We've been fooled

[Stand_Watie]

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."

Insert one of those little smiley faces that are holding a sign with an arrow pointing up that says "yeah that" here.

That particular quote from the DOI is a good proof that the founding fathers were deistic philosophically speaking, but their particular beliefs regarding a specific higher power or the details of their beliefs regarding that higher power are incidental to the specific point that they were making.

 

[jke456]

quote:
"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."

And that is why you should relax from it for a while, retire sort of to speak.
I am new here and to th RKBA, even though I have hunted all my life.And it seems every couple of days I see someone typing their first message on here or TFL or other boards. Recently I converted my first hmmm what ta call him..... being my father and all..... hunter will fit from being all for the AWB to totally against it "if it is how ya explained it"

My point is if your that tired let some of us younger guard take up the fight. It is our duty as Americans to fight for what we truly belive in. I truly believe in your concept about the God given right, but in order to keep that right from being taking away from me I shall fight in the bloodless manner first.ie statistics etc...

The older guard should be the ones to help guide us in our fight, because as you have pointed out, been there done that. Any mistakes you made from it will help the younger learn in ways that are not publicized..

You dont have to go fight the fight to be part of the fight I guess is what I'm saying. Stick around with your statistics and such share what you have learned....hell post a notice such as:
"even though I dont believe this has any bearing on my God given right to defend my self this is the ....... that makes you look stupid"

just another two cents

{at this rate you gonna get rich}


btw forgot to add "sure wish someone teach me how to use them little quote box thingies"

 

[wingman]

Once you give up your right to self defense then all else is lost no matter
how rich or poor, however many seem willing to do so.

 

[dustind]

talk of God given rights is not going to impress an atheist.

I disagree. Atheists believe in rights too. I doubt religion or lack of religion has anything to do with someone recognizing your rights, and everyone understands the concept of natural human rights.

 

[Moparmike]

I agree with the original point of "come and take them...", but I have a hard time with telling someone that my right to own guns is as natural as my right to breathe. They will want to know why my right to owning an inanimate tool is akin to my right to inhale oxygen, which continues my life functions. My guns sit here collecting dust. They could be employed into action at any time, but so could an inordinate amount of inanimate objects at my disposal at this very moment.

Don't get me wrong, I am as ardently pro-gun as any of you. But saying that my right to a possession is the same as my right to my life isnt crossing the "logic bridge" in my mind, and I dont know why. From a purely "inanimate object" view, does the same arguement hold for cars, boats, TV's, etc etc etc.... Anything but the basics (air, food, shelter) doesn't get past the "bridgkeeper" for me. I have a right to them, but all rights are not created equal. Air, Food, and Shelter have a higher priority than Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They are right next to eachother, but not equal. .990 vs .999.


Does anyone see what I am saying? I am not entirely sure I am making sense.

 

[BigG]

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.

Well said, pax! And quite a bit along the lines of my own thinking. I feel no compulsion to preach to an unbeliever (in God, Liberty, RKBA, ad infinitum) on matters self evident. The bible even covers it quite succinctly. I'm hardly a bible thumper but I know enough to do a quick google search which revealed the following:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:4-5)

Translated, that means you have to be judicious when dealing with a fool. It takes wisdom to know when to ignore him and when to rebuke him.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

MoparMike

What are you if you have food, shelter and clothing, and nothing else? Happy? Surviving? Bear Bait? Serf?

Is not shelter a "tool" and clothing another tool?

A firearm is a tool. Surviving is one level of existence. Survive for what? For the sake of survival?

Self-determination. Rock, club, pointy stick, firearm. These are the tools that allow defense and self-determination (prevent slavery, coercion). These implements were as important as fire.

Try not to limit the "field of rights." If you have rights only for food, shelter, air, then what do you really have?

I decide what I have the right to for my "existence."

Edited: Bleary-eyed early morning caffeine-jolted [blank]

 

[BigG]

I don't think you have a right to food or shelter. You have a need. your right to air only exists since they haven't figured out how to tax it yet.

 

[rock jock]

ML,

Your argument goes directly to the question of what constitutes a right. I have always believed that there are three types of rights:

1. Rights granted by God
2. Rights granted by the state
3. Rights people grant unto themselves

Anybody can say anything is their "right" and use it as a justification for actions both good and bad. So, calling something a "right" is meaningless unless you can exercise it. And, in order for you to have the ability to exercise any right in a meaningful way, it must either fall into the second category or you must be able to convince others that it is indeed a right and is worth fighting for. A sole declaration of a right that nobody else recognizes is likely to get you jeers at best and prison or a bullet at worst, and, I may point out, often for good reason. So, I would say that it is in your best interest to always work to persuade others to your way of thinking.

 

[pax]

Air, Food, and Shelter have a higher priority than Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They are right next to each other, but not equal. .990 vs .999.

MoparMike,

Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about that: "The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." -- Thomas Jefferson

I sometimes have a hard time formulating my own words for stuff like this, because I have so many good things that other people have said rattling around in my brain. Here's another one, this one from Ronald Reagan: "Freedom is individual -- there is no "s" on the end of it. You can diminish it, but you cannot divide it and choose to keep 'some freedoms' while giving up others." -- Ronald Reagan

What both of these thinkers were driving at is that it is literally impossible to separate your right to life from your right to liberty, or either from yourself. Both rights are an inalienable part of your very nature as a human being.

Other people (and especially groups of other people, eg government) may use force to prevent you from exercising your liberty.

But the fact is that you not only still have the right to be free -- you are still free.

What?

Another quote: "Human behavior can only be initiated by an act of will originating within the person acting. It cannot be caused or controlled from the outside. If you refuse to cooperate with the tyrant, he cannot cause your cooperation. He can push you around, even kill you, but he cannot cause you to initiate any purposive action." – Greg Swann

And another: "... no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything --- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." – Robert Heinlein

Your actions as a free human being are always your own, even when someone else is using force against you. Other people cannot cause you to do any particular thing; they can only make it pleasant for you to do that thing or unpleasant if you don't do it.

Of course, if you've never realized that, you haven't been acting like a free man: "Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked..." -- Robert Heinlein

"Man is free, but not if he doesn't believe it." -- Giacamo Cassanova de Seingalt

To sum up what we've got so far: Your right to life comes from the same place as your right to liberty and your right to pursue happiness. All three flow out of your very nature as a human being. Just like your life, your liberty is always yours, whether you choose to exercise it or not, and regardless of any external force.

And now, let's turn the corner and look at what other people have said about life with and without exercising liberty:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." -- Patrick Henry (speech before 2nd VA Convention, 1775)

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Delores Ibarruri

"There are many things more horrible than bloodshed, and slavery is one of them." -- Padraic Pearse

"... we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." -- the Declaration of Independence

I literally have dozens of quotes echoing the same theme. Good and great people all through history have looked at the choices before them and decided that liberty was more important than food, shelter, or anything else essential to life, and more important than life itself.

If you want to make a hierarchy out of these inseparable and inalienable rights, I think a case could be made that liberty (which includes owning whatever you dang well want to own) is higher on the totem pole than life itself. Certainly a lot of notable people throughout history have thought so.

pax

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. – Samuel Adams

 

[pax]

7.62FullMetalJacket ~

Great post. You used the short form of what I was very fumblingly trying to say!

pax

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Mr. Clark]

and everyone understands the concept of natural human rights

I wish that were true, dustind. Maybe it comes from living in a university town and being surrounded by the enemy, but I have met many, many people that think the only rights people have are the ones that society decides to give them and that they have them only so long as society continues to think it is a good thing. They think rights are granted by the government and that proper government action is by majority rule. The concept of a natural, unalienable right is completely beyond them.

I recommend "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized 'Rights' " by Ayn Rand.

They explain what a Right is, what it isn't, why we have them, and why they are unalienable and (if it's the right word) inseparable. I will post an on-line source if I can find it.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

pax,

Your effort was more eloquent and poignant. I expect no less. You have smooth edges while I am a little more rough around the perimeter (especially during an early morning on the road)

 

[Moparmike]

I understand what you are saying.


I think what I am trying to say is that without the 3 needs first, I cant live out my rights. They can go hand in hand, using the rights to aquire the needs, but the needs must be taken care of first or at the same time as my rights.

You have a right to travel, but without gasoline, your car cant go anywhere. You must first fulfill the need for gasoline before you can exercise your right to travel. I must first fulfill my 3 needs before I can exercise my rights to not be oppressed, right of free speech, arms, fair justice, etc.

I look at it as a hierarchy:

1. 3 Basic Needs
2. Inalienable Rights and the exercise thereof
3. Wants
4. Etc.

If you have the basics covered, then go and enjoy your rights. But if you dont have them covered, then you really should be concentrating on feeding and sheltering you and yours. Your right to free speech, etc. should be put on hold by you and you alone until you have them covered.

But, you also have the right to die of starvation because you concentrated on speaking your mind. Its a free country...

I am still not sure if I am making sense.

Edit: Most people have the basics covered and dont even think about their right to their life at all. But that would change if they were in constant fear of their child starving.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I'll try to cook it down after some thought.

"Life without liberty is not life at all"

 

[jacketch]

This has been considered before.....

a long time ago.

"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."

Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-53 BC)

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Very nice.

 

[Simon Boone]

Molon Labe is the finality of it all.

Joey2: My Dad has a S&W model 36. A .38 Special, and I think a 2" barrel, revolver. I'm not sure it's had more than 100 rounds put through it.

Molon Labe: Could not have said it better myself. You're a good man, Charlie Brown. Proud to call you...friend.

Simon.

 

[Treylis]

I recommend "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized 'Rights' " by Ayn Rand.

Recommendation seconded.

 

[Simon Boone]

Treylis: Love your signature. I've read Boston, John Ross and Matthew Bracken, but haven't had the opportunity to read Rand yet. I look forward to it.

Simon.

 

[Sam Adams]

Molon Labe said:

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?

I heartily agree that the RKBA is not dependent upon the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is simply a contract between The People and the government, laying out the terms of the job that the government will be doing for The People. The job specifications are fairly narrow, and the Bill of Rights was added to that great document in order to comfort state delegations to the Constitutional Convention which were concerned about the power of the federal government getting out of hand at some later date. This was done by specifying the particular areas in which the government had no (or extremely limited) power. These areas dealt with liberties that were so fundamental to the nature of a representative republic that any infringement upon them would destroy the whole framework. Neither the Constitution nor the BOR actually GRANT any person or "the people" any rights, they merely restrict or, in the case of the RKBA, PROHIBIT government action against those rights.

Look, if someone tells me that my RKBA depends on the 2nd Amendment, I basically laugh in their face and respond, "So, I guess that your right to free speech or freedom of religion depends upon the existence of the 1st Amendment, right? In other words, if I don't like what your political positions are, or I dislike the way you worship G-d (or even THAT you worship G-d), and I can persuade enough Congressmen and state legislators to repeal the 1st Amendment, then the government could freely censor you or forbid you from attending a house of worship or owning any religious articles - right?" That shuts up most of these idiots.

Moparmike said:

I agree with the original point of "come and take them...", but I have a hard time with telling someone that my right to own guns is as natural as my right to breathe. They will want to know why my right to owning an inanimate tool is akin to my right to inhale oxygen, which continues my life functions. My guns sit here collecting dust. They could be employed into action at any time, but so could an inordinate amount of inanimate objects at my disposal at this very moment.

I'll respond with a quote from someone else whose name I cannot recall and didn't record, but whose wisdom I'd like to help preserve:

I (we) exist.

Inherent in that existence is the right to continue that existence, and that right exists everywhere we are.

There is nowhere on this earth or off it where the right to defend yourself does not exist.

Implicit in this right of self-defense is the right to take positive action to actually effect that defense.

Since you have the right to take action to defend yourself, you also have the right to use tools to make that defense as effective as possible.

Since an immediate threat to your life is the most dire circumstance imaginable, and that this threat can emerge at any time, and in any place, and since failing to deal effectively with the threat means that you DIE FOREVER (as far as we can tell, anyway) any and all means are legitimate to effect your defense.

Therefore, you naturally have the right to possess and have with you, anywhere, the most effective means available to defend yourself, be it a stick, spear, sword, flintlock, modern firearm, forcefield, or phaser.

If you deny any element of the above, the whole thing will unravel all the way back to your very existence, and you are really arguing that someone else has a right to make you not exist.

(Since most gun banners feel that banning guns somehow contributes to their continued existence, they ultimately undermine themselves, and achieve the opposite effect, both in theory and in practice!)

I.O.W. Moparmike, we need tools to survive in this world, every bit as much as we need oxygen. We can generally survive longer without the tools, but long term both are just as necessary. THAT is how you answer someone who thinks that you don't have the right to own tools of self defense.

 

[Poodleshooter]

A right opposed by a greater power such as government or the mass of voters, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
The ability to exercise a right is freedom. The simple notion or statement that a right exists, if not held by many others, is useless.
That's why I think all this talk about "natural rights" is useless. So what if you have "natural rights"? If you can't exercise them as freedoms, and they only exist in your mind, what's the point? The only rights that matter are those that can be practiced as freedoms, or those that can be won as such. Currently our freedom to own firearms rests on one thing ONLY-the whims of our government and the whims of the voters. If we ignore that, we will lose other freedoms as well,while we sit in a jail cell or grave with all of our rights bundled up in our heads.

 

[BigG]

You summed it up Poodleshooter, all the talk ain't worth warm spit. Got to mebbe burn powder to earn the liberty to exercise these "natural God-given rights".

 

[mattd]

I don't want to sound like a keyboard commando but Freedom isn't given, you have to fight for it, think of lions and zebras. Either that be on the internet, the tv, a billboard or the streets, where ever. We are in a never ending war over our self righteous minds/freedoms and minds of others. When someones mind can't be changed by themselves with the "guiding light" of another, and if someone feels its that important, then there is nothing left but physical violence.

 

[John Ross]

Many people have never had the concept of natural rights vs statutory rights explained to them, just as many people have never had common law crimes vs statutory crimes explained to them.

Rape is a common-law crime. It is recognized as inherently wrong to physically force an unwilling partner to engage in sex. That Uday Hussein may have been able to use his authority to make such an act "not a crime" for him does not change the evil in the act.

Statutory Rape is NOT a common-law crime. A pair of twenty-year-olds enjoy consensual sex this morning. Is it legal? Yes. Is it inherently wrong? No. Tomorrow, the legislature raises the age of consent to 21. The couple has consensual sex tomorrow night. Is it legal? No. Is it inherently wrong? Still no.

Similarly, natural rights are those rights that people have just by breathing.

I dislike ever using the term "God-given" because it is imprecise. Natural rights not only exist for people who say God doesn't exist, Natural Rights exist EVEN IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE RIGHT!

Americans in each state have the right to vote for President or travel in interstate commerce, but obviously these are not natural rights, for such a right could not exist without the federal system or some variant thereof. You can't very well travel interstate if there aren't any states to begin with.

To address the initial post, I believe you can have more success by illustrating the danger of tinkering with natural rights. I wrote a piece called MISTAKES WE MAKE a few years back that had some of this in it. Here it is, for those of you who haven't seen it:

MISTAKES WE MAKE by John Ross

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns."
(FLAW: the implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a
reasonable plan)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah" (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, CCW should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What IS important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a gov't review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the gov't as chief nanny."

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns carried by soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and used fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Hunh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you relly want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?

Use any of this you can.

JR