arma virumque cano (et alia)
When Mr. Ventura was a Navy Seal, he had a right to bear arms, if such arms where used in the performance of legitimate duties, and acting in accordance with legitimate orders. That right was canceled upon his discharge. He now has no reasonable claim to such a "right" to posses a firearm or defend himself or any other individual with a weapon. While it may not currently be unlawful for him to do so, there is no concrete legal precedent (besides the opinions of a few aging justices) which dictates that he has any guarantee against government regulating the possession, use, carrying, transport, sale, proliferation or any combination thereof, of small arms, or a general or specific prohibition of such.If you do believe such a right exists where does it originate? What entity do you believe to have endowed you with such a right to have the ability to inflict death upon ones fellow man with the touch of a button (trigger), or are your "rights" self-proclaimed?
Piers Morgan is an illustration of the need for stricter immigration standards. Jesse Ventura, by contrast, is slightly crackers, but that gives him an independent voice, something that we desperately need in this one-party nation.E.N., or Laci, or whoever you are, there's plenty of legal and cultural precedent for gun rights in this country. It's only been in the twentieth century that we've accepted more and more government control over all aspects of our lives.You asked about the origin of our rights. Call it God, the gods, human nature, or what have you. The origin doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. What matters here is the effect that our view of rights have as opposed to what appears to be yours. Our view requires a way of treating every person as an individual with rights that must be respected, while you seem to think that the government gets to decide what rights we should have. We believe in freedom, while you believe in control.
E.N. - your right to life implies that you have the right to defend that life even with lethal force if necessary.
Yes, absolutely. But that does not translate into the "right" to own a particular inanimate object.
Yes, as always in your view, Mikeb, a right is a theoretical thing with no practical application.
I'm still trying to figure out what was embarrassing about what Jesse said. orlin sellers
I found it embarrassing, putting myself in the pro-gun shoes. His example about The Philippines when asked about 1st world European nations, his mention of the gun control laws in Mexico, as if they are the cause of the trouble. All of it, Orlin. Pathetic and embarrassing.
Curiously, especially considering the level of violence which casts a stain of blood over recent Mexican history, Mexico has not progresses to the point of prohibiting the possession of small arms by ordinary civilians. The rather bombastic Ventura, failed to understand this concept, which is rather sad (yet amusing) considering the fact that Ventura has previously resided in Mexico.
Both of you, Mikeb and E.N., are nuts. You're handed examples of countries in which dictators pay lip service to rights, but go on to violate the same. You love the example of Europe, despite the fundamental and obvious differences between Europe and America. Remember how we chucked out monarchy? Remember how we have a lot more guns, both per capita and in total number, than the Europeans? Remember how to us, rights are an individual possession, while to Europeans, rights are collective?
Mikeb, if I were you I'd be embarrassed that those European countries have no gun rights and the Britwit failed to mention Switzerland. Jesse's story about the Philippines was in regards to a dictator taking control of a nation and promulgating disarmament of the citizens. Now, what the difference is between that and England promulgating gun control ain't really much different.orlin sellers
Orlin, typically, Morgan forgets about the Czech Republic, a country with a low crime rate and a thriving firearms industry and good gun laws.
Only a paranoid lunatic would seriously consider the possibility that what happened in The Philippines could happen in the US. Of course, gun-rights fanatics who pretend to believe this like to use it to bolster their flimsy argument.
Mikeb, are you sure only a paranoid lunatic would consider that a possibility? I don't think so.Let's look at FDR's EO 6102 which states:[ All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933 ]All the gold people owned was confiscated. Now go read what the Constitution says about our money.Additionally, FDR could have substituted the word 'gun' for 'gold' and it would have happened. Remember, it was a 'state of emergency'. I suppose only a paranoid lunatic would ever think that every single person in the US who wishes to fly on a commercial flight inside or outside the US would ever have to show their papers, be scanned, searched, x-rayed or groped before being allowed to proceed. Yup, Mikeb, it could never happen here.orlin sellers
Mikeb, we have seen evidence that our government violates the rights of citizens and others in this War on Terror nonsense. We have seen societies collapse into civil war and dictatorship. Your faith in our government is the real lunacy here.By contrast, I don't fear our government. I see it as something that must be watched continually. I don't trust it. But I understand the good that it does.
The right to life (however it may be interpreted)is an internationally recognized guarantee for all people of all nations. However each country may interpret such right, it exists in some form or another (with certain exceptions, such as capital punishment or late term abortion, which may be considered an encroachment on this right, depending upon which country you may find yourself in) in all countries there does exist some guarantee, somewhere in the legal code guaranteeing that you will not be killed by your fellow man. The same cannot be said for a "right" for mere citizens to possess, use and proliferate small arms. Some countries such as the U.S. appear to recognize that a right to small arms applies to civilians, not conveying public authority. Other countries do not recognize any right to small arms, including many which enact measures of restricting arms to licensed individuals, prohibiting certain forms of small arms, or by restricting their use to state actors, security agencies, persons conveying public authority, and those with other legitimate interests. Does your god prefer to endow Americans with a legal method of obtaining death-dealing devices, while endowing no such privilege, to Kuwaitis, or Libyans, or the people of Formosa? Even American citizens, who would otherwise be entitled to the use of small arms, can be prohibited from possessing them entirely, if they happen to reside on a military base. American Indian tribes may also stringently regulate the possession of small arms on their land. Also some cites exercise such a degree of control over the possession of arms by non state-actors that it amounts to an almost total prohibition. So you cannot make any reasonable claim that mere citizens possess a inalienable "human right" to "keep and bear" small arms, especially under the guise of defending human life, which the practice of gun ownership so frequently ends.By the way, I have never gone by the moniker of "Laci"
EN is definitely not, Laci. Laci would have said you are too stupid to understand his level of intellect.
Actually I find it quite amusing when one of you espouses your ignorance over the medium of a blog. I can't help but imagine that if these discussions where to occur in person, the Baboons (those who self pontificate while polluting the internet with a thought virus- the antiquated and rather deranged notion of an armed citizenry) would begin to use their feces as a projectile.But that's America.
I was giving you props for being cordial, but I stand corrected.
Well then, E.N., by your same logic we right to free speech is also not pre-existing. It would then also be graciously granted to us by a benevolent government ... is that how you see it?I think the concept you are failing to grasp is that through out the history of mankind, governments have nearly universally trampled upon the pre-exisiting rights of human beings. Free speech and self-defense, including the right to defend one's self from a tyrannical government, are chief among them.Governments may, and many times do, prevent the free exercise of a right. Many times they do this with great force. But that does not cancel the existence of that right.This IS the fundamental concept of freedom that our Founding Fathers fought to bestow upon our nation.
E.N., I give not a damn about how other countries view rights with respect to how I'm going to see my rights here in America. We made a unique decision here that rights are individual, not collective, and exist prior to any government's largess and independent of any vote. That's the best view of rights yet formulated. If you don't like it, feel free to run on a platform of rights having to be submitted to the government for approval. See how well that plays.
Without the government there would be NO rights. How can you, a mere subject of the State, who was born in a government hospital, raised in government schools, benefited from government utilities and regulation, has traveled to and from ones occupation on government roads, and who's life, liberty, and property where protected from threats, foreign and domestic by a government military and police force, be so brazenly arrogant to challenge the very institution that has protected, and indeed endowed us with liberty, property and above all, life. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. If any ancestor of yours had not received welfare, in some form, it is possible that you would not be here today. Has not the food with which we are nourished by (the safety of which is guaranteed by the State)traveled to your dinner table on government roads? Would you be alive today if it where not for a collective right for the State (not the mere subject) to keep and bear arms, in the form of a professional military and police force? We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted.Furthermore, How can a "legitimate" right exist if it manifestly infringes upon the rights of others? We are of such conviction.
EN said: "Without the government there would be NO rights."Really? How do you figure that? [What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.] Judge Andrew Napolitanoorlin sellers
E.N. - since our government is of the people and by the people, then it is not that we are subjects to the State, but instead the State is subject to us. We have decided as a whole to grant the government the right to build roads, hospitals, security forces, etc because they are of equal benifit to all citizens and have been deemed worthy of existence by the citizens. We do not derive our rights from the government, the government derives its power from the people.
E.N., you're correct to say that we all benefit from belonging to a functioning society, but that doesn't imply that we're the property of the state. The argument that you make here is the same as Soviet Russia presented to its subjects. Here in America, we're citizens. The government belongs to us. We benefit from and respect the government, but that only works because it is limited in its powers. You're calling for totalitarianism.
EN: "How can you, a mere subject of the State, who was born in a government hospital ..."There's your error EN. I am NOT a subject of the State. And I was NOT born in a government hospital.
E.N. your arguments are silly. Plenty of citizens of the U.S. have been born naturally (not in hospitals), lived their lives without using government roads (especially before roads existed), were self-educated or educated in private schools, grow either a substantial portion or all of their own food, didn't use any public utilities, and protected themselves and their families from wild animals and criminals without any police involvement. Furthermore, while many citizens take full advantage of many of the "modern conveniences" that you describe, they are certainly able to live a fine life without them. If that were not the case, camping vacations would not be a multi-billion dollar industry that millions of families love and enjoy every year in the U.S. (Hint: my entire family enjoyed a two week camping trip this year ... without running water, electricity, roads, etc. It was wonderful.)Don't get me wrong. This doesn't mean that citizens don't have civic duties or that government serves no purpose. What it does mean is that citizens are amazingly self-sufficient and they do not owe their existent to the state. And they certainly do not derive their rights from the state.
Oh my dear Lord ... E.N. please please please tell me you don't vote! Your backwards thinking is exactly what is wrong with the people in this country.They have completely lost site of the way the American hierarchy is supposed to work. They think that just because the government provides the framework for various essential things that we are beholden to the government when in reality, they create those things at our behest.It may seem like semantics - but the distinction is critical!Watch this and you will see exactly why it is so critical:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHbNCWSVOjc
"by your same logic we right to free speech is also not pre-existing."Whys is it so difficult to just say what you mean without resorting to ridiculous comparisons?
E.N.: "Furthermore, How can a 'legitimate' right exist if it manifestly infringes upon the rights of others? We are of such conviction."I am of the same conviction as well. As I stated in another post, I do not infringe on anyone's rights when I am armed in public. Everyone around me is free to live, defend themselves, go anywhere, do anything, say anything, have objects (property), purchase items or services, and engage in business with me for our mutual benefit. My handgun stays in its holster at all times unless a criminal attacks me or my family with deadly force. Even in that event, I am not infringing on anyone's rights.
There is nothing ridiculous about bringing up speech rights in this discussion. Mikeb, you and E.N. believe that rights have to be granted to us by the government--at least when it comes to guns. We raise a right that you exercise daily to point out that if rights aren't viewed as sacred, there's no limit to what can be taken away.
Thank you Greg. Yes, I am saying exactly what I mean (other than my grammatical typo) which is that right's are either pre-existing or they are not. There is nothing ridiculous about it.
This makes it crystal clear to me. We finally painted gun control advocates into a corner. Gun control advocates simply do not support a nation that operates under Natural Law, Natural Rights, and the Social Contract ... not to mention the basic premise of the role of government in the U.S.I am going to start an education campaign the likes of which the world has never seen. My education campaign is going to explain Natural Rights, Natural Law, the Social Contract, and basic premise of government in the U.S.
Yes, Frail Liberty and Anonymous, we are finally getting the gun grabbers to show their true colors. They don't believe in the same America that we know and love. They want a country in which the government is seen as the fundamental unit, while the people are merely parts in the system. We see individuals as the important entities and government as a useful tool--when properly restrained. Our idea leads to America at its greatest, while theirs ultimately ends in something like North Korea or Cold War Albania.
I just have to do this. This diatribe from EN is just SO full of fail.EN wrote,"Without the government there would be NO rights."Rights became before government, they are called birth rights and are put into protection by the bill of rights. "How can you, a mere subject of the State"No one in this country is a mere subject of any state."who was born in a government hospital, raised in government schools, benefited from government utilities and regulation, has traveled to and from ones occupation on government roads, and who's life, liberty, and property where protected from threats, foreign and domestic by a government military and police force, be so brazenly arrogant to challenge the very institution that has protected" None of the above would exist without the peoples hard work and determination to create a free society and government to protect this society to do great things and prosper. Its called free will"and indeed endowed us with liberty, property and above all, life."We being born of and with free will are all endowed with the liberty to be as great as any individual can be and acquire our own property. Nothing was ever given by the government."The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending."It doesn't matter what century you were in in this country, the above services were created and paid for by the people who wanted it. The people of this country did well enough without those services just fine and can continue to do so today. In fact, in Obamas economy, those tax funded services have been so reduced in some areas of the country now that the people now provide it for themselves."If any ancestor of yours had not received welfare, in some form, it is possible that you would not be here today."Even tho some form of welfare extends as far back as the 1800s, only the indigent and sick made use of it. The majority of the people never knew about it. Most "welfare" came from the help of friends, family and Church's. To say that everyone used welfare is an out right lie. Most people of this country, especially our ancestors were too proud to depend on others. The American spirit won out and people worked hard to be successful. "Has not the food with which we are nourished by (the safety of which is guaranteed by the State)traveled to your dinner table on government roads?"We see how well thats working out today with recalls of food stuffs being contaminated and dangerous. Most government interference is a lot of times to blame for the poor quality of foods now. "Would you be alive today if it where not for a collective right for the State (not the mere subject) to keep and bear arms" We are alive today because of the INDIVIDUAL right to those arms and the wish to collectively join as a force to protect ourselves and this nation."in the form of a professional military and police force?"This a tax payer funded service in which we the people lend part of our power to, not give up the right to protect ourselves. "We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted."Again, no one is a subject, but a citizen of this country with responsibilities and obligations. And even tho some take for granted the property and freedoms that they enjoy, they still earn those enjoyments by working in a free society and country to do so."Furthermore, How can a "legitimate" right exist if it manifestly infringes upon the rights of others? We are of such conviction"The right exists as explained before, an individual right. That right does not automatically infringe on others until the person abuses that right.
I like where that was going, the example that the government this and that. People survived and became prosperous without the government help. If fact, without people prospering on their own and paying in the taxes there would not be any roads, schools, hospitals and such that are funded by the government. The government doesn't own wealth, the citizen does. The citizen then in effect pays for those roads, schools and hospitals on their own by proxy of the elected by the people sent to the government to represent us.The government did not create this nation, the people did. The people do not serve the government, it serves the people. The people that created this government survived just fine before the government was created. After the creation of the government, the representatives in it were elected by the people to represent those that elected them. If they did not, or the vision of that representative did not meet the expectations of the people, the people replaced them with someone else.This country, and its government was created to be different than a kingship or dictatorship. It was created because the people did not want to live under an authoritarian rule. They wanted to live freely. Laws were created to punish the wrong doers, not to restrict those that do right. Taxes were created not to punish or rob from the successful, but to give everyone a say in where and what those funds were to be used for. If the majority agreed, then a road or service was built, if not then it wasn't.The military was created to protect this nation as a whole from outside enemies, not to control the people. The militias before that was a voluntary force made from the people that armed themselves. They were to protect a community or borders, not to be lords of the community.To sum up, (as I can go on for a LONG time!), this government simply would not even exist without the will and the power of the people. Not the other way around. Our will, ideas, power and freedoms are expressed and guaranteed by those documents known as the Declaration of Independence, the constitution and the bill or rights. They are not living documents, they are ideals that are timeless.
I agree with Anonymous--Texas Colt carry has made a good point, as he often does. What we're seeing here is a clear statement of the two views of American society--one held by the gun control advocates and the other by those of us who believe in gun rights. The difference is not really over safety or saving lives. What lies at the heart of these two positions is our place in society. To my side, a person has individual rights and individual responsibilities. That person may benefit from and participate in society, but society is not the primary unit. To the gun control people, society is what matters. We each must seek the permission of the whole to act. The latter is a more European than American view, one that doesn't sit well in this country.