Alexander's Column

Leftists Reset Their Sights on the Second Amendment

Memo to Republicans: The Topic Is Liberty, Not the 'Rights of Hunters'

By Mark Alexander · Jul. 26, 2012
“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” –James Madison (Federalist No. 46)
The Palladium of Liberties

In the wake of the tragic mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, last week, three groups weighed in on the “gun problem.”

Predictably, the first two groups were Obama and his Leftist cadres, including his Leftmedia sycophants, who never “let a crisis go to waste” to advance their political agenda.

In what amounts to a major policy shift for Obama, he has made a political calculation that proposing new “gun control” measures will be a winning issue this fall. For the last two decades, gun control has been a losing proposition for Democrats, but in a desperate measure to create campaign traction, the King of Hubris has decided he can turn that around. Make no mistake, this may be a policy shift but Obama has a long history of Second Amendment opposition.

Obama was banking on the Supreme Court overturning his socialized medical care agenda so ObamaCare could be the centerpiece of his campaign, but Chief Justice John Roberts disabled that strategy.

Obama can’t win on “jobs” or the success of his socialist “economic recovery plan,” though, astoundingly, he is still trying to sell it as a success. From the guy who recently claimed “the private sector is doing fine,” and, “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen,” comes this assertion about Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes and spending: “[Previous administrations] tried that and it didn’t work.” Of course it did work, but what Obama said next is the acme of his obfuscation: “Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan – and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”

OK, well that BIG LIE will only work with Obama’s most devoted lemmings, and he can only get so far with the other two pillars of his re-election campaign, tax “fairness” and class warfare.

So where is Obama to go for the five percent voter shift he needs to win in November?

Preying on the dead in Aurora, he has decided to target the Second Amendment, hoping he can muster sufficient emotional support from female voters, who have been trending toward the conservative side of the ballot since 2008.

After all, the most significant obstacle to Obama’s ability to fully implement his socialist agenda is that pesky amendment codifying the inalienable right of American Patriots to defend Essential Liberty, since 1776.

So Obama is gambling that Aurora will give him an opening to reverse course, and set a new heading toward disarming American gun owners. He set the tone for that heading, telling National Urban League convention attendees that, though he appreciates the tradition of hunting, “I believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals, that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

“AK-47s”? That was an interesting choice of weapon, since those Russian and Chinese arms are carried “on the battle field of war” by Islamists killing American soldiers – not that we would expect Obama to know the difference between an AK-47 and a Red Ryder BB gun. As for putting weapons “in the hands of criminals,” see Obama’s “Fast and Furious” initiative.

Obama insisted, “We should leave no stone unturned and recognize that we have no greater mission as a country than keeping our young people safe. Even as we debate government’s role, we have to understand that when a child opens fire on another child, there’s a hole in that child’s heart that government alone can’t fill.”

Obama's Solution

Actually, the only “children” who are opening fire on other children, are 15-18 year old gang bangers, who, along with their 19-25 year old “brothers” account for most of the violence in the United States. And it is with great irony that Obama suggests “government alone can’t fill” the void in their hearts, since generations of Leftist social policies have instituted the cultural degradation that creates those holes. But, as noted earlier, suggesting that gun control measures are all about “protecting the children” tugs at the emotional strings of female voters.

Obama’s assault on the Second Amendment, like the rest of his socialist propaganda, must be countered with clear and concise rebuttal.

But the most distressing reaction to the tragedy in Aurora was from the third group of respondents – Republicans – who attempted to rebut Obama’s politicization of the tragedy with data comparing the rate of murders with guns to negligent highway deaths cause by alcohol use or texting while driving, etc. It’s not that such data isn’t important when rebutting the Leftist’s gun control agenda – I’ve researched and provided great detail on comparative causes of death and other vectors for challenging the gun controllers. But that data is only tangential.

The real Second Amendment debate is not about guns, but is framed in the context of defending Essential Liberty as endowed by our Creator and enshrined in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

By extension, that debate needs to come right back around to the question of whether Mitt Romney or Barack Hussein Obama will do a better job of defending Liberty against tyranny.

And the presidential question is not so much one of “gun policy” as it is of Supreme Court appointees. Specifically, the next president will likely make two or even three appointments to the Court. If Obama is re-elected, he’ll likely flip the court to a solid 5-4 leftist majority supporting all manner of gun restrictions, in order to circumvent legislative obstacles. Indeed, Obama proudly claimed this week that, regardless of legislative action, “We’ve been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it’s not always easy getting things through Congress these days.” If given a liberal SCOTUS majority, that will open up a major thruway for Obama’s agenda.

Fortunately, if Romney is elected, and if he’s able to replace one or both of the High Court’s two aging liberal justices (Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 79, and Stephen Breyer is 73), he’ll be able to take the court to a 6-3 majority in support of the Second Amendment.

Yes, as governor of the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts, Romney acquiesced to overwhelming Democrat state house majorities on a number of key issues, including a so-called “assault weapon” ban. Obama is banking on that acquiescence to undermine the credibility of any rebuttal from Romney to Obama’s new gun control initiatives, which we expect to hear more about in the next week.

However, I believe a President Romney will prove to be a remarkable contrast to the former Governor Romney of a decade ago. After all, the most outstanding president in the last century, Ronald Reagan, was once a Democrat. (Not that I’m suggesting Romney will be another Reagan.)

In 2005, against enormous political obstacles but as a lame duck governor, Romney cautiously revealed his support for the Second Amendment. That year he sponsored “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts. He became a Life Member of the NRA in 2006.

In an address to the NRA in 2007, he said, “I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American.” In remarks to the National Shooting Sports Foundation that year, Romney repeated this strong support, calling the Second Amendment “essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”

In 2008, Romney told The Washington Post, “With respect to gun control laws, I believe we need to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of a crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.”

On the Aurora tragedy, Romney correctly shifted the debate from Obama’s insistence that violence is a gun problem, to the fact that violence is a cultural problem – institutionalized by the Left. “I don’t believe that America needs new gun laws. [What the Aurora perpetrator] did was clearly against the law, but the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening. We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away. It won’t. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what’s essential to improve the lot of the American people.”

To the issue of Supreme Court appointees, Romney said, “One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. … I’ve made it clear that I’ll appoint judges who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution, judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. It’s simply wrong for judges to legislate from the bench. They should follow the law in the Constitution, not make new law. The right to bear arms is the cornerstone of our personal freedoms.”

However, Romney missed the mark by concluding that the Second Amendment is “a constitutional guarantee passed down to us by the founders.” Indeed, it was codified in our Constitution by our Founders, but it is passed down to us as a natural right “endowed by our Creator.”

(Read Romney’s address to the NRA, and if you have pesky relatives or neighbors who advocate for gun control, get them a few of these “Gun Free Household” stickers for their front and back doors.)

View all comments


Viet62 in Columbia, SC said:

I fully support our Second Amendment rights, HOWEVER, a purchase limit of four guns per year, per person, would do much to reduce the number of guns being resold to criminals or sold to narcoterrorists in Mexico. I am a multiple gun owner.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Mark D. Infield in High Point replied:

I had someone comment to me that there should be a 7 round limit on legal clips. This just sounds like you are going to get killed (after you fired your 7 rounds) by the perp who has illegal clips that carry more rounds. Whenever we start splitting hairs, we lose our focus on the real issue. I am against the government registering or limiting my firearms. I do not believe that serves any interest of the public. I think that you either have the right to bear (own) arms or you don't. I think that any citizen should be able to purchase what they want when they want it.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Peterill in New York, NY replied:

Then, Mark, I assume you have no problem with people owning nuclear weapons. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Yes..."arms" does not just mean guns. Besides, how can you fight your fantasy "tyrannical" government with your li'l ole pistol there, cowboy? The government has nukes, and then there should not be any problem with citizens having them also. I am sure you will fight against any GOP House and/or Senate member that wants restrictions on those.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 9:50 AM

MstSarge in Oklahoma replied:

OK, on occasion some Leftist troll finds his way into the comments section of The Patriot. But some of them are capable of leaving erudite remarks. Peterill is not among them. What a waste of bandwidth!

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

Nuclear weapons are utterly useless against insurgencies. Your "argument" is a red herring, and you don't know enough about warfare in general and counterinsurgency in particular to comment on it. Don't just be opinionated - be informed.

Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Larry B in Lawrenceville replied:

Which part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having trouble grasping?

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Tom H. in Rock Island, IL replied:

Which part of "well regulated miltia" do you not get?

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Roman in Benton, AR replied:

well trained and well funded

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Dennis in Farmington, NM replied:

And well-provisioned.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 4:17 PM

J.W. in Glendora, CA replied:

The "militia" means the people, not the standing Army or the National Guard, but the people so that they may defend the Constitution and their freedoms.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 4:15 PM

TW in UT replied:

Who do you think makes up the militia? Not the Nat'l Guard. It's the people.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Rod in USA replied:

You are off target. The "well regulated militia" part was a lead in to the main point: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged." The founders, having just concluded a bloody revolution to throw off a tyrannical government of England, recognized that people had a right to defend themselves, even from their government.

I do not support limits: Law abiding citizens obey limits. Criminals do not.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM

BrianK in Northwest Arkansas replied:

Others have corrected you, but allow me. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." means that the people, being armed, are the ultimate regulators of the militia.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Jim Clifford in Stanchfield, Mn replied:

"well regulated militia" has already been correctly determined to be superfluous, as a predicate phrase, not the operative words of the second amendment". It isn't unusual to find predicate phrases in the constitution which point out a general context of specific text to follow. A really weak argument, Tom.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 7:04 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I concur and I'm also a multiple weapons holder. To buy 100 weapons at one time should raise a red flag, or to make multiple purchases at different locations t include ammunition should also be a red flag.

Despite of this I still carry for safety.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM

JDB Esq in Virginia replied:

If there was a limit on gun purchases, how would Attorney General Holder run operations like 'Fast and Furious?'

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Tad Petrie in Westerville, OH replied:

Limiting purchases to x number of guns per person per year is NOT going to, "do much to reduce the number of guns being resold to criminals or sold to narcoterrorists in Mexico.". The only thing purchase limits accomplish is giving government yet ANOTHER aspect of controlling freedom, and in this day and government does not need any more power. It has FAR TOO MUCH already! A purchase limit law on firearms would set a legal precedent for limitations on ANYTHING! A good example from today's headlines is Mayor Bloomberg's current push to ban sales of "Sugary Drinks" larger than 16 ounces. If he is able to put that ban in place, he could use the precedent from a law limiting purchases on firearms, to set limits on how many "Sugary Drinks" that people could purchase per day! And it could go on and on and ON! All it takes is someone with the political will to do it and it is quite obvious that the liberal establishment in this country WILL do ANYTHING to further their agenda of total government control over everything! Something like a "Purchase limit" on firearms may on the surface seem like a good idea, but we have to remeber to look at the big picture, lest we forget, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Brutus in Wallingford CT replied:

Yeah, especially when Eric Holder or ATF or DOJ or Obama can sell as many guns, drones, fighters, M16A4, grenades to anybody they want - including Narco-Terrorists right across the boarder. Then when they get caught, Obama issues a 'Free Stay Out of Jail' card ... how sick is that?
I hope women do not act as 'ignorantly' as Obama expects them to as he attempts to appeal to woman who birth these little gang thugglings who think it's 'cool to cap' anyone they merely disagree with about anything at all.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Jim in Iowa replied:

Then perhaps the "number of guns" limitation should be applied to the government...Or have you not heard of the multiple & various ways that government supplies guns to enemies? Indeed, government has historically been the LARGEST single group of "gun runners." If anything, individuals should have no such restriction any more than government does.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Doug Vass in Anna, TX replied:

Ya but, 4 .50 cal machine guns would be way too much. Ha, Ha.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Rod in USA replied:

I can prioritize sectors of fire if I have THREE .50 cal MG's. I would supplement that with a 7.62 MG Hahahahaha

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Pepin the Short in G-Vegas replied:

At first glance, this provision would seem harmless, acceptable, and largely inapplicable to most gun owners, who don't want to walk into a gun store and drop $10,000.

But any infringement on our rights, no matter how innocuous, must be viewed with a wary eye. Because the next thing that they will say to you is "well, you had no objection to that law, why are you complaining about this one?"

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Rod in USA replied:

Right. Read "The Overton Window", a scary piece of fiction by Glenn Beck. The slippery slope is the liberal/progressive's favorite turf.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Gelio in Warren replied:

Sorry, but over 90% of the guns being sold to "narco terrorists" come from Venezuela and other Latin American countries, not the USA. The guns coming from the US being purchased by "narco terrorists" were sold by Holder and company.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM

stan....s.c. in spartanburg, s.c. said:

I'm not so sure that the Aurora incident was an act by 1 individual. Too many unanswered questions. If this Fraud pResident is gonna use this incident to some how advance his re-election, then there is more reason to wonder if a "fast and furious" situation exist here. The BIG story here is, America has a POTUS and Conspirators that are engaged in Socializing this nation. The 1 BIG deal is to Dis-Arm it's Citizens. I don't think it's a complicated issue ! Semper Fidelis

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Rod in USA replied:

Careful; people will say you are as big a conspriacy theorist as the 911 truthers. Funny how leftists will tacitly support the 911 truthers, but the wailing would be deafening if anyone accused the administration of concoting the Aurora incident for political gain. So of course, I am not suggesting that.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Richard Arena in Roswell, Georgia replied:

Stan - You may be on to something. Was the Aurora massacre another government contrived incident designed to gin up public support for gun control?

That seems totally outrageous and paranoid to the extreme until you remember the government (CIA) experimented with LSD and other mind altering drugs from the 1950's through the 70's. One such program was MK-ULTRA. Congressional investigation revealed the program's purpose was to "find drugs which would irresistibly bring out deep confessions or wipe a subject’s mind clean and program him or her as 'a robot agent'.” Much of the experimentation was done on unwitting military and civilian subjects - at hospitals and universities. Hmmmm.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM

George Green in Rolla, Missouri said:

I do not believe that it is a gun problem, I believe it is a people problem.
It is hard to tell when a person will go off the deep end of things but some times that is exactly what happens. If this young man was not able to get a gun he could have just as easily made a bomb and taken out the entire theater. I find it hard to believe that no one noticed any change in the young mans habits or dress or the way he acted before the shooting.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Jim in Iowa replied:

The people who do commit such atrocities are the problem, yes. But they are a very small minority in the overall population. Why empower the minority who want to do such things while keeping the sane & law-abiding defenseless against these criminals?

The State (ie: government) has no power, authority or even the ability to protect the individual citizen...Indeed, not even the local Police are legally obligated to protect any individual person; This has already been a subject brought up & determined in courtrooms. Police are armed to defend themselves, not us. The individual citizen should have no limitations of number or types of arms available any more than the government itself practices...This is the whole meaning behind the phrase, "shall not be infringed."

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Patriot in Wisconsin replied:

George, take a look at the intricate detail of this incident. This was not an act that was perpetrated by some random guy who suddenly "snapped". No, this young man was intelligent and planned very carefully and over a long period of time. He was involved in "psychology" experiments at a university using DOD funded grants. Smell a rat? He didn't stand in line and buy a ticket with all his victims either. How do you get into the theatre through an Emergency Exit locked from the outside? Smell a dirty rat? I do.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Edwin Neal in Aurora said:

The only "gun problem" there is is that not enough people carry one!

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Mr David Casani in Fort Lauderdale said:

Term Limits. The Constitution never envisioned "career politicians".

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Jim in Iowa replied:

By reading the various writings of the Founding Fathers, I'd have to disagree; They did envision that the power-hungry would seek to become "career politicians." They intentionally left that particular decision up to the People...The power-mad should be voted out, while allowing the true "public servant" remain in office. But it's a decision that WE have failed to make, for too long...WE are the ones who allowed ourselves to be fooled so many times. That's one of those chickens that's coming home to roost.

But at least there's an increasing number of people becoming aware of the problem that WE failed to look at & the foxes are getting chased away from the chicken coops even now. My main concern is "Are we in time to do anything about it?" At this point in time, the foxes already in the chicken coop far outnumber the chickens left!

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Richard Regan in Chattanooga, TN replied:

I have long advocated term limits in the House and Senate. 12 years total. Six 2-year terms, two 6-year terms, or some combination. Wish we could find a candidate who would not only add that to his platform, but have the courage to push for it. It would take a Constitutional Amendment (similar to XXII passed in 1951), and would take some time to pass. But it'd be worth the wait. And with it, NO GRANDFATHERING. When it passes, if you're over your 12 years, finish your term then get out of Washington. If the completion of your current term will put you over the limit, finish your term and get out of Washington. No exceptions. This was never intended to be a permanent position. Yes, some of the good will have to leave, along with many of the bad. But it would solve many problems that we have.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Paul Brockman in Virginia Beach, VA replied:

AMEN to that!

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA said:

A couple of years ago we went to visit my father-in-law at an assisted living facility. A new sign was up, since our last visit, that stated they were now a gun free zone. I pointed to it and commented to my son: "Come and rob me." Not one week later did a 30 year old male gain entry and attempt to rape a 90 year old resident at knife point. Fortunately enough noise was made that other residents came to her rescue. The man fled and was later apprehended.

All "gun free zones" are good for is to let the criminals know they will have an easy (easier) time preying of law abiding citizens.

If the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as broadly as the 1st amendment as to Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech then all law abiding citizens would be required to carry.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Jim in Iowa replied:

Check out the official city website for Kenesaw, Georgia. Look into the City Ordinances & run a search on the term "firearm." From what I see, these ordinances are 100% Constitutional & even the crime statistic from the Police Department show how much violent crimes have declined since the gun ordinances were put into effect.

IMO, the whole of America should be like this.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Mark D. Infield in High Point said:

Is that why the sale of firearms is spiking in Colorado? I subscribe to the theory that you can have my weapons when you pry them from my cold, dead hand.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Lisa in MD replied:

I like your theory.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

George Green in Rolla, Missouri said:

I keep reading from folks that guns kill, when are people going to get it right, guns do not kill, people kill, a gun is only an instrument used by a person to kill another person.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

M.B. in Illinois replied:

EVIL kiills. The tool that EVIL uses can be anything from a pen to a nail. That is why we must defend our Constitution from the EVIL that "may" be present! Our founding fathers knew this and that is why they made it an important part of the Bill of Rights. We see how our 1st and 4th Amendments are being hacked at by this administration. You cannot protest when Secret Service is present or you can become a felon, and you can be labeled a terrorist and be detained indefinitely without a trial. What leads anyone to believe we are not headed for a tyrannical government. EVIL is what be stopped. I think EVIL will always be present, and we should always look for signs of it. Read your History and then decide if you want to give up your freedom. You should never give up your freedom "even under the best of times" because you will never know when EVIL will uncover it's ugly head. And these are far from the best of times!

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Richard Dimery in Fort Worth, Texas replied:

Patriot Act, under a benevolent president, kinda bad. Dangerous to liberty to make assumptions about its misuse under any of his successors. Hello?

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM

3rdStringer in Green Bay Wi replied:

You, George Green, being right next door to Fort Leonard Wood, the only place I ever fired a gun---some 60 years ago---should get your head out of that wonderful Missouri mud and respect reality and the Constitution.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Rod in USA replied:

Not understanding your objection. Do you think a gun kills a person? I would disagree with that. George Green is righ: People kill other people, and a gun is but one of thousands of methods of carrying out that act.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Cathy in Falcon, Colorado said:

I will never relinquish by Bible or my gun! This is America!

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM



Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Richard Regan in Chattanooga, TN replied:

There is not even an iota of contradiction in being a follower of Christ and a staunch 2nd Amendment believer. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise. There are literally millions of us who believe in both with all our heart. I will always share the Good News with others; but I will always be ready to protect and defend my family and those I love from those who have no respect for the law.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Ralph in South Carolina replied:

The Commandmant "Thou shalt not kill " was translated incorrectly. The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder". Major difference! None of us wishes to take a life but responsibility for self, family, and others in the light of the correct translation allows it.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 3:49 PM

John in VA replied:

There will always be those who believe that anyone who kills is a murderer; that a person who kills someone in self-defense is a murderer. Is there ever a moral justification of killing?

Some of the following points are from a briefing, and an article titled A Moral Justification for Killing in War, by LTC Peter Kilner Feb 2010 Army magazine

Every act of killing is a permanent action that requires moral justification. You cannot simply abdicate your responsibility to respect others’ human rights. Killing someone, even justifiably, is upsetting at some level; some will feel needlessly guilty, but you ought to be able to live at peace with yourself. If the killing is morally wrong or morally excusable, the psychological impact will likely be much greater.

By virtue of our humanity, every person possesses the right not to be killed.
How does a person forfeit his rights, i.e., “lose his bubble”?
By violating or threatening to violate the right (i.e., the bubble) of someone who possesses it.
If you kill an aggressor who has forfeited his rights by threatening you or another innocent person, you do nothing wrong. You as a defender violate no one’s rights, and you do not forfeit your own.

Is the rights loss permanent?
No! By virtue of being human, a person defaults to possessing the rights not to be killed.
If the aggressor is stopped from continuing his aggression then there is no continuing threat; they default to their right of not to be killed. You call law enforcement and maintain overwatch until LE arrives (make sure that LE, on arrival, doesn't perceive you as a threat!)

Morally right: to kill someone who has forfeited his right not to be killed.
Morally wrong: to kill someone who possesses his right not to be killed.
Morally excusable: to kill someone whom you genuinely, reasonably believed to have forfeited his rights, but in fact hadn’t.

Sunday, July 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Phil in Ohio said:

I agree with you that Romney will not be another Reagan. Romney will take us the same place as Obama, only slower. We really don't need to slow our demise, we need to REVERSE it. And, since he is the Republican nominee, we cannot put up a conservative until at least 2020. Our only hope is to be as hard on Romney as the Democrats the moment he deviates from a conservative position in the name of "bi-partisanship." HOLD ROMNEY ACCOUNTABLE...and maybe next time the Republican establishment won't take conservatives' votes for granted.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

M.B. in Illinois replied:

I also am leary of Romney. If we can insure a Conservative Judge out of Romney win and slow the move toward the New World Order, then I'll vote for Romney and like you said try to hold him to American Constitutional Conservative principals. We must send obama back to where ever he came from! Let's hope we can save our Nation through the voting process and get the Communists out of Washington.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Gelio in Warren replied:

A vote against Romney is still a vote for Obama. You must support the Republican candidate to ensure we do not get 4 more years of Obama. Also, Romney has run a business, held a real job and is a card carrying member of the NRA, which means he does believe in the 2nd amendment unlike His Highness.

Friday, July 27, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Jason in Lilburn, GA said:

I have every reason to believe that Obama was thrilled with the events in Aurora, Colorado, because he had an opening to push his anti Second Amendment agenda. He likely would have been even more thrilled if every single theater patron in the entire building had been killed by the deranged gunman. We must make a distinction between law-abiding citizens and those who are mentally challenged, but there is no reason to keep any type of firearm away from the citizenry. If we are to defend liberty from the leftists, the citizens should be armed with the same firepower that is available to the government.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

M.B. in Illinois said:

It is imperative that obama be defeated in the November election! This imposter of a president has done and is doing everything he can to destroy America and Our Constitution. We must also vote out as many of the people in Congress that are playing the destruction game with the imposter.
A friend of mine sent me an exercise read

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 1785

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Louis Valbert in Newton, Illinois said:

The only way Obama will have a chance of surviving is if the American voter stays home in Novermber. Obama has been a hell of a follow up to George Bush--How sad. Obama uses race to divide people instead of healing. He uses taxes as a call to arms and then accuses his opponents of being law breakers. Seeing the back side of Obama will be a great pageant in the coming year.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Jim in Iowa replied:

Also keep in mind, when the Democrats complain about what they "inherited from Bush," what they're REALLY complaining about is what Democrats did with a super-majority in Congress during Bush's last 2 years in the White House! Take note that Obama was in the Senate during that time, so in essence, Obama was a part of MAKING the very same legacy that he claims he "inherited" from Bush!

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Todd Letherer in Marietta, GA said:

The "real" reason behind the 2nd Amendment is often overlooked. While self-defense and hunting rights are important, our founding fathers made sure that a well-armed populace would have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government if needed. I don't hear that mentioned much, if at all. I think it warrants more discussion and ultimately more support from true patriots.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM

John Work in CO replied:

Exactly! And that is of course why gun control is such a major issue with the Left, and why our RINO's are so wishy-washy on the issue. The politicians would like to see us all disarmed, and their motives have nothing to do with any of the reasons they put forward.

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Publius Marcus Antonius in Virginia said:

It is the righteous heritage that the people retain the authority to defend their Constitution and their individual Freedoms, by use of arms if necessary, from an Elite Ruling Criminal Class, Corrupt government and politicians.

Publius Marcus Antonius
Sic Semper Tyrannis !

Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM