We've been fooled

[gp59]

I have come to the same type of conclusion, with a twist to it. the 2 amnd. and the RKBA are not only important but vital to our survival as a free nation. our founding fathers new this and understand that the RKBA would be the only thing standing between the free people of this nation and a big brother type of government, basically the check to the balance. so when i come up against a anti gun person who also doesn't like big brother so involved in there lives i bring up the part about why our founding fathers wrote the second amendment and tell them to do a little research of there own about why they felt the RKBA was important to a free nation.

 

[Joey2]

I think that I can say with some degree of certainty that all who post here and other like forums believes in the 2d Amendment.

Now for the "shall not be infringed" part I think that there is a degree of disagreement. Such as criminals, nut cases, etc.

Defining a criminal and a nut case would take another thread. We each have our own definition

So this would nulify all of us being in agreement with "shall not be infringed"

How about self protection being a God giving right versus a previlige bestowed upon us by the state?

I think that a vast majority would agree that our rights are given to us by God.

We say and believe this, but our actions of submitting to the government to purchase, carry, or possess a firearm tells a different story.

We give up our God given right and turn it into a priviledge every time we apply for a CCW, etc.

I don't have a CCW, but I am just a guilty as the rest of you when I make a firearms purchase.

I guess what I am trying to say is that to make the RKBA is for us all to stand up in unison and say we are taking our God given rights back.

Sorry for my long and mixed up post. These are the things that went through my mind reading all of the posts on this thread.

I sure as hell don't have all the answers.

 

[N3rday]

I can vouch for the whole 'a lot of them are atheists' thing. But so am I; survival is the first and most important law of nature, transceding any religious beliefs you might have. But that isn't a good argument.

What IS a good argument is that just about every gun control law on the books has had no effect on crime and actually lessened the ability to deter crime. We really wouldn't be any worse off if every gun control law was taken off the books with the exception of the GCA of 1934 and the background check for gun purchases. Those are the only two laws that make sense; criminals can't buy guns, and criminals can't own guns. If they are found with them they are charged for crimes, period. People can't own automatic weapons without a Class III, period.
No other laws that I can think of off the top of my head have prevented crime, with the exception of a couple laws that had harder penalties for gun abusers. Where are all of those laws when we need them?

 

[Cybercop]

Like most of us here I've also had these discussions with the anti's. However I've distilled it down to this.

What are you willing to give up to take my guns?
vs.
What am I willing to give up to keep them?

I'll bet any anti you talk to is *not* willing to go to the wall, and talking about it scares the stuffing out of them! What really freaks 'em out is when they say "I don't have to because to police will do it", and I badge them and destroy that argument. Of course this has also led to several trips to I.A. Which I really don't mind, they just hand me a cup of coffee and the paperwork when I walk in! It's well worth the amusement value!

Jim

 

[R.H. Lee]

While it may terminate any discussion, using a God-given rights argument against the gun grabbers is pointless. They don't believe in the existence of God. You are a subject of their omnipotent government. End of story.

Governments are not omnipotent. They crash and burn all the time. It ain't over 'til its over. The fat lady is not even warming up yet.

 

[BigG]

Molon Labe (or should I say "Molson")

Perception is the reality today. The anti whatevers realize just by raising an issue if the proponent addresses it, the anti has made his point, i.e., it's up for debate. Your position is the wiser one, imho. The same goes with CCW: By applying for a CCW, you imply that the state has granted you a privilege, not a God-given right. I've avoided getting one in the last 8 years or so.

 

[Mr. Clark]

The original poster's point, in a 'natural rights' context, is valid. It is THE argument. The statistics about crime, etc. are irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the use of lies by journalist is to the first amendment. That some people abuse it does not invalidate the right or excuse its infringement.

However, if we start using the argument "because my God says so!", we have lost the battle. It's over.

 

[brookstexas]

Aaaargh!!!!

"I have noticed that many of the "far left" seem to be athiests who act on emotion and their own selfishness. The argument that RKBA is a God-given right probably won't impress them any more than a well-reasoned arguement. We need to work within the system to prevent these people from increasing their political power. I believe that these people are athiests because the thought of being held accountable for their behavior is simply too terrible to consider. Having these people rule my life is too terrible for me to imagine."



Yes, as terrible as having my life ruled by people who believe a man lives in the sky in a city of gold where you go when you die....
Try practicing that "Live and let live" thing will ya?

 

[JPinAZ]

Yet another person takes the red pill.

 

[Soap]

This is the angle of approach I take. When it comes to my rights, statistics are irrelevant. Simply because "X" number of people abuse their rights "Y" number of times per year, that has no effect on my right to do "Z". Period.

 

[Molon Labe]

I can understand the reluctance to claim a "God-given" right. But if you (none-the-less) believe in Natural Rights, and are uncomfortable with the "God-given" part, why not simply say, "I was born with these rights, just as I was born with two arms and two legs." And leave it at that?

 

[BigG]

There are some real hair splitters here. God-given or unalienable was good enough for the founding fathers.

 

[Molon Labe]

Molon Labe (or should I say "Molson")

Molson Labe. Damn, that’s ingenious, BigG! I’ll send the idea to Molson. Maybe they’ll add it to their line of brews:

- Molson Export
- Molson Golden
- Molson Canadian
- Molson Ice
- Molson Labe

 

[pax]

BigG,

Agreed, there does seem to be a bit of tetrapyloctomy in this thread.

Boats,

Excellent post.

pax

The more fundamental position is the highest ground, allowing the most "perpendicular" attack. If he argues politics, argue ethics -- things seldom go beyond this stage. If he argues ethics, argue epistemology (look it up). If he argues epistemology, argue metaphysics. If he argues metaphysics, you're up against Darth Vader and you're in trouble. Switch back to politics and accuse him of being out of touch with everyday reality. Or ask him if he's stopped beating his wife. -- L. Neil Smith

 

[Molon Labe]

In case you're interested, I posted the following on another board. It’s along the same lines as my OP:


I couldn't care less what the Second Amendment says. It could say "monkeys have a right to keep and bear arms" - I don't care.

I believe I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. End of story. The existence of this right is not contingent on a constitutional amendment. Our constitution could vaporize, the country could erupt into anarchy, and I would still have a right to keep and bear arms.

The problem with so many gun owners and NRA-types is that they pay way too much attention to the wording & history of the Second Amendment, court decisions, John Lott statistics, etc. If you're one of these people, can I give you some advice? Stop it. The more you bring up that stuff, the more you imply your RKBA cannot possibly exist without them.

Your RKBA does not require the existence of the constitution. (If you believe it does, you must also believe we didn't have a right to keep and bear arms before 1791.) Suffice to say, your RKBA does not require the existence of the Second Amendment. So stop bringing it up! Your RKBA is also not contingent on court decisions. A federal court says you don't have a right to keep and bear arms? Screw 'em. And crime statistics don't matter either. Since when is the practice of an inalienable right contingent on statistics?

When all is said and done, you are left holding your beliefs, which never need to be justified. If you believe you have a right to keep and bear arms, then... you have a right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BigG]

Molon Labe: You'll have to thank FPrice, as he came up with that one, IIRC.

Pax: You taught me a new useless word. Thank you!

 

[Mr. Clark]

"I was born with these rights, just as I was born with two arms and two legs." And leave it at that?

That is what we are saying. The problem is that we can't just leave it at that. It is important to show why we were born with these rights and why they are unalienable, which the natural rights tradition, including those that believe they are God-given, does brilliantly.

Many in the modern God-given camp, though, intend that argument to be the end of the discussion. Many anti-BoR people, however, don't believe in God, believe in another God, or think that God didn't give us all of those rights, or any of them, and there is no way to prove otherwise. The person doing the speaking always thinks God agrees with them, and the God-given argument holds no sway with someone who doesn't believe in God. If the argument begins and ends with God, we will lose. It's a non-argument.

None of this, however, is meant to take away from the original point; it's a semantic and tactical thing. The original point is dead on. The second amendment could be repealed and every religious leader on earth can say God changed his mind. I'm still not giving up my gun.

Edit: Molon Labe, that last post of yours says what I wanted to say. As usual, somebody said it first, and better.

 

[BigG]

More tetrapol... tetropal... um hairsplitting!

Mr. Clark: I always heard God is on the side of those with the best artillery.

Seriously, the argument that a right is 1) God-given, 2) natural, or 3) unalienable (= all the same) should go without saying, just as the idea you can keep and bear arms should go without saying.

By acknowledging an (idiot) (atheist) (pick one) who wants to draw attention irrelevant to the discussion you are countenancing the fact that he may have a point.

 

[tyme]

I hate statistics given by both sides. Court decisions, however, are useful because we live under laws and courts decide the law. The fact that you have god-given rights is not going to matter if the legislature passes anti-weapons laws, courts decide they're constitutional, and the executive branch agrees. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment is important as it should bind courts to decide in favor of those asserting rights to own and carry weapons.

By resorting to "come and get 'em", you're implying that the above legal system is beyond hope, that it cannot properly recognize rights. If that's true, we're doomed, because there's no war. You're essentially announcing that you reject the social contract and are living outside the law. That's fine, and it may be moral in some situations, but it's still outside the law.

 

[Molon Labe]

Many in the modern God-given camp, though, intend that argument to be the end of the discussion.

I understand what you’re saying, Mr. Clark. But as I stated in my previous post, we’re ultimately basing our right to keep and bear arms on a philosophical belief. Either a person believes they have a right to bear arms, or they don’t.

When you’re in a RKBA debate, you’re really debating belief systems. And while there’s certainly nothing wrong with sharing your belief system in the hopes of converting people, getting into a heated debate is usually futile. It almost always comes down to, “I believe X, and you believe Y. And that’s that.†Ever been in a religious debate? Same thing.

 

[Molon Labe]

tyme: You and I will have to disagree on this, but speaking only for myself, laws that infringe upon my inalienable rights are irrelevant to me. In fact, they’re even less than that; they simply don’t exist. As if they were never passed to begin with. Again, this is just my personal opinion, and I certainly don’t wish disparage anyone else who holds a contrary view.

 

[jke456]

I agree with you in my heart Molon, but also know in my brain that what are our God givin rights are taken away everyday. Look at most other countries.

For us to keep our God givin rights we will have to keep fighting for them, currently in the courts, legislators, and anywhere else anyone else opposes them. And to do this we have to use what ever ammunition is available, statistics etc....

Any time you change a fence sitters mind you have one a small chunk of the battle. When arguing with a die hard anti I totally agree with your approach and will probaly even use it or something similar. But this approach will not help our cause with fence sitters that is who we must convince.

also:
By basically ignoring the laws because you dont believe in them so they dont exist, then you are setting yourself up for many more of your rights to be removed from you in the form of jailtime.

There is a time and place for resistance of this sort and far more extreme sorts, but we have not yet reached it , in fact we have made a few small advances away from it and truly hope I or my childrens children never see it.

But if the time comes that it is nessacary then I am willing as my children have been taught what it means.



GRD quote"Now I tell people that the 2nd Amendment is the most important sentance ever written in the history of mankind."

So very true just to bad the framers screwed it up by adding the quantifier.
Gives anti's pperceived ammunition that does not exist.


My two cents worth.

 

[Soap]

If you believe in God: God has given me free will to live on this earth. Thus I own my own body, certain natural rights belong to me, including the right to defend my own life which I own.

If you don't believe in God: My parents have given me life. My consciousness is the sole controller of my body. Thus I own my own body, certain natural rights belong to me, including the right to defend my life which I own.

Simple!

 

[Molon Labe]

Jke456: Your feedback is excellent, and I understand what you’re saying.

But I’m tired. I’m tired of fighting all the time. As mentioned in the OP, I have engaged in countless debates, written to congress critters too many times to count, became a lifetime member of the GOA, made web sites, formed a citizen’s militia, donated money to causes, got in contact with local like-minded people, attend meetings & rallies, etc. etc. etc. And I don’t think I’ve made a bit of difference. While I will certainly not give up the “good fight,†I have decided to live my life as free person.

 

[pax]

As far as I can tell, you don't have to believe in God or a god in order to believe that human rights are a basic and inalienable part of being human.

Analogy: my house exists, whether or not I personally know (or even acknowledge the existence of) its architect or builder. It's there. Its existence is self-evident.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." While the Founders went on to cite "their Creator," they very carefully did not specify who or what that Creator might be, because that wasn't the point. The point was that certain rights belong to all human beings equally, that the existence of those rights is self-evident, and that the purpose of government is to secure and protect those rights -- and that all those claims fall into the category of "self-evident truths."

Arguing epistemology can be fun, but in another sense it's kind of pointless. The people who truly do not see the self-evident nature of human rights are also not going to accept any angelic pinhead-dancing you might offer as evidence for same.

It's the same as if I were to point out the window and comment, "The sky sure is cloudy right now." If the person sitting next to me chooses to dispute that statement, the very self-evident nature of my claim is going to leave me a little stymied about what to say next. No matter what other evidence I pull out to prove that the sky is cloudy, my strongest argument was the self-evident nature of my claim. If the person rejects the self-evident claim at the outset, I'm on less firm ground than he as far as debating, despite the fact that my claim is simple, obvious, and true.

Boats was right about the value of being able to argue the RKBA on a lot of different levels. But so was Molon Labe in the post that started the thread: for some people, it just doesn't matter what arguments you are able to present. If they cannot see the self-evident nature of human rights, all arguments to the contrary are going to be just so much wasted breath.

Oh, and BigG? I'd been waiting for over two weeks to casually drop that word into a conversation.

pax

The Heineken Uncertainty Principle:
You can never be sure how many beers you had last night.