It concerns me because it legitimises a party, being the Shooters Party, who support the reduction or dilution of our guns laws.
Premier New South Wales
March 16, 2019
Daley says ‘I’ll resign’ if NSW guns laws change but deal with Shooters Party remains
[This is what they think of gun owners. If a group of people advocate for the right of people to own guns they cannot be considered legitimate.
This is how I view that mindset. One cannot expect a slave to remain a slave if they are armed. And you cannot expect a free person to remain free if they are not allowed arms.
Therefore Berejiklian wants to to keep slaves and/or enslave people and she does not have the moral character to serve in government at any capacity.—Joe]
I wish we had a Shooter’s Party in the US. I’d sign up in a second!
We do. It’s the NRA.
Just because people don’t register their party affiliation as “NRA” doesn’t mean they aren’t effectively a political party. They have primaries. They have candidates. They have opposing political parties. They even have positions outside of firearms, even though I think that’s a mistake.
If we were in a parliamentary system, the NRA would be working to form coalition government. As it is, our first-past-the-post electoral system pretty much devolves to a two party system, and the NRA is doing its best to try to be bipartisan in is support thus effectively making ‘coalition government’, which worked right up until the Democrat party leadership decided it would declare the NRA an Enemy Of The State. The NRA is not a subsidiary of the Republican party, but they also don’t have another option.
Yup. This exposes the mindset of the dark side; they’ll do anything BUT acknowledge the right to bear arms. They know it will mean more chaos and more dead innocent, and they keep up the charade, either because of or in spite of that fact (it works the same either way). It proves they’re not, and never have been, interested in saving lives, nor promoting justice, nor peace. It proves they’re interested only in their own false “authority” and the coercive power over others which, it is presumed, that “authority” gives them.
Acknowledging any right as unalienable would be to them a heresy, quite literally, as it would acknowledge their lack of absolute and total authority. If they don’t have absolute and total authority then their whole bloody system comes into question. The whole thing, because a singular acknowledgement of an untouchable right is the acknowledgement of a higher authority which they can never attain nor affect in any way. It would mean that they are subject to an authority which they can never possess, no matter what, and we can’t have THAT!
It would mean that they are subject to some other, hard and fast rules besides their own. It would be to acknowledge an entirely different legal system in fact, one which has no use for them as they are, and furthermore cannot tolerate them, and then their whole house of cards begins to fall.
See how this works? Such is the level of arrogance and audacity (The Audacity of Hope) which runs the world into frustration, confusion, decline, poverty, anger, conflict, chaos and destruction. It is the supreme arrogance of the would-be god-king, and it will exist continually, everywhere, until the end of time.
This illustrates the issue of Man’s law verses God’s law. The former is a confusing web designed to ensnare and enslave you, and the latter is simple and just and designed to free you.
And this is exemplified by all the benevolent theocracies throughout history, right?