Arguments like these register with the electorate.
Law abiding people admit that the failure of government to prevent career criminals, violent gangs, mentally disturbed nut
cases and rogue officials from threatening your life and well being, is greatly increased when guns are prohibited from your
As long as the extreme left
strives to ban fire arms and confiscate the millions already in the hands of the public, America will become less safe. For
this reason, it is clear that the Presidential race presents an obvious choice. Donald Trump Tells N.R.A. Hillary Clinton Wants to Let Violent Criminals Go Free, makes an emphatic distinction.
“Donald J. Trump accused Hillary Clinton on Friday of wanting to let violent criminals out of prison
and “disarm” law-abiding citizens in unsafe neighborhoods, and warned that women, in particular, would be at greater
risk if she were elected president.
Accepting the endorsement of the National Rifle Association at its annual convention here, Mr. Trump
— who has not always been the staunchest opponent of stricter gun controls — said the November election would
be a referendum on the Second Amendment. He claimed, hyperbolically, that Mrs. Clinton, his likely Democratic opponent, “wants
to take away your guns.”
“Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office,”
Few people challenge that
public officials and especially presidential office holders have become targets for physical harm. Security details are expected
to increase the level of safety around their public appearances and travel appointments. However, the general public is deemed
too dangerous to allow for their own protections, even in their own homes in many municipalities. So it is not surprising
when Trump tells Hillary to Dump Bodyguards’ Guns, but we all know that the rules for the rest of us do not apply for the NWO princesses of elitism like Boxer and Clinton.
Awr Hawkins makes some irrefutable points in his
article, Gun Ownership A Natural Right, Not a Political One.
natural rights are not political inasmuch as they exist with or without the consent of those in political office—such
rights even exist without the citizens’ consent—and the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect
lesson for incoming officeholders is simple—gun rights are not like speed limits, school funding, defense spending,
or treaties with foreign countries. The government’s role is not to regulate such rights but to protect them in accordance
with the Constitution. This is what our Founders meant by the words, “Shall not be Infringed.”
Essentially, self-defense boils down to Shall not
be Infringed, but in this “PC” and multicultural guilt ridden environment of self loathing and abdication
of personal responsibility, the federal government groupies want individuals to be subservient dependents.
The burden of justification is not with the gun owner.
The requirement to strip a natural right from the citizenry can never be justified. Yet, the entire movement to destroy the
Second Amendment is based upon illegitimate authority that the collectivists promote as enlightened progress.
This sickness is more lethal than a drive by shooting
in the hood. At least you have a chance for dodging a stray bullet, but in the world of gun prohibition, the end result is
always an eventual dictatorship.
militarization of all levels of government proceeds, the ultimate target of all this coercion is designed to focus on the
patriotic movement of loyal constitutionalists. Since the followers of the Clinton/Boxer establishment hate real Americans,
it is instinctive for tyrants to adopt any measure that disarms their natural foe.
Guns are all about preserving freedom from despotism. The self-defense of your
person is an absolute natural right, but the ability of rebellion and resistance to an illegitimate government is a political
It is acknowledged that not
everyone would consider a revolt as an acceptable alternative. Nevertheless, it is beyond prudent and rational comprehension
to resist the use of fire arms as a means to ensure your own personal safekeeping.
Non-violent advocates as advanced in BREAKING ALL THE RULES adopt the position of Martin Luther King, Jr on this subject.
we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.”
In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed
through the ages by common law.” – Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Chapter II, Black Power)
The larger question of actual revolution, whether
violate or not; is outside the limited scope of individual defense of your person. How you come down on this issue reveals
much of what constitutes your acceptance of the true natural order. If you cannot respect yourself, by what authority do you
claim you have over your neighbors?
the population is herded into crowded metropolitan socially inhabited ghettos, the arming of the apartment resident becomes
even more relevant for survival. As the tyrannical autocrat keeps pushing to strip the means for protection from residents,
their fear of an armed public is so obvious. And their own personal response is to live within walled communities, with multi
layers of armed security and limited access from the outside world.
SARTRE – May 24, 2016