Thursday, November 1, 2007

Have You Decided Yet??

I’m not sure that I want to commit to any current Republican Presidential candidate just yet, but I have been leaning towards Ron Paul or Fred Thompson. Paul pretty much says most all of the correct things, but I think he’s got a snowballs chance in Hell of winning. Thompson, on the other hand could possibly take out Rudy and Romney if he can get his campaign in gear.

That being said, I recently received the following. This is Fred Thompson’s response to anti Second Amendment proceedings at the U.N. Take a look at it and let us know what you think!

Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These “minimum” provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, “It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ,” and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not “expressly set forth.”

There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been
accompanied or followed by that government’s commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren’t so perverse.

Thankfully, the Framers of our Constitution recognized this potential peril to our liberty, and enshrined in our Second Amendment the more basic right of self-defense. The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries’ citizens’ possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it. FRED THOMPSON, CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Pretty powerful, if you ask me. I think Thompson is the real deal, but is he electable? We’ll just have to wait and see. If you are not registered to vote, now is the time to get that done.

In other news…did you see the article yesterday in the R-J concerning the current Chief of Police in North Las Vegas, Chief Mark Paresi? In case you missed it, he has been let go! Is it possible that this is a result of what we published recently about the inane and illogical NLV firearms ordinances? Our understanding was that a high ranking NLV politician was pretty much blown off by the Chief when the discussion arose about changing and eliminating these anti Section 11 ordinances. We have heard that Paresi was adamant about leaving them alone…well I guess it’s back to Portland for him! All we can say is …’Bye!

WE MUST REMAIN EVER VIGILANT…EVER WATCHFUL

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think Ron's actually got a better chance than Fred if his support keeps improving as it has been.

Britain's biggest bookmaker recently upgraded his chances to 1 in 12:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:3UvvaGxz_1cJ:www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp%3Fcouponchoice%3DPO407741+http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp%3Fcouponchoice%3DPO407741

Two more reasons to vote for Paul:
1. Only an anti-war Republican like Paul can possibly beat Hitlery Clinton.
2. Not voting on principle is what led the country to hell's doorstep in the first place.

Brian Philippus said...

I've committed to Ron Paul for quite a while now. Fred Thompson has quite a number of problems not related to the guns and I'm not trying to pick the winner of a horse race here.

Joe Carpenter said...

I like Ron's strict adherence to the Constitution, but unfortunately I think that will cost him votes (ironically). Most of our nation has just been too far hooked onto the notion that only government bureaucracy and nothing less could possibly run a nation, and anything against cutting government is un-patriotic.

Maybe 3rd time's a charm for Ron?

Richard Brengman said...

Fred Thompson needs to announce his VP choice ASAP, I'm hesitant to vote for some one who has cancer, even if it is "in remission".
I've known several people who had cancer, it tends to return, stronger than before.
So who is his running mate, perhaps Ron Paul would team up with him?

In the mean time I am giving Ron Paul all the support I can.
Not because I expect him to win, but because as long as he is in the race, the other alleged conservatives will not be able to stray quite so far to the liberal-socialist side!

Ronal Reagan is often quoted as saying that he never left the democratic party, it left him.
It seems our "republican" party is also sliding leftist, with the blessing or acquiescence of far too many "conservatives".

Ron Paul may be the last genuine constitutionalist in office.
I find myself disagreeing with him on some aspects of what to do about the WOT/Iraq, but not much else.