"You can disagree with the politics or the military industrial complex or the thirst for oil or whatever you have issues with. NONE of that is determined by the "boots on the ground"".
@harleymechanix

Associated logic problem:

A lot of people are unhappy with censorship on YouTube right now. Many people choose to make angry videos (still posted on YouTube) complaining about the censorship (i.e. "fighting it from within the system"). Others are moving their following to alternative platforms (like DTube, for anyone who hasn't heard).

Which strategy would achieve the desired result of either convincing developers/investors to change their unethical practices, or outright ending an unethical platform faster? Is it, a). Complaining in videos which they still have the right to remove/demonetize, and hope they eventually change their ways, or b). encouraging so many people to leave the platform that it has an actual effect on their profit margin--forcing them either to re-align with public demand, or risk going out of business?

I do respect alternative opinions, and I'm not trying to be rude. However, to allege that if the "boots on the ground" stopped enforcing bad orders, it would have no effect on the ability of evil politicians to carry out evil acts, is just strictly bad logic. The boots on the ground are their resources. You remove the resources, you take back the power. Their (police as well as military) compliance is, in fact, the only thing enabling the "military industrial complex", thirst for oil, etc. This logic couldn't be more flawed, and belief in it requires one to completely ignore principles of cause and effect.

Or, mathematically: Angle ABC simply becomes a line if one of the points is removed. You can't just remove a factor and arrive at the same solution. Am I making sense? Because this is pretty important stuff. People have a direly-disillusioned concept of how powerful the actions of the individual are.

"I believe in the basic right to self defense. Both on a personal level and a national level."
@harleymechanix

Our right to self-defense only entitles us to a Coast Guard. Which should be comprised of local militias and not a standing army, able to be centrally controlled and hence more easily corrupted (which is what the founding fathers originally advised/warned against). Now, if you try to organize a local militia, you're a "domestic terrorist". Which is true, from the perspective of a totalitarian state that stands to lose its power to aforementioned citizens at a local-level. What causes more "terror" to a government than a strong and empowered people?

All of these heroes should be at home with their families, protecting their country from their country, on terms decided by them and their neighbors. Nothing would create a stronger, more formidable Nation than a population full of warriors. You'd never have to wait for the cavalry to arrive, because (spoiler alert) the cavalry is, and always has been you.