Obambi is a marxist. Of course he wants to disarm the American citizenry. He is so adamantly opposed to the 2nd Amendment as to be feverish in his hostility towards it. He is a confirmed marxist. An Obama presidency would be fatal to freedom.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association, a front for anti-gun activists (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=232&issue=011) is running ads that suggest Obama is a Second Amendment supporter. The truth is that Obama will probably get an F rating from the NRA only because no lower grade is available.
I also think Obama at the top of the ticket can do more for conservatives throughout the US than can clinton. Yes, his coattails are that short.
There ... fixed the title.
The bastards on the left will do everything they can to prevent HONEST people from having guns, while leaving guns deliberately, and with full knowledge, in the hands of CRIMINALS.
They will find a way. They will sneak in a law, with the help of their compliant media, that will try to take away our right.
They gave us a dumb law that eliminates incandescent light bulbs without ever explicitely saying so, and with the media deliberately hiding that fact.
Any gun owner who votes for a democrat is too stupid to own a gun.
In the final analysis, both Obama and Clinton are cut from the same cloth. For all their ‘little guy’ rhetoric, they are only interested in CONTROL. They believe they know best what is good for us, and they don’t give a tinker’s damn about the cost.
These socialists want only to subjugate the rest of us to their view of the world. Personally...I don’t accept that.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!!!
It's about the right of the people “to alter or abolish” their government if it becomes hostile to their unalienable rights conferred by almighty God!
Why can't even a reasonably conservative paper like the WSJ get it right???
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)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.