Certainly, any single-issue organization can look at the particular aspect of a candidate or judge that suits their fancy. When you look at the ENTIRE package, the Republicans – Nixon, McCain, Scalia, Bush, Cheney – have been leading the country down the road to serfdom – but they drive in the right side of the road and Clinton, Obama, and Ginsburg drive on the left side. I’ve watched “Republican-leaning” libertarians delude themselves for over 40 years since 1968 – I’m just old!

As I’ve stated elsewhere, many people have been fighting valiantly for Second Amendment rights for many years, and they are achieving victories. Their efforts should be celebrated, and renewed vigor given to that cause.

Please realize how much freer we are in America than folks are in the U.K., who don’t really have free speech anymore as we know it here. They are under strictures from their “masters” in Brussels, and woe befall anyone who goes against those proscriptions!

We still have a lot of liberty in the U. S., and we need to continue to fight for it, celebrating one victory at a time.

Yes, for the most part, pro-gun matches pro-liberty. But the voters of Kenesaw, Georgia (in response to the gun confiscating idiots of Morton Grove, IL) voted to require homeowners to possess a gun. I think both of us would agree that Mohandas Ghandi has as much right to NOT own a gun as Charlton Heston has to own a gun. Gun rights should be based on liberty, not upon cultural preferences like vegetarianism.

Being armed is giving us a chance. Being armed and allowed to defend ourselves, something that’s not allowed in most western countries, is a net positive. Recent supreme court rulings on the matter are reaffirming that right and the NRA was behind it. Forgive me if I’m not getting the big picture but the little picture was covered very well By Fred Reed in his latest column.

Roll Over, Bark, and Beg

Fertilizer for the Pansy Bed
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

I see eye to eye a lot with MP. While you might advocate the idea of being a ‘realist’ and not a utopian, I think that he *is* being a realist.

The problem that he conceptualizes, and one that I agree with, is that wee are so far gone that we can’t really do much. In all honesty, when was the last time we really had a major victory for liberty? The country continues to slide down a road of sludge, for reasons that MP explained; *both* conservatives and liberals are bad, even though liberals are much, much worse.

I don’t want to sound defeatist, but nobody in American believes in the (really) free market, and nobody in America (really) believes in property rights, and (really) nobody in America believes in the idea of a classical liberal decentralized Republic.

In a previous post, I mentioned that even early Americans, supposedly educated on the evils of a strong government, gave in to a lot of big government ideas.

What chance do we have now of really doing anything? Again, not really any. This isn’t crying in a corner and stating we are better than everyone else in matters of politiics (although we are). This is stating a very *realist* approach, having nothing to do with utopia.

[What has happened to you? You used to talk to the point. We are discussing Second Amendment Rights. Each time the NRA litigates the Castle Doctrine in an opposing state and wins, liberty is a little stronger. Your other post, in case you wondered, condescendingly mischaracterized my very public position on the libertarian law. The rules for posting are here.–IM]

The two party system has wrecked the country through incrementalism. Short of a full-blown second American revolution, the LP party is going to have to use the same tactics to undo the damage. They just don’t seem to grasp that big picture plans can be implemented in small steps instead of all at once.