At the heart of the RKBA struggle...

[marshall3]

Is this a true statement?

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

Most people, both anti and pro gun folks would agree with that statement.
The anti gun people believe that by disarming individuals they are assisting the welfare of the community as a whole. They already KNOW, if they are thinkers, that the welfare of individual citizens who may be crime victims will be decreased. But they don't CARE, because they think disarmament increases the welfare of the community.

So what we must do, those of us who are pro-gun and pro RKBA, is address THIS issue. We must be able to prove to them that the welfare of the community as a whole is increased by individuals keeping and bearing arms. That's the crux of the matter.

On the other hand, it is impossible to reason with unreasoning hoplophobes, and there are a lot of those folks out there.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I've never met a community. I've never shaken hands with a community. I've never conversed with a community. I've never heard of a community's rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

I think we're talking about a sociological construct rather than anything in the real world.

 

[marshall3]

I can't agree with you SW

The community is something vital, and we are all a part of it, unless we want to be hermits. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" mandates my full integration into my neighborhood, city, state, nation and the world. As John Donne wrote in his famous poem: "No man is an island."

 

[langenc]

Hillary would say something like that-- "....it takes a community...."

 

[csmkersh]

Do what you want, Marshall, but I'll go my own way to protect me and mine if need be. I won't be one of the mindless sheep being ravage by wolves and coyotes.

Old Spanish saying:

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

​

 

[El Tejon]

Socialism is for ant hills. Utilitarian arguments are for insects, faculty lounges and Manhattan cocktail parties where people are isolated from the consequences of their pronouncements.

This matter was settled in 1791 with the drafting of the Bill of Rights. "The people" means individuals, not the termite mound that CLAMs so love.

My rights trump those of any community.

 

[Harve Curry]

Absolutley not.

The rights of a majority do not out weigh the rights of a minority.

 

[xjchief]

If the rights of the individual are protected the community, which is made up of individuals, will be just fine.

 

[Dope]

Old Spanish saying:

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Actually, that's an old Mexican saying. Zapata if I remember?

I still like it

Dope

 

[csmkersh]

Old Spanish saying:

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Actually, that's an old Mexican saying. Zapata if I remember?

You are correct in both cases.

​

 

[marshall3]

That's what I mean XJ...

If the rights of the individual are protected the community, which is made up of individuals, will be just fine.

If we want to make progress with RKBA, this is the point we must hammer home to our communities. We CANNOT be rugged individualists and survive. If our rights as individuals are protected and lifted up, then our communities will have less crime and be better places to live. Are we making this argument? If we refuse to engage society and give cogent arguments, we have no one to blame but ourselves if our personal rights get stepped on. That's why we should all vote. And even more than that, we should all get involved in the political process on a local level. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing; or to beat on our chests, or whatever. Get involved in your community! Debate the antis, and show them that RKBA is good for the city, county, whatever.

 

[JCF]

So what we must do, those of us who are pro-gun and pro RKBA, is address THIS issue. We must be able to prove to them that the welfare of the community as a whole is increased by individuals keeping and bearing arms. That's the crux of the matter.

I am in agreement marshall3. 150%

It has nothing to do with socialism. Promoting the well-being of the whole does not require reversion to socialist principles nor does it necessitate bowing to the rights (or desires) of the majority.

The term "community" is often found offensive by proponents of gun-rights. I personally believe this is the case primarily because the concept of "concern for others" has been very vocally and successfully co-opted by anti-gun factions in their effort to demonstrate how gun owners are primarily selfish at the expense of community safety.

The reality folks is that "community", and the principle of promoting the well-being thereof, is not a negative. Community refers to all of us, not just the little kumbaya concept villages many of us associate with the ramblings of people like Oprah, Hillary and Maya Angelou. THR is a community in its own right. The words "We The People" find their basis in the concept of community and efforts at assuring the well-being thereof.

Promoting community, and promoting its' well-being, does not mean having a big group hug, popular majority rule, or following the lead sheep.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Is this a true statement?

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

Most people, both anti and pro gun folks would agree with that statement.

Many people would indeed agree with that statement.

For those people there are no individual rights, only collective rights. You therefore have no right to keep and bear arms, only the community as a whole. You also have no right to make decisions for your own life, or your children's lives, because individual decisions invariably conflict with the needs of the community as a whole. All property belongs to the community, none of it to any individual, and if the community needs to demolish your dwelling place in order to enlarge a park, build a highway, or even just to remove a residence that does not fit the character of the neighborhood as we want it to be, you had better leave before the bulldozers crush you.

The welfare of the community might best be served by removing you or your children to a better place, either to somewhere else on Earth or to your father in Heaven, if your genes are unsuitable for the community goals. Chronically ill people, those with intelligence too limited to make them suitable workers or too high for the number of leaders needed by the community, and cigarette smokers or people who hum in the elevators and wear loud clothing instead of uniforms that identify their place in the social order can be eliminated to serve the community's needs. All those who refuse to conform to the community's standards should be retrained or removed from the community.

What a wonderful place this country will be once we can have people believe that "The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

The only questions then remaining involve who should determine the welfare of the community at each level: city, state, and federal. Who, in other words, should be The Leader.

Fortunately those questions have already been resolved by numerous leaders who have stepped forward. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is The Leader. In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley is The Leader. In New Orleans, Mayor C. Ray Nagin is The Leader. Many cities have not yet chosen The Leader but The Day--"der Tag" as we may call it--will come when they too are enlightened. On the national scene we are fortunate to have many people who are eligible to be The Leader, and we soon will be able to choose whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will occupy that position. They have the political base to be The Leader, because their supporters understand that the welfare of the community is all important. John McCain does not have that kind of political base.

The Leader will take us to the day when we can achieve perfection of the community and eradicate all unhealthy notions about the rights of individuals. Individuals have no rights. Only the community has rights, because it is only the community's welfare that matters. Hail to The Leader! Work for the day! Hail!

Let's have a vision of change. Let's have a dream. Let's have the village raising our children. Let's have zero tolerance. Let's have The Leader show us the way. Look for der Fuehrer’s face to beam on us and show us the way! Work for der Tag! Heil!

I read all that in old books once. It's interesting to see the series resumed and so many people wanting to participate in it. I wonder how it will end this time.

 

[Henry Bowman]

They already KNOW, if they are thinkers, that the welfare of individual citizens who may be crime victims will be decreased. But they don't CARE, because they think disarmament increases the welfare of the community.

The distinction is, without intending any offense from the term, they are not "thinkers," but are "feelers." Because the hard facts show that disarmament does not increase the welfare of the community, their conclusion has to be based on a "feeling" or a preconception.

If the rights of the individual are protected, the community, which is made up of individuals, will be just fine.

Exactly. Restrictions of rights are to be applied on an individual basis, if possible, and only after due process. More broadly designed restrictions are only applied as anrrowly as possible and only to the extent that the objective is accomplished and outweigh any unintended consequences.

 

[JCF]

I've never met a community. I've never shaken hands with a community. I've never conversed with a community. I've never heard of a community's rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

I think we're talking about a sociological construct rather than anything in the real world.

There is a great deal of truth to this; community is indeed a sociological construct. This does not however negate either its' existence or validity.

Religion is constructed, as is honor, as is deviance (and criminality as a result), as is evil. If we remove the sociological implications and influence from the equation, sexual acts with children cease to hold any significance.

The point is that the simple fact that we create parameters within which to understand (and often regulate) our existence, and the fact that those parameters may be artificial, does not mean that they are valueless.

 

[JCF]

For those people there are no individual rights, only collective rights. You therefore have no right to keep and bear arms, only the community as a whole. You also have no right to make decisions for your own life, or your children's lives, because individual decisions invariably conflict with the needs of the community as a whole. All property belongs to the community, none of it to any individual, and if the community needs to demolish your dwelling place in order to enlarge a park, build a highway, or even just to remove a residence that does not fit the character of the neighborhood as we want it to be, you had better leave before the bulldozers crush you.

This isn't true at all Robert.

I believe the welfare of the community supersedes the welfare (I believe you are confusing rights and welfare) of any one individual. I believe in the individual RKBA. I believe in the individual RKBfull-auto. I believe in not only the right to defend oneself, but an obligation to defend one's country. I believe in personal property, and the sanctity thereof. I believe in the welfare of the community enough in fact that I am willing to sacrifice my own life for it. I don't see how you can hold the welfare of the individual as greater than that of the community and still expect people to serve in the military, or law enforcement, or the fire department, etc.

Rights and well-being are not the same thing.

Again, recognizing the importance of the welfare of the community does not involve bowing to the desire of the majority, nor does it mean resorting in any way to socialist principles.

I believe the framers of the Constitution had the welfare of the community in mind.

I believe the 2A was drafted with the welfare of the community in mind.

 

[lawson4]

Put it to the anti's in terms of "My concealed handgun has a deterrent effect that helps the community as whole. The BG's don't know who has one, so they are less likely to strike any individual".

lawson4

 

[Robert Hairless]

This isn't true at all Robert.

I suppose that settles the matter, CFriesen, and since you support your conclusion with much that you believe to be true I am overwhelmed and left helpless to respond. Who would be so churlish as to argue against another man's beliefs.

Look elsewhere for such a churl because I believe in Santa Claus and it hurts me dreadfully when anyone says otherwise. I believe in wishing wells, But I also believe in a lot of things, things the daisy tells, I believe, I believe that a four-leaf clover brings, Lots of luck, lots of joy, lots of happiness, I believe those things.

A reason why I get so confused is that I've only lived in communities composed of individuals. Those individuals pay taxes to the community in return for benefits they receive. Those benefits presumably include increased safety for them. I myself am not sufficiently enlightened to believe that it's okay if my family and I die as long as the majority of the community survives. I've never yet lived in a community to which anyone moved because they have a burning desire to contribute to its welfare without any benefit to themselves.

Of course I have heard about such places and, as I said in my previous message, I've read and known about them. They tend to have been based on beliefs such as yours: you have rights, of course, but they are subordinate to concerns for the welfare of the community. Yes indeed.

So in that kind of community you do have the right to keep and bear arms, and it's an absolute right too, but only when it benefits the community. When it's to the community's benefit that you relinquish your arms, you then have an equally absolute right to surrender them.

In my world there are no rights without benefits, no benefits without rights, and the community exists only to preserve the rights and benefits of individuals. That's the world in which individuals create communities, not the one in which communities create individuals. Mine is an untidy world but relatively simple.

The other world is so much neater. The uniforms look good too. Black uniforms with silver emblems, and tall, shiny boots used to be the best kind.

 

[BB62]

Mr. Hairless,

Despite the recent changes to THR (which I lament), the depth and thought-provoking nature of the posters here (myself excluded), never ceases to amaze me.

A tip of my hat to you.

 

[Gordon Fink]

At the risk of stating the obvious, a community does not exist without individuals. A community that doesn’t respect the rights of its individual members is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

That the community’s welfare is more important than any one individual’s rights is the argument for utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is the way to genocide and many other evils.

~G. Fink

 

[JCF]

At the risk of stating the obvious, a community does not exist without individuals. A community that doesn’t respect the rights of its individual members is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

Agreed.

That the community’s welfare is more important than any one individual’s rights is the argument for utilitarianism.

Very true. However this was not the contention of the OP.

 

[JCF]

I suppose that settles the matter, CFriesen, and since you support your conclusion with much that you believe to be true I am overwhelmed and left helpless to respond. Who would be so churlish as to argue against another man's beliefs.

Look elsewhere for such a churl because I believe in Santa Claus and it hurts me dreadfully when anyone says otherwise. I believe in wishing wells, But I also believe in a lot of things, things the daisy tells, I believe, I believe that a four-leaf clover brings, Lots of luck, lots of joy, lots of happiness, I believe those things.

Life is wonderful for the chosen.

A reason why I get so confused is that I've only lived in communities composed of individuals. Those individuals pay taxes to the community in return for benefits they receive. Those benefits presumably include increased safety for them. I myself am not sufficiently enlightened to believe that it's okay if my family and I die as long as the majority of the community survives. I've never yet lived in a community to which anyone moved because they have a burning desire to contribute to its welfare without any benefit to themselves.

Very well. Believe as you will.

Of course I have heard about such places and, as I said in my previous message, I've read and known about them. They tend to have been based on beliefs such as yours: you have rights, of course, but they are subordinate to concerns for the welfare of the community. Yes indeed.

Welfare, not rights.

So in that kind of community you do have the right to keep and bear arms, and it's an absolute right too, but only when it benefits the community. When it's to the community's benefit that you relinquish your arms, you then have an equally absolute right to surrender them.

And again, the principles underlying promotion of the welfare of the community do not involve margin of popularity nor submission to majority. Were it the case that it did, the AMA would not be advocating the abandonment of a fast-food diet, and we would apparently not have troops in Iraq.

In my world there are no rights without benefits, no benefits without rights, and the community exists only to preserve the rights and benefits of individuals. That's the world in which individuals create communities, not the one in which communities create individuals. Mine is an untidy world but relatively simple.

Indeed. And, if we were discussing rights and an argument supporting the validity of the subjugation thereof in the interest of majority support, this statement would actually be contextually salient.

The other world is so much neater. The uniforms look good too. Black uniforms with silver emblems, and tall, shiny boots used to be the best kind.

The only group I've seen wearing a uniform like that in recent history was doing so under the auspices of individual right of expression.

 

[357WheelGun]

Is this a true statement?

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

No, it is not a true statement.

The welfare of the "community" is inextricably tied to the welfare of the individuals in that community. If the statement were true, then logically it would be best, if possible, to sacrifice a single member every so often to guarantee the safety of the "community" as a whole. The only way to ensure the welfare of a community as a whole is for the individuals within that community to secure their own individual welfare.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

That statement is true, in my book, but it strongly supports the individual RTKBA, not the other way around. Despite what the antis believe, they are wrong. The REASON for preserving gun rights as to the individual is indeed for the altruistic goal of preserving society. The heart of the 2A is about overthrowing a tyrannical government, such as what happened with Mussolini and Hitler (remember in two formerly democratic societies). The 2A supports such a revolt if necessary - that is for the good of society, to the detriment of despots/tyrants.

 

[hugh damright]

The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community.

That statement is true, in my book, but it strongly supports the individual RTKBA, not the other way around.

That's what I was thinking ... the welfare of the community is the intent of a commonwealth such as Virginia. The Virginia Declaration of Rights says "That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community". I think that the reason the RKBA is an enumerated right is because it provides for the common benefit, protection, and security.

Otherwise, if the RKBA was detrimental to a commonwealth or "free State", then wouldn't the Second Amendment say that a well regulated militia, being a danger to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be heavily regulated? The intent is the security of a free State i.e. a commonwealth i.e. the welfare of the community as a whole.

"A commonwealth is properly a free state; a popular or representative government; a republic; as the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The word signifies strictly, the common good or happiness; and hence, the form of government supposed best to secure the public good." -Webster's 1828