Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.


Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.

Membership Page


Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.

Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Go Here.

Contact JPFO
(800) 869-1884.

October 24th 2012

Why I am a "one-issue voter"


by Peter Caroline, guest contributor

© Copyright JPFO. Inc 2012

Let's face it, most recent elections have offered us a choice between Dumb and Dumber, or Satan and the anti-Christ. For most people, it's fairly difficult to find candidates who represent their views in every respect. Personally, I've managed to simplify the process somewhat. I have one overriding litmus test for a candidate: will he or she stand up for my right to keep and bear arms?

I will grant that there are many issues that are important to a wide range of constituencies: women's rights, foreign policy, abortion, health care, national defense, and the rights of minorities, gays and people with disabilities. So why, with all that to consider, does my vote hinge on a candidate's attitude toward one single, often-misinterpreted Constitutional amendment? Because, in the final analysis, it's the only thing that really matters. Here's why:

The Declaration of Independence stated, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The most important of these rights is life, without which there is, logically enough, no liberty nor pursuit of happiness. How exactly does one protect one's life? You must have the means of self-defense, which may include firearms. In 1776, there were no police and no 911.

Today, although we have both, the police have no legal obligation to protect you as an individual, and 911 may not provide a timely response. There is also the possibility that you may have to protect yourself against your own government. A 1980 Oregon Supreme Court decision ruled that there were three reasons for Constitutional "right to keep and bear arms" provisions: (1) As a deterrent against governmental oppression, (2) to make the right of personal defense meaningful, and (3) a preference for home-grown militia over a standing army.

Regardless of his or her position on any other issue, the candidate who is not one hundred percent actively in favor of my right to keep and bear arms does not respect my God-given right to life. That candidate is basically saying to me, "I do not trust you with the means of self-defense; I do not recognize your right to live." It is very significant that the most egregious anti-gun proponents are themselves either armed or surrounded by armed bodyguards. Our President, the lateTed Kennedy and Sarah Brady are three notable examples. They rely on the gun to keep them secure, but what about the rest of us? Are we entitled to any lesser degree of security? There are any number of terms that describe a disarmed populace. Subjects, serfs and slaves are three appropriate words; safe is not one.

In most debates or contests, it is civilized and polite to refer to those individuals on the other side of the argument as our opponents. In the struggle to regain and maintain our most basic right, the right to self-defense, no such courtesy can be extended. The anti-gunners are not our worthy opponents, they are our mortal enemies. Their very existence threatens our freedoms and, ultimately, our lives. They are a cancer on a free society and must be excised. One might hope they can be convinced of the error and danger inherent in their anti-gun views.

In the case of most anti-gun politicians, however, they know exactly what they are doing. Their distrust of an armed populace stems directly from their lust for personal power. They are the very people that our Founding Fathers warned about when they wrote, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

The late Senator Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." I would urge every gun owner and every person concerned with freedom to perform one extreme act: Get informed and get involved -- go to the polls and vote as if your life depended on it. Believe me, it does.

Yours in Freedom, The Liberty Crew at JPFO
Protecting you by creating solutions to destroy "gun control"

Back to Top




The JPFO Store

Films and CDs