What makes the RTKBA a Right?

The most profound statement made in this thread:
Click to expand...

I feel special.

Alright, I'm about to sidetrack here, but it will come back on topic. Sometimes we forget that the bible was written by scribes (as divinely inspired as they may be). It's like ants explaining to each other what us humans do. You just can't. RSV:

1:1 First God made heaven & earth....1:8 ...a second day.
Click to expand...

Them scientists say that the stars and the planets were first. Next, what exactly is a "day?" Doesn't God exist out of and beyond time? How exactly are scribes gonna convey this to the masses, or even to themselves? "Oh, billions and billions of years of space and time mean nothing to God; for Him, they're more like another day passing."

1:11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation... 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly....1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts...""
Click to expand...

Scientists say that the first life forms on earth were simple plant-based doodads. Assuming that a "day" in God's time can mean any vast incomprehensible stretch of time to us mere mortals, let's see the progression: next there was sea life, then these creatures came onto dry land. Then a bunch of dinosaurs evolved into birds and land-based animals. Yep, them scientists say that too.

1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man...
Click to expand...

AH HAH! Man is the last to come about. Them goshdarn scientists also say that we homo sapiens are a relatively new species compared to the history of all animals.

Recap: First there was the planet. Then came plants. Then sea animals, which parked their butts on dry land and became land animals. Then Humans. All over the expanse of 6 days, but as we know, 6 days in the "eyes" of God could very well be something on the scale of oh say, 10-15 billion years. Isn't all of this first chapter the same progression that those godless scientists try to indoctrinate us with? Moral: Who says evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive?

I'll tell you who - the same people who swore that the earth was flat, or that pointing a telescope to Jupiter is heresy. Don't listen to them. Read Genesis for yourself. I'm most definitely not the first to come with this version of evolution and the Bible, but I assure you that it was my take, the first time reading it. We were too arrogant as a species to accept the fact that we're not at the center of the universe. Now we're too arrogant to think that God didn't have billions of years of priorities before finalizing on us. I could be wrong, but so can you.

When Man created the 1873 Colt Single Action Army, he didn't just scoop up some iron ore and breathe gunpowder into it. Man started with crazy Chinese firecrackers, which evolved into smoothbore cannons, then flintlocks, rifling, muzzleloaders, black powder, cartridged ammo, AND THEN the SAA. Is the SAA's significance and place in Americana diminished by the realization that it wasn't created from scratch in 1 day?

Segue: I'm trying to point out that presuming how God works, or what God is thinking is just too... presumptuous. If we shouldn't be assuming how God thinks, then when we shouldn't be assuming what God thinks of RTKBA.

Back to main subject: nay on the appeal to authority. If we Americans are the only ones left (okay, and Switzerland too) who realize that RTKBA is divinely ordained, then what's the rest of the world doing? Are we the last country on earth to know what God wants? Now that is arrogant.

I think Americans are pretty unique in the world regarding RTKBA because of the way our country was founded. I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that our forefathers were just pissed off about being forced to pay taxes, being unable to smuggle molasses and rum with the Spanish, and being unable to plunder Injun territories as they please. So we decided that we had the right to overthrow our own government.

We Americans don't take @#$%& from nobody.

Or, to quote my own signature, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - who guards the guardians?
 
The right to keep and bear arms evolved from a more rudimentary right to use your arms for walking. We still see this behavior in anthropoid apes. But don't give them guns. Trust me on that one.


Oh, and I'm not the one who annoyed Antipitas. This time. I think it was you, Applesanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This time. I think it was you
Click to expand...

Me? Not I. Antipitas and I are at least in agreement about the founding fathers being swayed by Enlightenment thinking. At any rate, not much is accomplished by trying to figure out what was their course literature in philosophy class. What is more important is what they were doing, and what they wrote. They essentially committed treason on a massive scale, and then rationalized it.

I don't have their quotes on hand like I usually do, but their writings were mostly along the lines of "best defense against tyranny" and so forth. So that would probably make RTKBA part of the People's contract with the government. Self-preservation, on the other hand, is just biological. This difference is why I think the 2nd amendment is a conscious, man-made progression of self-preservation, instead of something that is simply inherently so.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my philosophy. And for the record, I'm an agnostic, but I still believe in natural rights that, like our moral instincts, exist within human minds as the product of man's evolution as a social creature. (Note that non-human social animals often display primitive morality as well: see here.)

Anyway, we have the natural right to bear whatever arms would allow us to overthrow a government that becomes our enemy simply because no one has the right to rule over anyone else. Ruling is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege can be revoked as long as the governed are capable of doing so. The Founders of America sought to legally guarantee that that capability wouldn't be infringed.

Of course, no piece of paper can enforce itself. There is plenty of armed law enforcement in the US, but NO armed enforcement of the Bill of Rights. That's why we're losing those rights. There are no real consequences to members of government when they make laws violating the Bill of Rights or order the enforcement of those laws.

This is why it's so important that each and every gun owner who has any guts at all REFUSE to surrender his gun or other rights and be prepared to DIE rather than do so. This isn't just tough talk; it's FAR more important that we be prepared to kill and die in defense of our rights than it is for any soldier in the US military to be prepared to kill and die while fighting an enemy overseas. We shouldn't desire to kill others and should consider that a last-resort defense; but any able-bodied gun owner who thinks of his rifles as nothing more than a range toy is already a slave and is part of the reason why Americans will eventually lose ALL of their rights.
 
Anyway, we have the natural right to bear whatever arms would allow us to overthrow a government that becomes our enemy simply because no one has the right to rule over anyone else. Ruling is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege can be revoked as long as the governed are capable of doing so.
Click to expand...

Now we are back to evolution. :)

Al please forgive me and cut me off if you want or I'll start a new thread or you or I can just delete this post, but it is truly germane to the RKBA issue:

I posit: If you dont beleive in evolution you cannot believe in the foregoing quote anmd specifically a "natural right" to kba. God and natural rights are mutually exclusive.

WildmuddyingthewatersAlaska
 
I posit: If you dont beleive in evolution you cannot believe in the foregoing quote anmd specifically a "natural right" to kba. God and natural rights are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I guess if the talk is whether rtkba is "natural", then we can still be on topic. But backtrack, please. I sorta lost you there.

AppleHeadingOffToTheNRARangeAtNRAHeadquartersInFairfaxVAin15MinutesToEmptyABrickOf22AmmoSanity
 
RKBA doesn't really look like a natural right for all human beings. It seems more like a valuable privilege that a war-making people can secure for themselves if they're willing to fight for it and are victorious. The founders of the US were just such people. Look around the world and at all of human history and see how many people have had weapons and government at the same time.


Neolithic hunters: All men have weapons
Bronze/Iron age farmers: soldiers have weapons
Industrial age workers: soldiers/police have weapons


When a real government exists, it deprives the governed of weapons. Only when the governed are fighting men who won't give up their arms do they have weapons. The Founders had to fight the greatest military power of their time (and win) to be able to write the 2nd Amendment. No mean feat.
 
Tonight there was a guy with a tacticool AK to my left and a guy with a 30-30 lever action to my right. Not exactly the best environment to for concentrating. Did empty a brick .22's anyway. The two rifle guys probably shot no more than 50 rounds between them. .22's are so cheap.

Well God granteth and god can taketh away, yes?
Click to expand...

So you're saying, if God giveth and taketh, then the implication is that whatever He's giveth-ing is a gift and privilege... and not a right in the sense of our bill of rights? point.
 
In re Antipitas' post:

Don't forget the Scot republican Andrew Fletcher and his A Discourse on Government with relation to Militias (Edinburgh, 1698) in which the phrase "well-regulated Militia" appears. Reading Fletcher shows clearly what the founders were getting at with the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Some have suggested or implied that "might is right" and that people have no RKBA unless they are able to win them through force or intimidation. That is absolutely true in a practical sense -- and that's why it's urgent that gun owners be willing to physically fight for gun rights -- but I think it kind of strays from the question of what a "right" actually is.

IMO, rights don't exist somewhere out there in space or in some metaphysical realm. They exist in human minds, just like fear, love, and emotions and instincts in general. When we say, "we have a right to defend ourselves," what we mean is that we feel we are entitled to self-defense, and that feeling is based on deeply-seated instincts of right and wrong, justice and injustice. It's all tied in with moral instinct, which I believe is the product of man's evolution as a social creature (see the link in my previous post).

Regardless of the reasons why I think the RKBA is a right, I'm claiming that right for myself, and I will not part with it under any circumstances. To be unarmed is to lack human dignity and to be a potential toy and plaything for those who are armed. I would rather die than be subjected to such indignity. I fervently hope that enough other gun owners feel the same way.
 
A man is only as good as his tools. Firearms are tools, from a particular point of view. If a man has a right to have life and liberty, then it follows that he needs those tools with which to keep that life and liberty. The Founders were pretty bright fellows. They understood that any man or group of men placed above another would sooner or later choose to bully other men, simply because they could make laws that would give them advantage over men without arms.

Men are a strange lot, always seeking ways to control everything. Many would rather exercise control over others, rather than exercise self control. If one understands that it the nature of men to destroy each other, it is commonsense to reserve the right to resist men who wish to destroy others.

I find it oddly entertaining that government tells citizens to be responsible with their weapons, yet at the same time history shows how irresponsible governments are with their weapons. We as firearms owners understand that weapons are not for solving arguments. When will governments understand the same? Self defence is the only good reason for any weapon. Once mankind no longer endeavors to control and/or kill through the force of arms, we will no longer need the RKBA. Until then we are stuck with the need for arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top