Monday, November 24, 2014

Scott Walker trial balloon from NRA director ignores amnesty danger

The problem is, GOA is alone among national gun rights advocacy organizations to make the connection, and to insist it be a factor in determining whether or not a politician truly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Why the “gun control” groups keep quiet about illegal immigration is understandable. Those in it for the long haul, who hope and believe Americans can be disarmed within a generation, recognize that this can give them an unbeatable political majority within a decade or two, to remake the legislatures and courts and reverse all the legislative and judicial victories gun owners have gained to date. But why the National Rifle Association has avoided recognizing and warning members of this real threat, opting to avoid it altogether with a “single issue” explanation, is harder to understand.


Anonymous said...

It's not hard to understand once a person faces the fact that the NRA is a gun control group arguing endlessly to have Citizens "compromise" away the right that says shall not be infringed. Otherwise, while in denial of such an obvious truth, I can understand why some continue to be so puzzled.

Fanfare Ends said...

I agree with you. Perhaps the NRA is afraid of antagonizing the libertarian wing, which I think by at least a small majority is soft on securing the borders.

Anonymous said...

Illegal immigration is certainly problematic on a number of levels, but legal immigration can be equally detrimental to the cause of liberty if those entering are unconcerned about America's founding principles. This is not a racial issue but primarily a matter of cultural upbringing.

Of course, there is hardly a shortage of native-born Americans who couldn't care less about freedom. But adding to their numbers doesn't help the situation.

I'm not talking about Red Team versus Blue Team here. The Republican Party is NOT the "pro-freedom" alternative to the Democratic Party. Both parties support the perpetual War on Drugs and the "War on Terror." Both parties support laws that create many victimless crimes. Both parties support a strong standing army, which is unnecessary for national security in the age of jet fighters and nuclear deterrents but poses a grave risk to liberty. (Every weapon or piece of gear developed for use against guerrillas in Iraq or Afghanistan will be equally useful against American patriots defending their rights here at home.) And so on.

I think the deeper problem is the establishment-controlled media (which is concentrated in just a few hands). It has conditioned most of the public to believe that any position on a political issue is impractical, unrealistic, or even "kooky" if it doesn't fit into the platform of one or the other major party. This conditioning affects the native-born population at least as much as immigrants.

For example, the mainstream media will allow a commentator to opine that the "War on Terror" should be fought one way, or to disagree and state that it should be fought a different way. What's NOT permitted is to get on TV and point out that the whole "War on Terror" is a colossal fraud cooked up by Straussian neocons and perpetuated by "defense" manufacturers. Similarly, it's okay to state on the air that marijuana should be legalized or that it should remain illegal, but it's NOT okay to say that adults have the right to ingest whatever substances they wish in private.

This is how the media filter works. It's why so few people even understand what freedom means anymore, let alone support it. A few souls, most notably Ron Paul, have made heroic efforts on the national level to combat this mass brainwashing and ignorance. But most people are herd animals, and the establishment media dictates the direction of both the Red Herd and the Blue Herd.

Regardless, as long as some of us refuse to obey unjust laws and are determined to resist the enforcement of such laws even to the death, freedom won't die.

Anonymous said...

For Modern Societies To Survive, Lawful Citizens Must Be Armed

Anonymous said...

The NRA does not speak for me. I do not provide funds to them. After seeing the NRA endorse Democrats and say that the Democrat believes in gun owner, I lost all faith in the NRA.

Paul X said...

This is one of those very rare cases when I agree with NRA.

RKBA is no more dependent on immigrants than it is on Congress. It depends on us, period. Either we submit or resist. That is the only question.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous makes a good point. Excessive legal immigration, by overwhelming the native born citizenry's voting control of the USA, can be (and is currently) even worse than illegal immigration, ceteris paribus (for the same number of immigrants). Surveys show that legal immigrants also tend to be anti-gun right off the bat (i.e., both before and after they get here), and that they lean heavily Democrat. And they start voting sooner than illegals, so they're more damaging. This is partly due to bad criteria that selects for immigrants who bring bad culture and tendencies with them, but more significantly due to the increasingly overwhelming, unassimilable high levels of immigration since 1961. The USA can afford to make horrible immigration mistakes in small numbers, but not in vast numbers. In vast numbers, the immigrants' culture becomes the dominant culture, and it is *our* culture that gets assimilated and swamped.

Unfortunately, both Rand Paul and Ron Paul support the neo"Libertarian" position in favor of suicidal immigration policies, legal and illegal.

A 2011 article by Tom Tancredo quotes Ron Paul's book:

"Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, 'Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.' One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before. The result is not pretty. Pauls book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants...

'...have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.'

He also claims

'Its hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant.'

The immigration website VDARE (dot) com (Note: a great website to which I donate) refutes both of these assertions. They note that 77% of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5% of illegals and 10% of legals are European, so the idea that we treat Europeans specially is specious. VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.

In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, Ron Paul argues against policies that we dont support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to ...

'...use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home.'

In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations. Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require

'splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades.'

Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports (supports getting rid of), that would not be an issue to begin with. As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not. According to Paul, deporting such people would be

'incompatible with human rights.'

That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.


Anonymous said...

Paul X needs to drop the neo"Libertarian" crack pipe and step away. That is delusional nonsense.

Does he actually believe that voter demographics, legislation, executive, judiciary, and relative FORCE are irrelevant to RKBA and the ability to resist the enactment and enforcement of gun control and other forms of tyranny?

Relative power matters. If you overwhelm the relatively pro-gun and conservative native born citizenry with anti-gun Democrats, and they take control of all institutions, you will not be able to resist the enactment of gun control and gun confiscation and prohibited person status. And you will have no control of the judiciary, so it will all be blessed. And you will become an increasingly small and marginalized part of the population, the vast majority of which will be against you, as will the executive and full weight of police and military power.

Anonymous said...

Paul X wrote...

"This is one of those very rare cases when I agree with NRA. RKBA is no more dependent on immigrants than it is on Congress. It depends on us, period. Either we submit or resist. That is the only question."


Really? Voter demographics, legislation, executive, judiciary, and relative force are irrelevant to RKBA and the ability to resist the enactment and enforcement of gun control and other forms of tyranny?

It doesn't depend on who "we" are? Our willingness and ability to resist, let alone our ability to avoid having any legislation or enforcement to resist in the first place, doesn't depend on the composition of "we"?

The composition of congress, the executive and federal government, state legislatures, state executives, security forces, the military, is independent of the composition of the electorate?

Relative power doesn't matter?

Wake up. If you overwhelm the relatively pro-gun and conservative native-born citizenry with hundreds of millions of fast-breeding anti-gun Democrats, such that people who do not value American liberty dominate ALL institutions, you will not be able to resist the enactment of measures that expand gun control, gun confiscation, and prohibited person status. You will have no control of the judiciary, so that legislation and enforcement will all be blessed. You will be part of an increasingly small, marginalized and demonized minority. The vast majority of the population will have no sympathy for you and your rights, as will the executive and full weight of police and military power.

You think it makes no difference to RKBA whether or not the majority of the population (and the composition of government institutions) is at least somewhat sympathetic to your rights -- as it is now -- vs 80%-90+% wanting you disarmed -- as it will be?