Entitlement Society?

Entitlement Society? Nah....

From Comes From South Carolina

Nobody can saw they weren't suprised by New Gingrich's big victory in Saturday's South Carolina Republican primary. As it turned out Newt had almost a 14% margin over everyone's front runner Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum decivisely came in third over Ron Paul. The final vote percentages:

Newt Gingrich
40.4%

Mitt Romney
27.9%

Rick Santorum
17.0%

Ron Paul
13.0%

Herman Cain
1.1%

So what does this mean in the grand scheme of selecting a Republican to run against President Obama?

Well, a couple facts are:

After three primaries, we have three different winners.

South Carolina was unique because Democrats could, like Iowa, vote for Republicans producing mixed  results.

And again after three primaries, only 2% of the national delegates have been selected. Hardly a reason to declare a winner. It will come down to money. Who has the money to stay in. Romney certainly,...maybe Gingrich,...probably not Santorum,.....and who knows about Paul, surely he knows he is not a viable candidate and only remains in the race either for his ego or to influence the debate and party planks. Which is actually a good thing with his doomsday talk on the economy. Here's a hint,...it really is doomsday, hence the need to change out the Senate and the Executive Office with new employees.

Heading into the Florida primary, where Romney was previously favored, the race is still wide open. There will be calls for Santorum to get out of the race and throw his weight behind Newt, but I don't think he is ready to do that, nor will he do it, just yet anyway.

Another thing that came as a result of Romney's defeat was the issue of his tax returns becoming if not just a distraction, then a cause for voters to back Newt or Santorum. Romney has realized this,..has called it a mistake not to release before now, and will work to get his tax records out to the public. The public should not let tax rates, tax shelters or anything legal in Romeny's tax records influence them one way or another. We have too many pressing issues before us than to hold success and wealth against Romney. Anyone remember Obama's sweet heart real estate deal from Rezco?

The Gun Is Civilization

THIS IS MAKING THE ROUNDS THROUGH THE E-MAIL NET AND IS ONE OF THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ. Very good article, and of course, from a United States Marine!

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (again, written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.