The confusion that exists in today’s mercurial society is a direct result of not understanding the nature of individual human rights. All valid authority is based upon willing consent. The cornerstone of human being personhood is the inalienable right of self-defense. This indisputable principle is under attack on all fronts by the “Politically Correct” authoritarians who see the individual as an inconvenient impediment to their bizarre vision of a social order based upon compelled obedience to a global agenda of destructive myths and false promises of a utopian world.
Eliminating guns from the hands of ordinary citizens is their unholy grail of compulsion and intimidation control over personal and independent resistance to this obscene New World Order. The Global Gulag essay, Guns, Guts and Goons states the dilemma concisely.
“Government of, by and for the people has become domination, coercion and submission to the State. The inarguable linkage that private gun ownership has given pause to the most abusive authoritarianism, has served this nation well. Since the founding of the country, the clear lesson of history, that an armed population counteracts and checks the effective ambition of despots, protected our liberty.”
One of the more intriguing examples of the elite’s duplicity comes directly from the serial abuser of gun rights from the Peoples Socialist Sanitarium of California. Only an arrogant charlatan like Senator Barbara Boxer would nonchalantly complain that her personal safety is compromised by threatening hordes of progressive rebel rousers. Gun wielding security details are perfectly acceptable if employed to safeguard establishment careerists, while maintaining the social disorder for the riffraff.
Disarming the hoi polloi is essential to keep the system on track. Sen. Boxer: ‘If I Didn’t Have a Lot of Security, I Don’t Know What Would Have Happened’, demonstrates why super delegates are necessary to neutralize populist sentiment.
“It was a scary situation,” Boxer told CNN on Wednesday. “I was there…It was frightening. I had — I was on the stage and people were six feet away from me and if I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”
The immutable right for defending one’s person has no ideological test. It is an absolute justification for protecting the distinct safety of your being. For this reason alone, no government can morally disarm its citizenry from possessing the effective means to guard your security. The obsession of the anti-gun crowd to ban weapons defies all rational understanding.
Counting their illogical fixation is a common sense appeal to set the record straight. Let’s get down to a most effective messaging campaign presented by the National Rifle Association. Put aside whatever varied bias you might have towards this organization and focus upon the essence on these short vignettes. Take the time to appreciate the veracity exhibited by ordinary people, summarizing eternal truths.
The Hollywood celebrities, billionaires, and other elites who attack the Second Amendment want to take our God-given freedom away. Yet at the core of the Second Amendment is the eternal truth that no life is more worthy of armed protection than another. The NRA Foundation educates for the protection of these rights. We are Freedom’s Safest Place.
Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in America. Yet it’s injustice is America’s problem—either we fight this cancer of corruption … or we pray it doesn’t come closer. The NRA Foundation educates for the protection of your rights.
We are Freedom’s Safest Place.
Do you believe the government can keep you safe? What’s the cost to a country that thinks its rules can shield good people from bad things? Our safety is our job, because our lives are our job — and Good Guys deserve every chance to be safe.
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 possession.
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,” he said.”
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.
“Therefore, 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 them.
So the 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.
As the 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 response.
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.
“As 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?
As 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.