NRA Opposes Kagan Nomination

In a way, I hope the filibuster sits this one out….just to keep that card in the deck, in case Obombo has another chance to stack the SCOTUS. But if or when he has another choice, they had better play that card for all it’s worth. And every congressman/woman worth their salt, had better show their staying power, and perseverance, because their going to need it then…

Two radio shows we did re: Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court; comments welcome…

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1675

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1680

“self-righteous brutality was the Socialists / Communist plan all along.” ” Many failed to see the truth…… By then, alas, it was too late. ”

Do we each have rights because they are granted to us by government, or because those rights exist whether government recognizes them or not? That’s what the American Revolution was all about. George III and the English Parliament said our rights were no more or less than what they granted to us. We replied in our Declaration of Independence that we each have “certain inalienable rights” that are independent of and superior to the will of our governors, thus legitimate law requires the consent of the governed.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Kagan-dodges-and-weaves-on-natural-rights-97608954.html#ixzz0sdk4yIiL

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Kagan-dodges-and-weaves-on-natural-rights-97608954.html

Indeed it was, Bob, and those “unalienable” rights as given to us by our Creator, are the principles of justice worth fighting for. And the second amendment proponents knew there was no way to fight without arms.
I might add that legitimate law demands justice under the law, or that law is not fit for free men. Consent of the governed is being eroded by complacency, as it always has been. The “unalienable” rights are only taken by force, and force is necessary to retain them. But the steps leading up to that are the principles of lies and deceit that begin to convince men they no longer need the instruments that guarantee those freedoms. This is the principle whereby the public becomes a tool of those who would dictate their destiny and freedom.

This is something of the same order:

“The Gun is Civilization”

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang-banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of
course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the
actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

This may explain some of the NRA’s lack of action. Check out the National Association of Gun Rights Blog.

Free Speech Sell-out: Good news and Bad news

I have some good news and some bad news to share with you about the NRA free speech sell out.

First, the good news.

Our pressure is working. It appears the momentum behind the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act may be losing steam. Grassroots outrage over the NRA’s sickening attempt to cozy up to anti-gun Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is slowing down the bill.

Today, Forbes is reporting that Democrats are feeling the heat over their devils’ pact with the NRA.

That is good news, but the bad news is worse…

Establishment leaders from both parties may very well try to sneak this legislation through when we least expect it.

Read the rest here: http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=532