My View on Bearing Arms

Silver_Bullet

Rogue One
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
1,137
Location
NC/SC Line
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Our right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right. It proceeds this republic we know as the Untied States of America, and the second amendment to our republic's constitution . Our inalienable rights flow from God or Nature, rather than from government.

Wait a second, I know, someone is thinking how is the right to keep and bear arms a god given right? Someone is going to say it's not an inalienable right, that it's granted by the US constitution. Anyone heard of Divine law, and Natural Law? As an example Divine Law says in the bible that “Thou shall not murder” Natural Law gives us knowledge that killing for no reason, or evil reasons is wrong. Natural law is why a man who has never read the bible knows when something is evil or wrong. It's why many of us have a conscious that tells us right from wrong. It's a moral compass. Some believe natural rights flow from god, others believe they just occur naturally, that's another debate, so I'll keep this topic about the right to bear arms.

OK here is where all this comes together. Those natural laws that tell our conscience that killing for evil reasons, or stealing is wrong, also incline us to own our own property and protect that of which we own. Most importantly our greatest property is our own life, and such a property given to us by god must be defended. God or nature, depending on your beliefs, has given us life, and we have a duty to take the responsibility, and personally defend it to the best of our ability. To be able to effectively defend your life and liberty today, firearms is a must.

On this subject John Locke wrote “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else.”

The gift of life is inalienable, coming to us from God, or if you don't believe in God, we will just say nature. And the right to defend that life ,with the common and most lethal arms of the day used by those wishing to take life, is also inalienable because it comes from God or nature. So even without the Bill of Rights, a piece of paper written by great men to help protect our future God given rights, we still have the Right to keep and bear arms. Whatever another man or Government does to deny or infringe such rights, is against Divine Law and Natural Law. To say we can't have such and such arms, is denying us not only Constitutional Rights that our founders of this Republic put in place as an attempted safeguard, but also God Given Rights or Natural Rights. Our Liberty is God Given, and it is our duty to protect it, and this is why our founders wrote the second amendment. They believed the greatest threat to a minorities liberty, came from government. Any dictator knows power comes from arms, or as the little Chinese communist once said, at the end of a barrel. We must remain vigilant, as we can not afford to keep giving up more and more of our inalienable rights.


Rogue_One
The poster formerly known as that thing that kills werewolf's or what the Lone Ranger carried in his gun.
 
FlatFender;n35691 said:

LOL I'll be honest. I had to google that. All you young kids with your dang internet slang that are too lazy to read 5 short paragraphs of a stated opinion because they would rather read a short sentence that doesn't require too much what is to them hurtful thinking, see a naked picture off someone's wife, or listen to a podcast on someone's opinion :p
 
Rogue_One;n35698 said:
I'll be honest. I had to google that. All you young kids with your dang internet slang that are too lazy to read 5 short paragraphs of a stated opinion because they would rather read a short sentence that doesn't require too much what is to them hurtful thinking, see a naked picture off someone's wife, or listen to a podcast on someone's opinion :p

For the record: I don't frequent the naked wife threads, and if I was in charge we wouldn't have them on a shooting forum.

And I'm just messing with you.
 
FlatFender;n35700 said:
For the record: I don't frequent the naked wife threads, and if I was in charge we wouldn't have them on a shooting forum.

And I'm just messing with you.

For the record I may peek at them off the record, never on the record, because off the record I possibly agree with you, and I'm messing with you. It was a joke of me trying to sound old, as on the record TH could be my father, maybe GF.
 
Rogue_One;n35705 said:
For the record I may peek at them off the record, never on the record, because of the record I possibly agree with you, and I'm messing with you. It was a joke of me trying to sound old, TH could be my father, maybe GF.

For the record TH is not my Girl Friend (GF), as I don't know his real gender Identity. I meant Grand Father.
 
Rogue_One;n35617 said:
Rouge_One
The poster formerly known as that thing that kills werewolf's or what the Lone Ranger carried in his gun.[/FONT]

You had me, right up to "Rouge_One".

What, are you selling red lipstick or something? Maybe posing for a lipstick-on-a-pig shot?

The Lone Ranger's sidekick was rouge, I do believe. But he didn't wear rouge lipstick.
 
FlatFender;n35691 said:

Really, ?

First 4 paragraphs are about Girl friends going to Holiday Inn and the 5th is about how she ( girl friend, wife , ? ) sports around in a tablecloth.


[video=youtube;Nj2700em-JQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2700em-JQ[/video]
 
FlatFender;n35691 said:

- The Constitution only affirms what is already in place; it does not bestow rights
- Being passive and just hoping that your rights will remain is BS; part of having them is a responsibility to maintain them
 
RetiredUSNChief;n35715 said:
You had me, right up to "Rouge_One".

What, are you selling red lipstick or something? Maybe posing for a lipstick-on-a-pig shot?

The Lone Ranger's sidekick was rouge, I do believe. But he didn't wear rouge lipstick.

Hey in today's society it's perfectly acceptable for me to go from silver to rouge lipstick . You are just going to have to accept it and conform if you don't want to be labeled a bigot!
 
RetiredUSNChief;n35715 said:
You had me, right up to "Rouge_One".

What, are you selling red lipstick or something? Maybe posing for a lipstick-on-a-pig shot?

The Lone Ranger's sidekick was rouge, I do believe. But he didn't wear rouge lipstick.

The Lone Ranger's sidekick was Tonto and his horse was silver. Don't rightly remember his gun having a name.

I need to learn to read better. Yes his gun carried silver bullets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Schattenreiter;n35864 said:
The Lone Ranger's sidekick was Tonto and his horse was silver. Don't rightly remember his gun having a name.

What did the Lone Ranger carry in his gun?
 
Rogue_One said:
Rogue_One;n35705 said:
For the record I may peek at them off the record, never on the record, because of the record I possibly agree with you, and I'm messing with you. It was a joke of me trying to sound old, TH could be my father, maybe GF.

For the record TH is not my Girl Friend (GF), as I don't know his real gender Identity. I meant Grand Father.
I was going to go with "girlfriend", but since I've met both of you, I'd have to go with SD and BM. Sugar daddy and baby momma. Y'all can decide who is who.
 
Rogue_One said:
Schattenreiter;n35864 said:
The Lone Ranger's sidekick was Tonto and his horse was silver. Don't rightly remember his gun having a name.

What did the Lone Ranger carry in his gun?
Yes I caught that after going back and rereading it. Edited my post to correct my error.
 
I agree with our resident Rouge. The question is what do we do about it? The problem as I see it is the concept of government itself. Government is force. It attempts to bestow upon a subset of people super powers through the application of a form of religious ritual. It makes about as much sense as drilling a hole in your head to alleviate a headache. What's worse is that if you decide you don't want to be a part of it, and play it's game, it will send its enforcers after you. While the idea of government is irrational, the treat of violence from it is very real. Of coarse it would be possible for government to sell its services, through contractual agreement, but this isn't how it works.

This leaves us, who reject the edicts of government, be it "laws" against natural rights or theft under the guise of taxes in a real conundrum. Far too many people have bought into the concept and willingly "obey", in fact they've been programmed to believe that it's righteous to do so and feel good in doing so. Much of our language has been dedicated to this function even. Let's look at the government enforcers for a second: the "law enforcement" officer. I'm sure many of them are good people who desire to protect their community, but the fact remains they're the threat and force arm of an illegitimate system and once you take away the ritual they are seen as thugs and bullies, at least when applied against a citizen whose "crime" is to not obey "government" without hurting or harming another person.

I am nearing completion of the construction of a building and it is highly offensive to me to have to get PERMISSION from the damned "government" to use it and then I will be subjected to theft arbitrarily because of it. Believe me, I would like to handle this very differently and convince the clerk to simply remove me from their system as I do not wish to partake in their game and as I realize that this is nothing more than being subject to a wrongful use of force, but I also know where this is likely to go because undoubtedly they will be stupid and try calling in their agents of force. This will result in a situation where I am getting attacked and will need to fight for my life against rogue agents collecting a paycheck. The calculus is a lose lose proposition be will remain so until enough people stand up and say NO under the threat of retaliatory force.

So I ask, what do we do about it? What do we do about this illegitimate government?
 
noway2;n36062 said:
I agree with our resident Rouge. The question is what do we do about it? The problem as I see it is the concept of government itself. Government is force. It attempts to bestow upon a subset of people super powers through the application of a form of religious ritual. It makes about as much sense as drilling a hole in your head to alleviate a headache. What's worse is that if you decide you don't want to be a part of it, and play it's game, it will send its enforcers after you. While the idea of government is irrational, the treat of violence from it is very real. Of coarse it would be possible for government to sell its services, through contractual agreement, but this isn't how it works.

This leaves us, who reject the edicts of government, be it "laws" against natural rights or theft under the guise of taxes in a real conundrum. Far too many people have bought into the concept and willingly "obey", in fact they've been programmed to believe that it's righteous to do so and feel good in doing so. Much of our language has been dedicated to this function even. Let's look at the government enforcers for a second: the "law enforcement" officer. I'm sure many of them are good people who desire to protect their community, but the fact remains they're the threat and force arm of an illegitimate system and once you take away the ritual they are seen as thugs and bullies, at least when applied against a citizen whose "crime" is to not obey "government" without hurting or harming another person.

I am nearing completion of the construction of a building and it is highly offensive to me to have to get PERMISSION from the damned "government" to use it and then I will be subjected to theft arbitrarily because of it. Believe me, I would like to handle this very differently and convince the clerk to simply remove me from their system as I do not wish to partake in their game and as I realize that this is nothing more than being subject to a wrongful use of force, but I also know where this is likely to go because undoubtedly they will be stupid and try calling in their agents of force. This will result in a situation where I am getting attacked and will need to fight for my life against rogue agents collecting a paycheck. The calculus is a lose lose proposition be will remain so until enough people stand up and say NO under the threat of retaliatory force.

So I ask, what do we do about it? What do we do about this illegitimate government?


Government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed.
 
In the spirit of the OP, here is an essay I wrote to help me clarify my own thoughts on "common sense gun control" after December, 2012. I think it supports the argument of Rogue_One above.


A Moral Argument for an Individual Right of Self-Defense and the Implements Necessary for Effective Exercise of that Right



Premise 1: Judeo-Christian, other religious and secular philosophical systems establish an individual Right to Life as a fundamental right.

Premise 2: A fundamental Right of Self-Defense follows from the Right to Life.

Premise 3: A fundamental right to use the means necessary to exercise effective self-defense including weapons capable of lethal force follows from the Right of Self-Defense.

Premise 4: The Right of Self-Defense is tempered by the Principle of Proportionality – the force used in self-defense must only be sufficient to render the aggressor unwilling or unable to continue the attack and must be suspended when that goal is achieved. One can envision likely scenarios in which self-defense would be required and what level of force one would need for effective self-defense under this doctrine (“Plausible Scenarios.”)

Premise 5: Governments are instituted to secure the Natural or fundamental rights of the people. Governments may not infringe the fundamental rights of their citizens except in limited, exigent circumstances and with due process and with a broad concurrence of the people.

Conclusion: Therefore, government may not restrict the possession by an individual of weapons which would be necessary for self-defense in plausible scenarios except in limited, exigent circumstances and with due process and with a broad concurrence of the people.



If this argument is valid, it would be immoral – regardless of legal or constitutional considerations – for government to forbid its citizens possession of weapons or other tools that would be necessary to defend their life and the lives of those around them in a scenario wherein they might find themselves. Is it plausible that a person could find himself in a scenario wherein he was confronted by multiple attackers of greater physical ability than he and wherein to mount an effective self-defense he might need a firearm capable of discharging multiple rounds in rapid succession? An example comes readily to mind: the Korean shopkeepers who used AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles to defend themselves and their property during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Is it a plausible scenario that one could experience a home invasion or gang activity in one’s neighborhood wherein deadly force could be brought against an innocent person before police could intervene? If it is, one has a right to a weapon that would enable him to repel that threat. Such a scenario might well require a semiautomatic rifle or handgun with a “high capacity” magazine. From the argument above, government restrictions on one’s ability to possess and use these weapons abridge a fundamental moral right; such a restriction is therefore itself immoral.

At this point the advocate for restrictions on gun ownership often raises the straw-man argument, “Well if you insist on an ‘absolute’ Right of Self-Defense why not get a tank or nuclear weapons?” This argument is easily defeated by the Principle of Proportionality and the consideration of Plausible Scenario. A tank or nuclear weapon would not be a proportional response to a threat one is likely to encounter. The Principle of Proportionality requires one to use the least force necessary to neutralize a threat. The restriction of this principle to plausible scenarios further weakens these straw-man arguments in current circumstances, but it allows the expansion (or restriction) of justifiable weapons as the threat level changes.

A better defeater of the above argument is the “Public Safety/Greater Good” argument that would look something like this:

Premise 1: The Right to Life and Right of Self-Defense exist.

Premise 2: The presence of certain firearms in our society increases the risk of death or injury to innocent people.

Premise 3: Greater public good and greater preservation of the Right to Life would ensue from the restriction of certain firearms.

Premise 4: Alternatives to the restricted firearms exist for self-defense.

Premise 5: Restriction of certain firearms is an acceptable infringement of the Right of Self-Defense.

Conclusion: Therefore, certain firearms should be restricted.

The counter-argument to this argument relies on defeating the premises, which are largely empirical. If one can demonstrate that empirical data refute the premises, the argument is defeated. Premises 2 and 3 are widely disputed and statistical data is easily obtained that refute them outright. Premise 5 is a value judgment that is influenced by one’s worldview and circumstances. Politicians who are protected by armed security might agree with Premise 5; single mothers in the inner city might not. The strength of the above “Moral Argument” rests on argument from widely accepted (one might say “self-evident”) principles rather than empirical or value-based premises.
 
trcubed;n36367 said:
Government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed.

I trust you do realize that this is an oxymoron. Governing is the opposite of consenting. There is NO such thing as consentvof the governed, if you are governed you have by definition not consented and if you consent then you aren't governed.
 
noway2;n36612 said:
I trust you do realize that this is an oxymoron. Governing is the opposite of consenting. There is NO such thing as consentvof the governed, if you are governed you have by definition not consented and if you consent then you aren't governed.

I realize the oxymoron, but I don't think it's quite as black and white as you imply. Our consent can be withdrawn when the government oversteps its bounds, doesn't conduct itself as we require, etc. Our failure as a society is that we haven't pushed back or removed our consent. I'm thinking, and hoping, this last election headed us in that direction.
 
trcubed;n36756 said:
Our consent can be withdrawn when the government oversteps its bounds, doesn't conduct itself as we require, etc.

One of the fundamental problems is that as soon as you take a group, engage in the religious ritual, and make them government, they will abuse that position. It's inherent in its very nature.

You should read The Most Dangerous Superstition. He spells it out much better then I can. Here is a link to an online edition: http://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-con...-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf
 
noway2;n36836 said:
One of the fundamental problems is that as soon as you take a group, engage in the religious ritual, and make them government, they will abuse that position. It's inherent in its very nature.

This is exactly why the Founders intended our representatives to serve only one term, then go back to their farm, business, whatever. It's also why the US capitol was build in the snaky, mosquito infested swamp that was Washington in the early 1800's. The didn't want anyone to stay there long-term and make a career of politics.

To what 'religious ritual' are you referring?
 
The primary religious ritual that I'm referring to is the process of elections. It is basically a form of ceremony to convince people if it's legitimacy. If you look beyond that, you can see all sorts of ritual and cannon designed to make the government system appear mystical.

No doubt the career politician is a problem. It is indeed a smptom of that which I stated, that government by its nature will and is corrupt.

Something else to consider: you can't consent for another. What about those of us who do not consent to this charade? We still have it forced upon us against our will. Perhaps the tree does need watering?
 
noway2;n36879 said:
The primary religious ritual that I'm referring to is the process of elections. It is basically a form of ceremony to convince people if it's legitimacy. If you look beyond that, you can see all sorts of ritual and cannon designed to make the government system appear mystical.

No doubt the career politician is a problem. It is indeed a smptom of that which I stated, that government by its nature will and is corrupt.

Something else to consider: you can't consent for another. What about those of us who do not consent to this charade? We still have it forced upon us against our will. Perhaps the tree does need watering?


The tree absolutely needs watering. It's been thirsting for decades. Had the election not turned out as it did, it might have already gotten a drink, but we've probably just kicked that can down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Don
I don't believe no government is the solution noway2. There will always be a need for law and order. I'm not an anarchist. I'm a classical liberal, a libertarian, a believer in true fiscal conservatism. I am a supporter of a limited government. One important role government can have is to protect the rights of the people. One problem we have today is overreaching power from unconstitutional branches of our federal government, and laws that violate the constitution. We need laws that protect the rights of the people. We need a system to deal with the violation of individual rights. I know our founders didn't like a standing Army, but given the weapons of the day, and the threat level we now constantly face in a world where one can travel around the world in less than a day, we need protection, a standing military this day in time that operates fiscally smart. What we don't need is career politicians. Term limits is a must. That would take care of those seeking the power for the life of corruption, do a year or two of service and go home. For many power hungry individuals it wouldn't be worth it, but it would attract more of those bright individuals who want to temporarily volunteer to do something to make their country better.
 
Rogue_One said:
I don't believe no government is the solution noway2. There will always be a need for law and order. I'm not an anarchist. I'm a classical liberal, a libertarian, a believer in true fiscal conservatism. I am a supporter of a limited government. One important role government can have is to protect the rights of the people. One problem we have today is overreaching power from unconstitutional branches of our federal government, and laws that violate the constitution. We need laws that protect the rights of the people. We need a system to deal with the violation of individual rights. I know our founders didn't like a standing Army, but given the weapons of the day, and the threat level we now constantly face in a world where one can travel around the world in less than a day, we need protection, a standing military this day in time that operates fiscally smart. What we don't need is career politicians. Term limits is a must. That would take care of those seeking the power for the life of corruption, do a year or two of service and go home. For many power hungry individuals it wouldn't be worth it, but it would attract more of those bright individuals who want to temporarily volunteer to do something to make their country better.
Well said
 
And what I'm saying is that I have to wonder if your ideal, a limited government, is even possible. Similarly, I'm starting to question whether a government is really needed st all or if it is concept that is past it's time.
 
FlatFender;n35700 said:
For the record: I don't frequent the naked wife threads, and if I was in charge we wouldn't have them on a shooting forum.

And I'm just messing with you.


WTF? We have a naked wife thread?
 
Salami;n37420 said:
WTF? We have a naked wife thread?

No! Not here at CFF, At least not that I've seen yet. We were being sarcastic, both of us. That's sometimes lost in writing.

That said......

We we have a platinum membership section, but fieldgrade does the vetting and controls potential access. It's hard to get in. A very exclusive club. I'm a site Admin and I can't even get in.
 
Rogue_One said:
Salami;n37420 said:
WTF? We have a naked wife thread?

No! Not here at CFF, At least not that I've seen yet. We were being sarcastic, both of us. That's sometimes lost in writing.

That said......

We we have a platinum membership section, but fieldgrade does the vetting and controls potential access. It's hard to get in. A very exclusive club. I'm a site Admin and I can't even get in.
Somehow I knew that was going to follow me here. Lol
 
The main thing that I learned from this thread is that a lot of people don't know the correct way to spell rogue.
 
TSheaffer said:
The main thing that I learned from this thread is that a lot of people don't know the correct way to spell rogue.
and don't you forget it.
 
TSheaffer said:
The main thing that I learned from this thread is that a lot of people don't know the correct way to spell rogue.
I think they just like the thought of Rogue_One with lipstick on.
 
Rogue_One said:
Rouge lipstick might go well with my beard.
And some sensible pumps.
 
Back
Top Bottom