What makes the RTKBA a Right?

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
This has come up in several recent threads. We all use "Right to Keep and Bear arms" pretty freely in this thread, but many of us talk as though it is really a privilege to keep and bear arms rather than a right.

For instance, since by law of the man, only the United States (now in a VERY limited sense) "allows" people to own guns and carry them by permission of the state, then the "right" TKBA only exists in the United States and to even entertain that it should be excersiced overseas or across the border is illegal and should not be done.

Well, we talk all the time in here about how "I would never let the government have my guns." Why, if the government is the one that "allows" you to keep your gun and carry it then they have every right to take it away. Why is the US any different than any other country?

"The constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms."

No, the constitution PROTECTS a right that already exists by God and the nature that surrounds us. It is the right to protect ourselves and our communities. and YES having a weapon is necessary to the right of self defense therefore having a weapon, including a gun, is a right. If you deny me the right of carry of a gun, then you have denied me the means of defending myself. PERIOD.

Even for some who don't necessarily believe in the Christian God realize that this right (and others) is self-evident. The Constitution is supposed to protect God-given rights that already exist from the Federal government. It doesn't "give" you any right. If the Constitution "gave" you any rights, then what has really been done is that you have been given a privilege by a piece of paper written by man that may be revoked by other men at any time and you have no real leg to stand on in arguing your case.

All that being said, does that mean that just because a right exists by nature that all countries recognize it? We know the answer to that. But does that mean that the right doesn't exist nevertheless for people in England, Japan, Germany, Russia, Chinia, Mexico, Brazil, India, Hawaii, Australia, South Korea, North Korea, Egypt, New York City? No, that right does exist. The laws of nature that God put it place trumph any unjust law that man (whether it's Edward the Longshanks, Rudy Guliani, Diane Finstein, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Vladimer Putin, Hillary Clinton or Abraham Lincoln) as put in place.
Does that mean that the U.S. military (or any government that genuinely recognizes this right) should invade a country that does not recognize this right (or any other right) and make them do so? No. Each country has a right to govern itself.

But I will say that such a government that does recognize this right as God-given and naturally absolute should do everything to liberate prisoners who are citizens of their own country that are being held for exercising that right (rescue operations etc.) and should grant asylum to anyone fleeing for excericing that right (or any other right)

Ted Nugent may just be a singer and entertainer, but what is said rings true. "I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I have a right to defend myself"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

If you don't believe in God or don't believe that there are any absolute rights by the nature of life, then what you ultimately believe in is man made laws that allow you the privilege (whatever that privilege may be) and it may be revoked at any time. You might not like it, but what can you really say against it when it comes right down to it since, depending on the reader's view, there are not absolute rights?

So the ultimate question is: Do you as a gun owner believe in the Right To Keep and Bear arms or the Privilege to Keep and Bear arms?
 
People sometimes forget how carefully worded the bill of rights is. It's a list of ten "thou shalt not's" - amendments that limit the the government, instead of granting priveleges. It's "Congress shall not," instead of "The People may have." Moreover the wording specifically says that the State has "powers," while the People have "rights."

More so than the right of self-defense, it's the right to overthrow your own government. I think it has to do with the way our country was founded. A bunch of Brits tried to raid an armory and the Minutemen were all like, "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, you redcoats." I doubt that firearms would be so inherent in American culture if our country was founded without our forefathers kicking some ____ along the way.
 
I also get annoyed at the people who claim that the second amendment doesn't mean what it says, and "They would have worded it differently".

No.

The people who wrote it included LAWYERS. And if they had meant it as the antis claim it is, they would have written it as "...the members of organized, formalized militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." They did not. They said, succinctly, "the people". And that is what they meant.
 
The Constitution list exactly what the government is supposed to do - it's duties and responsibilities. It also states how we would hire (by elections) the temporary employees (elected officials) needed to perform the duties of government.

The Bill of Rights list what that government may never, ever do.

The government has no 'rights' to give to anyone.
 
No, the constitution PROTECTS a right that already exists by God and the nature that surrounds us. It is the right to protect ourselves and our communities. and YES having a weapon is necessary to the right of self defense therefore having a weapon, including a gun, is a right. If you deny me the right of carry of a gun, then you have denied me the means of defending myself. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

True - I would carry it one step further that denying the right to defend yourself denies you the right to life - a standard that even preceded the constitution and is in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence which reads in part:

The Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson declared: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to life must include the right to defend that life.

:D
 
Last edited:
f you don't believe in God or don't believe that there are any absolute rights by the nature of life, then what you ultimately believe in is man made laws that allow you the privilege (whatever that privilege may be) and it may be revoked at any time. You might not like it, but what can you really say against it when it comes right down to it since, depending on the reader's view, there are not absolute rights?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I don't believe in a god or believe there are absolute rights by the nature of life. If humans hadn't evolved sapience then the very concept of "rights" wouldn't exist because we wouldn't have mental capacity to conjure them up. Does a wolf have the natural right to defend its home from another wolf? No, it's just nature.

That being said I believe the right does exist because we are sapient. The very nature of being an intelligent species that clawed itself to the top of the food chain, that we can reason and understand the world in ways no other animal is capable, is what gives us the right of self-defense. A dumb animal has no more right to life than my truck has a right to synthetic oil however you and I have the right to life because we are an intelligent species and as a whole we've created a society that agrees we all have the right to life - even if a lot of us disagree on how that right should be exercised.

So I don't believe in a higher power and I don't believe that rights are a part of nature. I believe rights are inherent to self-awareness and the mutual agreement of such things that are the result of the creation of a civilization.
 
More so than the right of self-defense, it's the right to overthrow your own government.
Click to expand...
Ah, damn good point. We should never forget that the second amendment is not about protecting ourselves against criminals but protecting ourselves against tyranny.

In that case, do we have that right if there's no government to defend against? If the world collapses into anarchy I'm certain most of us would be well-armed and prepared to fight off thugs looking for gas but without a government to run things do we still have that right to overthrow a government...that doesn't exist?
 
No, the constitution PROTECTS a right that already exists by God and the nature that surrounds us.
Click to expand...

There is no god. Now what do you do.?

But I will say that such a government that does recognize this right as God-given and naturally absolute should do everything to liberate prisoners who are citizens of their own country that are being held for exercising that right (rescue operations etc.) and should grant asylum to anyone fleeing for excericing that right (or any other right)
Click to expand...

Thank God there is no country that views owning and carrying weapons as god given, since free countries dont base their policies on God, which does not exist.

So you guys can continue, now knowing you are arguing a faulty premise :)

Now if you would spend as much effort dealing with the laws of man in your particular jurisdiction it would be more profitable.

WildtheathiestAlaska
 
That being said I believe the right does exist because we are sapient. The very nature of being an intelligent species that clawed itself to the top of the food chain, that we can reason and understand the world in ways no other animal is capable, is what gives us the right of self-defense. A dumb animal has no more right to life than my truck has a right to synthetic oil however you and I have the right to life because we are an intelligent species and as a whole we've created a society that agrees we all have the right to life - even if a lot of us disagree on how that right should be exercised.

So I don't believe in a higher power and I don't believe that rights are a part of nature. I believe rights are inherent to self-awareness and the mutual agreement of such things that are the result of the creation of a civilization.
Click to expand...

Survival of the fittest. Okay, so if one day the majority of mankind in country A, B and C or heck let's just say 85% of the planet, says that the right to....let's say property and TKBA (self defense) no longer exists and each shall be confiscated and forbidden that means that that right doesn't exist anymore. In short, from what you are saying, rights are subject to what man thinks from age to age or moment to moment. Here one minute, gone the next.


There is no god. Now what do you do.?
Click to expand...
That's actually a very good point against any absolutes if one really believes that...but I won't go there since the subject of "religion" is a forbidden topic.

Now if you would spend as much effort dealing with the laws of man in your particular jurisdiction it would be more profitable.
Click to expand...
and what leg would you have to stand on? If you don't believe in any absolute authority, how can you believe in absolutes, and if you don't believe in absolutes how can you believe in any sort of rights.

if you don't believe there is any authority which trumps what jurisdiction A B or C might say, that's your business, but just understand where your reasoning ultimately ends up. Whoever is in power determines what you can or can't have and it is based on their changing opinions. One day throwing men and women into hot ovens to decrease overpopulation may be fine, another day it might be considered wrong.
 
+1 wildalaska

and this is somewhat on topic, but from time to time I hear that " I have guns to prevent the government from turning into a tyranny" But I just cannot see a bunch of republicans, and definitely not democrats actually doing the whole revolution thing.
 
Survival of the fittest. Okay, so if one day the majority of mankind in country A, B and C or heck let's just say 85% of the planet, says that the right to....let's say property and TKBA (self defense) no longer exists and each shall be confiscated and forbidden that means that that right doesn't exist anymore. In short, from what you are saying, rights are subject to what man thinks from age to age or moment to moment. Here one minute, gone the next.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, that's why it's up to us to not only be prepared to defend that right we hold dear but to convince others that we're right so it never has to come to bloodshed. I will not give up my guns to anyone. Period. But I'd rather take the time to convince that 85% of the population as opposed to having to shoot them all.

Not so long ago it was seen as a "right" to own slaves. Of course rights are subject to what man thinks, they are a creation of man and man alone.
 
^ me too. But how are you going to convince anyone that you/they have a right to anything if you believe that there are no absolute rights.

Our Founding Fathers and their forefathers didn't think that way, go back and reread the Declaration of Independence.

They don't say "We hold these truths to be what we want them to be at this moment and time...." or "...they are endowed by us at this moment because we want it to be, certain privileges...."

That doesn't hold a lot of water.

Read OJ's post. Listen to Ted Nugent's comments.
 
^ me to. But how are you going to convince anyone that you/they have a right to anything if you believe that there are no absolute rights.
Click to expand...
By being honest and explaining why an armed population is so important, why it's the most logical, reasonable choice for a free and secure society.
Our Founding Fathers and their forefathers didn't think that way, go back and reread the Declaration of Independence.

They don't say "We hold these truths to be what we want them to be at this moment and time...." or "...they are endowed by us at this moment because we want it to be, certain privileges...."

That doesn't hold a lot of water.

Read OJ's post. Listen to Ted Nugent's comments.
Click to expand...
The Founding Fathers were wrong about a lot of things. They were not perfect nor were the documents they authored. Simply put, a piece of paper and a claim that there's a higher power granting these rights is not enough nor should it be. Idealism must be tempered with logic and pragmatism. You're not going to convince antis that we should be allowed to have guns by claiming that god says you can.

In a few generations I imagine - rather, hope - the major religions of the world will begin to die off, at least in America. Relying on this idea that our rights only exist because of a "creator" - whether that be god, allah, vishnu, the force or the flying spaghetti monster (may you be blessed by his noodly appendage) - is a recipe for disaster. I'd like such rights to continue existing long after I'm dead.

i read OJ's post but even the "right to life" only exists as long there are enough people that agree we have a right to life. Even then some people feel that right should be taken away for crimes while others believe the right to life includes the right to medical care.
 
The Founding Fathers didn't just say "God says we can have it so it is." they backed it up with reasoning and logic as studied throughout Scriptures, History and human experience.

But your logic falls flat if there is no authority to back it up. Hitler's logic says to your logic, a state controlled society free of guns is the intelligent and wise way to secure a nation and people from harm.

Thinking and reasoning are important (that's why God gave us minds) but if it is just left to competing opinions of men, then all you are left with is that the one who has the most power or guns or clubs or swords wins out (IOW that part about you not wanting to shoot everybody wins out)

But because these rights are indeed self evident (even the Bible says that people even in their hearts know these things....but I'll stay away from that as religion is forbidden) people will be more prone to listen if you speak with authority. I mean, people when it comes right down to it know they have the right (really the responsibility) to provide food for themselves, not depend on the state. They know they they have the right (really to responsibility) to defend themselves, not the state. They know they know that they have a right to live, not whether the state says they should or not. The state may saturate them with propaganda and it may hold true for a while, even decades but it is self evident that it doesn't work.
Unfortunately, there is a weakness in us that has a desire to be secure and safe. (that's why we have metal detectors all over the place now) And if we don't believe in anything beyond ourselves we turn to government(man) to provide for us and defend us at the surrender of our rights and liberties.
 
Thinking and reasoning are important (that's why God gave us minds) but if it is just left to competing opinions of men, then all you are left with is that the one who has the most power or guns or clubs or swords wins out (IOW that part about you not wanting to shoot everybody wins out)
Click to expand...

God didnt give us minds. Evolution did. And social/political relationships are far more complex than simple power relationsships.

WildsacrificeAlaska
 
The Founding Fathers didn't just say "God says we can have it so it is." they backed it up with reasoning and logic as studied throughout Scriptures, History and human experience.
Click to expand...
If they couldn't argue it with reason and logic alone then it wasn't justified. Scripture is worth about as much to me as rolling papers so I don't really care what they had to say about that. History and human experience are the important bits, the ones we should focus on. We win the argument with reason because an armed population is the most logical course of action for those that believe in liberty and for those that believe we all have a right to life.

But your logic falls flat if there is no authority to back it up. Hitler's logic says to your logic, a state controlled society free of guns is the intelligent and wise way to secure a nation and people from harm.
Click to expand...
Yet Hitler's logic was not agreed upon but by a small percentage of the population. The "authority" is the human species as a whole.
Thinking and reasoning are important (that's why God gave us minds) but if it is just left to competing opinions of men, then all you are left with is that the one who has the most power or guns or clubs or swords wins out (IOW that part about you not wanting to shoot everybody wins out)
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it. That's what nature is all about, competition. Every species on the planet - including homo sapiens - evolved to what they are today because of competition for resources and the need to adapt to the environment which is essentially a competition against that environment.

Yes, the one who has the most power wins. That's how the nature works. Two galaxies collide, the one with the larger mass is more likely to remain intact and absorb the other one. Two wolves combat over a mate, the more powerful one is more likely to win and spread his genes. A cheetah chases a gazelle, the faster animal is more likely to win. Two neanderthal tribes fight over territory, the ones better able to fight either through strength or numbers or technology are more likely to win.

European settlers float around the world and meet indigeneous peoples. They have the guns, the germs and the horses to compete against the natives and they generally win. You mentioned human experience and history above; well, all of human history has been about the strongest wielding power over those weaker than them.

The competing opinions of men are what makes us human. The ability to have opinions, the ability to reason and form logical thought are what seperates us from the lower animals more than anything else. I know that if push comes to shove the bigger guns/clubs will win the argument but I'd rather spend my time fighting with words and knowledge, convincing others to see reason, than simply being stubborn and claiming my rights come from some higher power that doesn't even exist.
 
But because these rights are indeed self evident (even the Bible says that people even in their hearts know these things....but I'll stay away from that as religion is forbidden) people will be more prone to listen if you speak with authority.
Click to expand...
First of all, if one can't make an argument without appealing to some authority then one does not deserve to win that argument. Second, people that will only accept reason and logic because it comes from a higher power are fools.

I mean, people when it comes right down to it know they have the right (really the responsibility) to provide food for themselves, not depend on the state. They know they they have the right (really to responsibility) to defend themselves, not the state.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Both of those things are cultural. Learned opinions that vary depending on the person. If you raise a child telling him his entire life that he is never allowed to fight and must always depend on the police for help then he is not going to know that he has the right and responsibility to defend himself.

And if we don't believe in anything beyond ourselves we turn to government(man) to provide for us and defend us at the surrender of our rights and liberties.
Click to expand...
Wait so the only choice is religion or government? o_O How about I won't bow down to any authority, be it an imaginary friend or a congress critter? How about I prefer a world of reason and logic?


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top