I use to think that we could turn it around without the meltdown. When 52% of people voted for Obama in the last presidential election that changed my thinking.

We have crossed a threshold where the majority are voting for the collectivist mentality. Rather its Marxist, Communist, Monarchy, Socialist or Fascist makes no difference. All forms of collectivism have the same results over and over again. The collapse of the society in some way as the unavoidable result of the natural law of cause and consequence. Once a majority of people vote for such a thing the cause is assured and so is the consequence. It is no longer a matter of if it will occur but how long it will take to occur.

The thing we all need to do is prepare. Prepare to have resources after it so we can help shape what comes out of it. it could be good, but it could also be worse. History would argue that we will get worse from the crash rather than better. Unless we can, through a civil progression of trade, develop the philosophy that drives the new in, we will get worse.

We, the people of production - of the mind, have to educate ourselves and be ready so that when that time comes we can fight the fight, we can publish ideas and work together to have small government stick around for another 150 years rather than even larger and more centralized regime kick in. If the latter happens the world will see a war that will be worse than anything that has ever occurred before.

Imagine a Mao, Hitler, Stalin or Obama controlling the unchecked resources of the US. Their quest for power would consume the world in war. That is the part that we can avoid; and should do all we can to avoid. A financial collapse has the potential to do great good, but also to dump us into another dark age of history.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

While I do not wish a cataclysm, nothing right now is being done to prevent its occurrence. Our national debt is out of control and the recent budget did nothing to address our ongoing deficits. And these deficits stem from the mentality that we can have something we didn't earn. The cataclysm won't be something out of the blue - it is something we bring closer to fruition every day.

Americans have been groomed to accept debt as okay and our entire financial industry revolves around debt - rather than savings - to fund business operations. Personal debt in the US is staggering, with credit card debt alone over $15000 per indebted individual as of this month. (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-ca...)

My fear is that the only thing that will wake the American people from their stupor is economic calamity. The media doesn't want to report on the terrible economy or the debt for political reasons, and they actively work to drown out the warning calls. The politicians simply pass bills making it easier for people to get government assistance and raise taxes to pay for it under the lie that this is a sustainable system.

No, I believe it will take a massive calamity that noone will be able to gloss over or ignore to break through so that the nation as a whole demands a return to a moral government that doesn't pay out more than it brings in.

"Given the current political state and the masses of deluded individuals currently voting, however, I think that return can only happen after a massive economic meltdown."
Perhaps, but I try to resist the thought that may be a cataclysm will come and wipe away everything, and out of the ashes will come something better. This myth crops up in all societies. It's tempting to think it. I'm hoping maybe we can incrementally dial back gov't w/o a massive crisis. I'm afraid a massive crisis might push us the wrong way.

Agree 110%. My statement was not meant as a limitation on the spirit of the Constitution, only the comment on the impracticality of trying to use a civilian militia in place of a standing army.

I wholly agree that returning our government to the expressly limited powers of the Constitution could do nothing but good. Given the current political state and the masses of deluded individuals currently voting, however, I think that return can only happen after a massive economic meltdown.

You are correct. I believe that one of the points of the article is to differentiate between a standing body of professional soldiers and a civilian militia - a distinction that has been all but lost in the common man's lexicon.

May want to look a bit closer.

Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 1
"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

The constitution does not state anything about what the form or size of the Navy and Army should be but it clearly infers that a US army and US Navy would exist and states that the president would be the commander and chief over said US forces. The states would organize the militia (Citizens) and they could be called up by the president.

It is important to note that this clause was used as the justification of the draft. The draft was viewed as the president calling up the Militia.

It is my opinion that the draft was abandoned because if that definition of militia had continued it would be impossible to argue against the 2nd amendment for all citizens since any citizen could be drafted any citizen was militia.

Clearly a provision for the US Army and Navy are in the Constitution. Had it been written today it may have included Air Force as well.

Good luck with that. People are always talking about reducing our military. When you ask them what Japan or Taiwan will do when China knocks on their door they suddenly seem to forget that we have treaties that bind us to those countries. They also forget we need that large base in Australia to refuel ships that are not nuclear powered. They also seem to forget the US Navy provides transportation to the research station in Antarctica. Then again these are the same people that claim there are no countries wanting to take us over. Of course none of those people have an answer for what exactly the Chinese J-20 is designed for, or in fact what the purpose of the Liaoning is. These people live in the dark ignoring information and threats they do not want to admit exist in this century.

"If the world still lived in the late 1700's, this may be possible. When people still had to live off their own land and cannons were pretty rare, the common hunting rifle was actually better than the common infantryman's musket for accuracy. Those days are long gone."
I'm not calling for eliminating a standing army altogether, just for trying to get back to the spirit of the US Constitution.

We should be cautious about saying elements of the Constitution were from the 1700s and no longer apply. If we take that too far, we interpret away the entire Constitution. We should try to get back to the spirit of it.

Part of that would be limiting executive power, so person can't make life-and-death decisions and then hide them, as you point out.

My understanding is the framers of the Constitution were concerned about having a large standing army, and I am too. I reject the claim the militia has nothing to do with the military because they can serve the same purpose.

It should go without saying that I'm not for completely disbanding the armed forces of a sudden. I'm just for radically scaling them back and supplementing with militia-like elements. My reason for wanting militia-like elements is to bring Americans together, to ask Americans at their option to learn basic weapons, medical, or emergency repair skills, and to not need a huge standing army.

Sign on door of local gas station:
"WARNING: Employees and customers MAY BE ARMED."

If the world still lived in the late 1700's, this may be possible. When people still had to live off their own land and cannons were pretty rare, the common hunting rifle was actually better than the common infantryman's musket for accuracy. Those days are long gone.

Air power is now the ruling force on the battlefield. Carrier battle groups the ultimate projection of force anywhere on the planet. There simply is no substitute or competitor. But aviators have to fly full time to maintain their combat skills. That means a profession. And that means the same for everyone who supports them, from mechanics to Generals.

I am also curious as to what Obama has done as Commander in Chief to garner respect from you. To me, his antics are that of a self-obsessed charlatan. He drags half the Navy off to protect him while he visits an Indian festival. He takes credit for the takedown of Osama bin Laden when he had done nothing but obstruct it to that point. He allows guns to fall into the hands of terrorists in Mexico, Egypt, Syria, etc. and one of our ambassadors gets killed trying to get them back. And we have at least one dead border agent as a direct result of his policies, after which he declares Executive Privilege in order to hide the truth.

This President is a liar. He is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief nor has he done anything to earn anything but my utter contempt - certainly not my respect.

The things you want are not possible…

A “well regulated militia” and a military have nothing to do with each other. The military, take the US Army, was formed BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the military. If it did it would not have used the word militia. It would have used the word military, or Army, which was more traditional at the time. The militia consists of men and women who will live free and in no other way. They have long served as a deterrent force guaranteeing that a force capable of beating the US military would gain nothing more than a country they could not hope to hold. I refer you to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto’s blade of grass analogy.

One only needs to look at the differences in training between our own National Guard and active duty military to see why you need a standing military made up of Professional Soldiers. I have nothing against the guard and reserves, but their level of training is simply not on par with their active duty counterparts.

As far as your respect for Obama I am curious as to what he has done to earn that respect, or is it just respect for the office of the President of the United States?

Respect and Obama do not belong in the same sentence. Sorry but they just do not. The man is president of a country that he hates and has done greater harm to the US than anyone other than perhaps Wilson as president. What is worse is he has done it intentionally.

I really wish we could make our army look more like a well-regulated militia-- a group of people who do other jobs but mobilize on a moment's notice if someone comes threatening our country.

Sometimes one country invades another on the other side of the world, and we have to think about what the US will do about it. Even President Obama, who I highly respect, said once it's up to us to think about that question since we are the ones with the massive global military. I thought it would be nice not to have a massive global military. It's nice to have it to protect innocent people, but it's a thankless job, and we often end up hurting innocent people and creating more bad guys.

I want a well-regulated militia that comes together to train under a very small standing army without a global presence.

I like what she says around 2:30. We cannot magically make all guns disappear, we can only take them from law-abiding citizens.

We can keep guns out of the hands of criminals as effectively as we control illegal drugs, undocumented labor, and the sex trade.

Even people who think gov't should control those things have to admit it many people do them under the radar.

In WI they recently passed a law allowing concealed carry unless there is a no weapons sign. I believe most no weapons signs are political opposition to guns. An apolitical gas station owner who just wants to avoid crime would not post such a sign. She would want criminals to wonder if a law-abiding gun owner might be present before they commit a crime.

If that gas station owner reaches that conclusion, it seems to me it should scale up for our entire society.

I think that is pretty much what the video states as well. I thought it very well put together and several good arguments were presented.

I wonder how long it will be before you get arrested as a terrorist for stating something like this girl does in this video?

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a person interested in gun control. They are interested in people control.