refusing to convict defendants prosecuted under fugitive slave law as but ultimately because any injustice can be enacted as law the only thing that has ever prevented tyranny or even slowed it down significantly is a people willing to disobeyed those who wear the label of authority the subjects of every authoritarian empire are taught that if one disagrees with the law or believes the government's actions to be unjust the proper civilized response is to obey authority and comply with the law while humbly asking those in power to change the law but such an attitude is in direct opposition to the sentiment expressed in the declaration of independence that when any government becomes a violator rather than a protector of individual liberty the people have the right and the duty to alter or abolish that government despite the pride many people feel that being law abiding citizens the truth is that only those willing to directly combat injustices done in the name of authority and law have ever been an impediment  the would be tyrants of the world but to most americans today criticism and protest is seen as proper and noble but actual disobedience is simply unthinkable unfortunately people with such a mindset pose no obstacle at all to complete totalitarianism some hope for liberty and some spirit of resistance is now coming from a seemingly unlikely source government enforcers a number of us soldiers and law enforcers have pledged not to participate in disarming the american people in detaining people without charges or another violations of individual rights members of the us military all pledge an oath not to serve the politicians but to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic recently more and more men and women in uniform have been taking that oath seriously needless to say the quickest and least destructive way for a tyrannical agenda to be ended is for the government's own enforcers to refuse to inflict injustice upon the people but if that does not occur if the states and forces will follow orders without question then freedom will only survive if the people have not only the will to disobey but the means to forcibly resist state aggression because every government uses force against the disobedient that leaves the people with only four choices submit and obey be caged or killed run and hide or forcibly resist the last of which can be done successfully only if the people possess the weaponry needed to combat the violence of the state it was with that in mind the second amendment was penn but when it comes to violent conflict thugs and tyrants have one big advantage those who crave power and dominion have no qualms about using violence to impose their will upon others while peaceful moral people tend to hesitate to use physical force even in righteous self defense the pages of history books are full of examples of decent people passively cooperating with tyranny reluctant to even gauge a nonviolent civil disobedience much less forcible resistance and paying for their tolerance in durance and patience with their lives the only people who have ever defeated tyrants are those who were able and willing to disobeyed the masters most of the large scale injustices of history were inflicted upon people who for the most part did not resist because they had been taught to value obedience to authority above liberty and justice only a people with a fundamentally different attitude and mindset should expect a different outcome as much as some people want to believe in american exceptionalism want to believe that the us is the freest country on earth and want to believe that tyranny could never happen here the facts tell a very different story the very principles and ideas that prevent tyranny have long since been abandoned and are now ridiculed and hated by nearly every one in power and by nearly all american voters tyranny cannot be forced on a people that understands and believes individual liberty instead in almost every case tyranny has been enacted with the blessing and support of the people tyrants who rise to power usually do so surrounded by cheering excited adoring masses not because people are malicious or evil but simply because they are ignorant ignorant of history and ignorant a philosophy and as a result easily seduced by the empty promises of authoritarian collectivism modern americans are no different imagining themselves to be thinking and informed they are following the same path that so many other empires have followed the path to subservience oppression and ruin and usually those who follow that path do not see the path they are on until they reach its end avoiding that fate cannot be accomplished by tinkering around the edges of a fundamentally authoritarian collectivist regime even most voters recognize that all they are doing is trying to choose the lesser of two evils yet they dare not do anything else because the spirit of resistance the love of real freedom the respect for unalienable rights has been trained out of the hearts and minds of most americans relative comfort and prosperity has rendered most americans passive and da sile unwilling and unable to risk what they have to actively resist the injustices they see when they see them at all history makes it perfectly clear that there is no document no system no election no political procedure that can prevent tyranny in the end the path society will take is determined soley by what resides in the hearts and minds of the people a population content to perpetually bicker over authoritarian control each seeking to use government to control and extortion his neighbors to force his values and preferences on to others will only a population which understands and loves the concept of self ownership and self determination only a population that yearns for a world of equals interacting voluntarily with no masters and no uncompromising loyalty to the principle of individual liberty can ever know true peace justice and freedom