[JohnGalt]

When the people we hire to protect us, take away the citizens guns, and let the barbarians through the front door, and the masses do not blame the people hired to protect us in the first place when something very bad happens, its only logical the people we hired to protect us would paint the picture of a diabolical enemy rather than actually fire one of its own.

[alloysteel]

That was a most curious arrangement of a syllogism. The people we hired to protect us do NOT take away citizens' guns. Elected politicians do not protect us, they protect their future electability. They in turn hire armies, but it is not the business of armies to collect weapons from individuals. That may prove to be impossible to do in any event, if the citizenry is aroused. Elected politicians do test the expressed will of shifting opinions of people, and if the presence of weapons in the hands of individuals is perceived as an undesirable thing, then restrictions on ownership and use are instituted. Requirements for possession of firearms is made more and more restrictive, until the total number of gun owners is vastly reduced. Once below a critical number, the civilian populace is virtually helpless, and unable to provide even guerrilla resistance in the event of invasion and overwhelming defeat of the designated military forces.

Whatever feeble resistance is mounted is then designated the "diabolical enemy".

A state of war is most often the opportunity for the elected or appointed government to seize even more authority over the daily activities of the citizens than would otherwise be permitted or tolerated. The only way to reverse this situation is to carry through to victory over the engaged enemy, and give peace a chance. Surrender guarantees that the old status will never be re-established.