Another Reason To Consider…

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Voting against Hillary.

You may have heard that a California appellate court (see below) has ruled in favor of California laws that give government bureaucrats the power to deny citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon unless they show “good cause.” This “good cause” to be defined by the government bureaucrats and which definition does not include ordinary self-defense.

The bureaucrats use the “good cause” verbiage to effectively outlaw concealed carry (and thus, armed self-defense outside the home) for ordinary citizens.

It is the polar opposite of “shall issue” requirements (as in my state, VA) which compel the government to issue a permit to any citizen who applies, who has not been convicted of a felony.

This case will almost certainly become a Supreme Court case – and in that case, it will decide national policy regarding concealed carry.

And, perhaps more.

If Hillary becomes Dear Leader, she will almost certainly appoint at least two and likely three new “justices,” all of whom will be (like her) very much interested in “sensible gun control.” Which (if you need me to translate) means: No guns for you.

It is a certainty that a Hillary Court will rule in favor of the appellate court. Which will result in more states enacting “good cause” requirements and possibly rescinding existing “shall issue” requirements and quite possibly concealed carry and open carry altogether.

Except, of course, for the Hero Class.

And the criminal class.

Or are you among the Elio who believe that criminals obey laws?

Again, this is a point of clear distinction between the two alternatives we are presented with. Neither are my preference, but the ice cold truth is that one of these two is going to be president.

There is no third option.

The choice we are confronted with, therefore, is either the absolute certainty of determined attempts to severely abridge our right to self defense, with a strong probability that these will succeed as a result of a fuhrerbefehl (executive order) outlawing possession of “assault weapons,” certain calibers of ammunition, heavy taxes on ammunition, mandatory gun insurance (to make owning a gun onerous, financially) and so on – or via a Supreme Court ruling with the same effect.

As opposed to at least a chance those things won’t happen if Trump defeats her.

Trump may simply be making the necessary noises to assuage his supporters, but he would have to go back on numerous public utterances he has made decrying “gun control” and in support of the Second Amendment.

I grant that he might.

But with Hillary, we know.

If the choice is between metastasizing cancer (Hillary) and a localized case of hemorrhoids… the choice seems pretty clear.

From the appellate court document.

Keep in mind as well that Hillary’s election assures the permanence (and expansion) of Obamacare. That we will be forced to pay money each year to the private, for-profit insurance mafia – the amount to increases each year, as surely as the cock crows in the morning. Obamacare will be used to shove the snout of the government into everything we do, as everything we do “affects” our “heath” – which is now no longer our business but the government’s.    

With Trump, there is at least a chance that Obamacare will be repealed or scaled back. Again, I grant it may be smoke and mirrors. But with Hillary, the situation is as crystal clear as a jug of 190 proof grain alcohol.   

I do not like compromising my principles. But a vote in self-defense is not a compromise of one’s principles any more than it means you concede the legitimacy of the income tax because you filed a 1099.

We are under duress.

Arguably, we have an obligation to do what we can to limit the harm caused to ourselves and others, to the extent it is in our power to do so.

Is there any way to stop Hillary other than voting for Trump?

If there is – please – tell me.