A house divided - what we should be focusing on


PDA






ngnrd
January 23, 2013, 03:22 AM
This debate is not about guns. Nor is it about crime. Nor is it even about self defense. It is about whether free men should allow themselves to be coerced by scared, weak individuals to relinquish our natural rights in the name of their perceived safety.

The founders of this great nation understood that the right to defend one’s self, one’s community, and one’s country, is just that: a natural right. Having had just shed blood to forcibly separate our society from an oppressive government (our government, mind you - let’s not forget that we were indeed British colonies; British subjects), our forefathers made it a point to affirm this natural right for the free people of this new nation by acknowledging it in our newly forged Constitution. As such, it is important to understand that the Constitution does not provide the right to keep and bear arms. It is merely a tool with which to protect that right, the same as it protects other enumerated rights.

Therefore, as the current national debate rages on as to how, or even if, individuals should be able to posses firearms of their choosing, we should not get caught up in the minutia, like how many bullets is enough, or whether certain features of a particular weapon are inherently bad, or how an individual may defend himself. Rather, we should always focus on the fact that even in this free democracy, tyranny and oppression are still our society’s greatest threats, and we should assert our right to arm ourselves accordingly.

And while today is certainly not the day we need to pick up those arms - that day may not come in the next 50 years, or 100, or more - one day we will undoubtedly face such tyranny again. But if we as a free society are so short-sighted as to surrender our right to defend ourselves, or to neuter the tools with which we would provide that defense, simply because there currently exists a vocal cadre that fears the random actions of a few individual criminals and lunatics, and who believe that it is better to feel safe in the immediate short term than it is to be safe in the long term, then we will most assuredly succumb to real tyranny and oppression when it does finally come.

To that end, some would say that our government, and its military, should provide for our common protection. Clearly, if such a threat were to come from outside our borders, there is little doubt that we as a nation would demand that our government do everything in its power to protect us. However, if the threat were to come from within our borders, or – God forbid - from within our own government, as history shows is not only possible, but even likely, who then will we turn to if we have already laid down our arms? Once we have relinquished our natural rights, who will listen when we meekly ask that those rights be returned?

No, this debate is not about guns, or crime, or self defense. It's about freedom - ours, our children's, and all the generations that follow. And that is what we should be focusing on.

If you enjoyed reading about "A house divided - what we should be focusing on" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Westfair
January 23, 2013, 05:38 AM
You sir are 100% correct. Funny that you posted this while I was listening to the reading of one of our founder's seminal works - Thomas Paine's Common Sense (http://youtu.be/5oaTVFfUz94).

As I am making myself familiar again with many of the other works, correspondence, etc. of our founders, I can see how clearly their ideals are timeless and I would be wary of anyone who argues they are outdated concepts.

CTPhil
January 23, 2013, 08:41 AM
We shouldn't be as concerned about our rights being taken, as having them given away in the name of security.

w9trb
January 23, 2013, 08:56 AM
These rights are endowed to us by the Creator. This is the sticking point. The Creator. There are those who do not believe and are in office and the media. Hollywood cranks out violent and sexual themes as a means to make money. With money, they support a view that is anti-Creator. The root of all evil is the love of money. Money will decide what laws get passed. It will never be the case that government can abolish the rights that the Creator endowed us unless you believe in the government more than the Creator.

Jlr2267
January 23, 2013, 09:24 AM
These rights are endowed to us by the Creator. This is the sticking point. The Creator. There are those who do not believe and are in office and the media.

There are also "those who do not believe" that fully support the 2nd amendment.

PaisteMage
January 23, 2013, 09:29 AM
Great point. I say this, but in a paraphrased way, all the time to people who debate me about guns.

w9trb
January 23, 2013, 09:35 AM
Jlr2267: I specified " and who are in office and the media." Not trying to stomp on any toes here, just pointing out my view of where the problem lies.

chipcom
January 23, 2013, 10:31 AM
Nice post. I agree.

The strategy of our common enemies is use the minutia and side issues to keep us divided and prevent us from presenting a united defense to their transgressions.

As Ben Franklin said; "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

If you enjoyed reading about "A house divided - what we should be focusing on" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!