View Full Version : Great article "The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights"
The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html?m=1 (http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html?m=1)
Has this article been linked on here at all? I apologize if it has been. My search turned up nothing. Regardless... this has to be one of the most well written articles on the subject of gun rights that I have read and its written by a liberal to liberals. I post it here so that others can use it to send to their anti-gun friends. I don't want to start a left right liberal conservative argument. I just think this is a great article for changing peoples minds.
bchase75
10-23-2013, 09:11
Great article...thanks for posting!
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 09:52
The very first sentence tells us much about the author's fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution:
Let’s start with this: The citizen’s right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right.
After that, he continues on with the "political right" nonsense. Doesn't change my mind about liberals and the 2A at all. He obviously doesn't understand the concept of the Constitution limiting government's power and arguing that man has certain God-given rights as opposed to the granting of political rights.
How you can you take that seriously?
You did not read far enough in
An interesting read. Thank you for posting.
Sadly, many people are entrenched in whatever side they have chosen on this issue, and reading this or any article or participating in any well thought out discussion is not likely to sway many to either side.
This is trench warfare and it is being waged each and everyday in our government schools. If the progressive movement continues to control the ground in the government schools, the right to bear arms, along with many other fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution will be redefined in ways we can hardly imagine.
Continue the fights at the ballot box. Continue to raise your children to love and defend the rights they were born with. Encourage others in the shooting community. Do everything you can to take back the school boards from the teacher's unions.
Be safe.
CStone sadly that is true. But I can tell you honestly that I have changed peoples minds. You all may not like me but I go out into the left side trench all the time and battle them in terms that they understand and I do change minds. I have seen it with friends.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 10:18
You did not read far enough in
Really?
No right is “god-given” or “natural” (although there are some that we, for good reason, treat in our socio-political discourse as if they were).
The Declaration of Independence seems to disagree with that:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
CStone sadly that is true. But I can tell you honestly that I have changed peoples minds. You all may not like me but I go out into the left side trench all the time and battle them in terms that they understand and I do change minds. I have seen it with friends.
I hope you don't expect reciprocity [ROFL1]
To me the RTKBA is a simple, fundamental, right instilled in all citizens by our Creator. It is one of many rights I believe i have at birth that just happens to be guaranteed by the Constitution. Progressives seem intent to replace my rights with government dependence. Their need seems to be driven by both their desire for control and a perverted sense of paternalism. I want neither and will accept neither.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 10:20
And this self-professed liberal will continue to support liberal candidates, usually democrats, that will do everything within their power to diminish your rights and mine. Rationalize it however you want. This guy is not pro-gun.
Bailey... heres a dream for you. I dream of a time when there is no attack on gun rights from either side. How will that happen by working to make gun rights a non partisan issue. By keeping it as a partisan issue then we will always be at risk of losing our rights.
I hope you don't expect reciprocity [ROFL1]
To me the RTKBA is a simple, fundamental, right instilled in all citizens by our Creator. It is one of many rights I believe i have at birth that just happens to be guaranteed by the Constitution. Progressives seem intent to replace my rights with government dependence. Their need seems to be driven by both their desire for control and a perverted sense of paternalism. I want neither and will accept neither.
I think there is some truth to that but it is also far to short sighted. The same thing can be said of the right on many other issues. Most obvious being the freedom to take drugs if a person so chooses. So neither side is exactly perfect. Not all opinions on the left are wrong and neither are all opinions on the right correct. I honestly think the insane positions taken by both sides are done on purpose to keep the people in check from ever calling for real reform to our corrupt system of government and finance.
Bailey... heres a dream for you. I dream of a time when there is no attack on gun rights from either side. How will that happen by working to make gun rights a non partisan issue. By keeping it as a partisan issue then we will always be at risk of losing our rights.
And I dream of a time when murdering unborn children will not be a partisan/political issue. It's a pipe dream.
Many people fundamentally disagree about the nature of man and his relationship to other men. Many of these same people fundamentally disagree about the meaning of the Constitution and a citizen's relationship with the government the Constitution created.
I don't foresee any major changes any time soon.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 10:35
Bailey... heres a dream for you. I dream of a time when there is no attack on gun rights from either side. How will that happen by working to make gun rights a non partisan issue. By keeping it as a partisan issue then we will always be at risk of losing our rights.
I didn't make it a partisan issue. The democrats have made it a partisan issue. The democrats have placed increased gun control and bans on types of weapons as a central plank in their party platform. If you support democrats then you're a de-facto supporter of more and more gun control. It's really very simple.
Politics isn't about ideals or dreams. It's about winning elections. After you win elections you can start to put your ideals into motion...or law.
I'll just agree to disagree...this guy doesn't know what he's talking about and I found much of his essay to be full of holes and flowery-worded nonsense.
CStone please don't bring abortion into here. Keep it out of this please.
CStone please don't bring abortion into here. Keep it out of this please.
Why? Because it is a hot topic? So are gun rights.
My point is, people are free to make up their own minds and vote their own conscience. You dream of a day when gun rights will not be partisan? That is a pipe dream. Like every other political issue, you can remain ignorant, neutral, or pick a side. Fortunately for us, we do not have to pick a side on one issue and let that one issue define who we are as people.
I don't argue abortion. I see it as a self correcting issue. Those who support it will not be raising too many children to support it.
Fine you want to go down that rabbit hole.... I don't give a rats ass about anti abortion people because they are always the first people to try to kill the kids later either through starving them to death by ending welfare or food stamps or by working against universal healthcare that would give medicine to children. You want me to care about your fetus rights... well start giving a shit about living kids first.
blacklabel
10-23-2013, 10:52
Fine you want to go down that rabbit hole.... I don't give a rats ass about anti abortion people because they are always the first people to try to kill the kids later either through starving them to death by ending welfare or food stamps or by working against universal healthcare that would give medicine to children. You want me to care about your fetus rights... well start giving a shit about living kids first.
Well that went about as well as I expected it too.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 10:54
Well...that's what happens when you try to debate with a liberal.
And thus your hyperbole is revealed. If someone disagrees with you about welfare, food stamps, healthcare, etc... you call them baby killers and accuse them of not giving a shit about living kids.
I don't want you to care about anything. You offered us a link to an interesting article. Your opinions about gun rights are noted. Your support of one issue certainly does not make you some special crossover breed of liberal/progressive who will bring peace to the gun rights debate.
Did someone tell you that you would someday unify the Sith and the Jedi through your specialness Anakin?
And thus your hyperbole is revealed. If someone disagrees with you about welfare, food stamps, healthcare, etc... you call them baby killers and accuse them of not giving a shit about living kids.
I don't want you to care about anything. You offered us a link to an interesting article. Your opinions about gun rights are noted. Your support of one issue certainly does not make you some special crossover breed of liberal/progressive who will bring peace to the gun rights debate.
Did someone tell you that you would someday unify the Sith and the Jedi through your specialness Anakin?
thus yours hyperbole is too... anyone for abortion rights are baby killers. I don't want abortions. But I don't want BIG GOVERNMENT to force anyone to do anything with their body. You want to end abortion then make birth control free. But the anti abortion people work against birth control. Its madness....
blacklabel
10-23-2013, 10:59
I did not derail this
But you did go full retard.
And like Bailey, your article became null to me when it denied that my right to bear arms is a natural right.
blacklabel
10-23-2013, 11:01
You want to end abortion then make birth control free.
Condoms are a buck and pulling out is free.
Zundfolge
10-23-2013, 11:03
The very first sentence tells us much about the author's fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution:
I agree that the author lacks a fundamental understanding of the hows and whys of the Constitution ... that said I'm willing to set that aside for the time being and use his work to convince liberals to leave my guns the hell alone.
I'd rather NOT fight someone that appears to half agree with me (if even for the wrong reasons) then fight with someone that completely disagrees with me.
As a tool to convince other liberals to leave our guns alone, this article goes a long way ... as a tool to get liberals to understand the inner workings of the Constitution it falls short but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step and this is a good first step.
Blacklabel actually if you read further down into the article it does go to the point that the right to bear arms is the right to self preservation. It is most prevalent as the counter argument to the stupid argument the left uses that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect slave masters from slaves. Again I know this article is LONG but it is really good. It is also written to get a liberal to rethink his position. So it must therefor start with premises that they can partially identify with and then slowly change their position. It would never work if it just beat them over the head with the concept of natural right. Though I whole heartedly agree the 2nd Amendment is the right to self preservation.
Zundfolga articulated that well too.
BushMasterBoy
10-23-2013, 11:07
As history shows again and again, whoever has the weapons, makes the rules!
I wasn't making an argument for or against abortion. I used my personal position on abortion to point out "your dream" about gun rights not being a partisan issue as a "pipe dream."
I don't care what you think about abortion. I don't expect anyone here cares what I think about abortion either. Just don't be naive to spend time dreaming or wishing for something that is just not possible. Gun rights is a partisan issue. Who cares who makes it a partisan issue. It is. Be ignorant, neutral, or pick a side. Fight for what you believe and don't spend time dreaming about peace between people who don't want peace.
You've stated that you have persuaded some liberals to respect other citizen's gun rights. Good on you. The debate continues and I don't believe any article will change that.
I believe this is a bigger issue. Do people want freedom or comfort. The two are not always mutually exclusive, but when you choose one, you tend to move away from the other.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 11:08
You want to end abortion then make birth control free.
Birth control is free. Of course, that would necessitate accepting responsibility for one's actions. End of the argument for liberals because that's somehow repressing some other made-up right. Do you not even understand that birth control can't be "free"? Seriously? You do realize someone is paying for your "free" birth control.
By making birth control "free" you're pushing the financial burden on to someone else who may disagree with the principal of birth control or paying for someone else's birth control. You're basically endorsing slavery.
And I'm supposed to believe you're "pro-gun"? You're as absurd as you've always been.
Yes Bailey I am not pro-gun. That is why I posted an article that I hoped would help others educate those who are not for gun rights. Wow... brilliant assessment Bailey.
CStone... yes many people are recalcitrant in their thinking. That is esp true with people who are older. But right now I am more worried about educating my liberal friends who are younger and it is working.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 11:20
Yes Bailey I am not pro-gun. That is why I posted an article that I hoped would help others educate those who are not for gun rights. Wow... brilliant assessment Bailey.
So you just want to resort to being a dick. That seems like standard operating procedure for you. I've told you why I disagree with the article in concrete terms. I've told you why I don't believe you can be a liberal/democrat and support their party and party platform and be pro-gun. I've done that without being rude or being an ass...despite my inner ass telling me I should behave like you. Instead of rebutting with a logical argument you immediately try to drag the conversation into the gutter without any logical response.
Sorry...I don't see how the discussion of the 2A can proceed when someone is arguing from a flawed understanding of the Constitution. I've already told you I disagree with the essay and why. You wanna be a dickhead...knock yourself out. You ARE good at it.
I find the people who are most recalcitrant in their thinking are the people who believe they are right. Unless you can convince a person that their belief is wrong, you have no business telling them otherwise. It is just rude.
I believe it is a worthy goal to support and defend the Constitution...every part of it.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 11:24
BTW... If you weren't a douchebag liberal voting for other douchebag liberals you wouldn't have to convince your liberal "friends" of the righteousness of the 2A. And, frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if you think you're pro-gun or not. You support political candidates that want to destroy my way of life and the traditions of this country.
That makes you my enemy. I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.
ETA: The fact that you're trying to make yourself out to be some kind of liberal 2A hero because you post an article like this and claim to be pro-gun and attempting to convert your liberal friends to the pro-gun side doesn't work for me. If you and people like you weren't supporting (now and in the past) the liberals that are currently in office we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As much as I am a dick... according to Bailey... I too was one time not as pro 2nd Amendment. Many people just like you used logic and education to change my mind. I hope I can do that for others. Though I can be really opinionated I am actually very fast to change my mind if you can use facts and reasoning. Problem is few people are capable of thinking past the first few inches of an issue.
Oh and Bailey I plan to vote GOP in most all state races based on the 2nd Amendment. I don't say all because I would not want to punish the Dems who did vote to preserve gun rights that sends the wrong message.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 11:32
Just state races? And why would that "send the wrong message" by voting against all democrats. Write them and tell them that you respect their stance on the 2A but if they were truly pro-gun they'd change their party affiliation.
If they don't get it on the 2A, they're not getting it on any of the others.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 11:35
Not to mention they're still the party of "let's give 'free' shit to everyone and make the producers in society pay for it".
Let me just say, if you're a democrat. FUCK you. I don't care about your stand on the 2A.
Bailey... take your meds... you might pop something again...
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 11:45
I'm fine. I just want to make it perfectly clear where I stand. Or I could pretend to be a liberal and say one thing then do another then deny I ever said it or did it....then blame it on Bush.
Go back to your heroic deeds of converting your liberal friends, nynco. I'll try to stick to not fucking things up in the first place.
To think that voting GOP is not fucking things up is just plain wrong. Both sides are destroying this nation. So please spare me the part about voting GOP fixes everything.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 12:01
You certainly don't disappoint, nynco. When you don't have logical argument, invent a strawman. Good strategy.
Everyone will have issues they can "bend" on. Everyone has issues they are 100% firm on. This is what normally gets people to vote one way or the other. Generally speaking, Democrats will infringe on your 2a rights. So if the second amendment is on the top of your list, you generally vote Republican. You'll "deal" with other issues with that party you may not agree 100% on because they line up on the most important values you have.
If you vote Democrat and expect that you'll be able to change the general movement they have towards restricting our 2A rights, then you are being naive, in my opinion. You may agree with 99% of everything else they say they want, but at the end of the day, they will try to restrict the 2A. By voting for them, that's only giving them more power to do so.
The people in power don't care what the people want/say. They do as the party tells them to. That was very evident in the recent Colorado gun laws. Democrat, Republican...it didn't matter. ALL the polls showed people did not want the new laws but they proceeded anyways. Why? Because Democrats will always stick to party ideals and gun control is on the top of their list.
This is where we run into people being stuck at party lines. There is no give/take these days. Each party has an agenda and sticks to it. You just have to decide which agenda fits your lifestyle/ideals the most and hope for the best. That is where the problem lies.
Just my $.02.
UrbanWolf
10-23-2013, 12:06
The author seems to be an anti-gun pretending to be not anti-gun.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 12:10
The author seems to be an anti-gun pretending to be not anti-gun.
Bingo.
I think articles like this can go a long way to changing peoples minds. I think that the recall elections out here in Colorado sent a message loud and clear that voting against the 2nd Amendment costs elections. This is a VERY important lesson that might lead to the end of persecution of the 2nd amendment. Time will tell...
Back to the article.
And for those who did not read the article there are some great quotes that are not taught today.
"In the cauldron of the Klan’s lynching fever, writing in 1892, Ida B. Wells learned and taught a valuable lesson (that George Orwell would later echo):
Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves … and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.
The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.
(Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases)
Ida Wells: another “wingnut.”"
2A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, p. 32.
As the quote indicates, King never eschewed violence entirely. Early in his career, King’s home was described as an “arsenal” of guns, with armed supporters often posted to prevent a Klan assassination. King even applied for a concealed carry permit, which was refused by the local police in Alabama, who “used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans “ – an historical example used by advocates of “shall issue” vs. “may issue” laws about carry permits. (Adam Winkler, “MLK and His Guns.”)
And there’s Gandhi’s famous quote: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The full context doesn’t make it any better for anti-gun-rights faux-pacifists. The quote continues: “If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” Gandhi was exhorting Indians to join the British army in WWI, as a tactical move that might persuade the British of their loyalty, thereby hastening the repeal of the hated Arms Act, and at the same time getting training that might later be useful in the independence struggle.
The Arms Act was one of a series of measures adopted by the British in response to a serious Indian rebellion, the mutiny of 1857: “[T]the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government … brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire.” http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/
And let’s not even get into Gandhi’s even more notorious: “We adopted it [the weapon of non-violence] out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.”
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 12:17
Everyone will have issues they can "bend" on. Everyone has issues they are 100% firm on. This is what normally gets people to vote one way or the other. Generally speaking, Democrats will infringe on your 2a rights. So if the second amendment is on the top of your list, you generally vote Republican. You'll "deal" with other issues with that party you may not agree 100% on because they line up on the most important values you have.
If you vote Democrat and expect that you'll be able to change the general movement they have towards restricting our 2A rights, then you are being naive, in my opinion. You may agree with 99% of everything else they say they want, but at the end of the day, they will try to restrict the 2A. By voting for them, that's only giving them more power to do so.
The people in power don't care what the people want/say. They do as the party tells them to. That was very evident in the recent Colorado gun laws. Democrat, Republican...it didn't matter. ALL the polls showed people did not want the new laws but they proceeded anyways. Why? Because Democrats will always stick to party ideals and gun control is on the top of their list.
This is where we run into people being stuck at party lines. There is no give/take these days. Each party has an agenda and sticks to it. You just have to decide which agenda fits your lifestyle/ideals the most and hope for the best. That is where the problem lies.
Just my $.02.
Pretty much nails it. That's why I agree with the "party trumps person" philosophy. If you vote for the perfect candidate, even if they're elected, it won't matter a hill of beans if that candidate's party isn't in the majority. I understand the "I won't compromise" positions. I also understand that if you vote that way you don't understand politics. Politics isn't about principles...it's about winning elections and the power that comes with that.
Despite nynco's strawman argument, I don't think voting GOP fixes everything. But voting for the republican party gives me the best chance of winning elections and getting a party in power that most closely matches what I believe. It's not ideal...it's just reality.
Bailey I hate both parties in our defacto two party dictatorship system. This is why I turn most of my efforts not into educating people on election reform. One form I think will help solve many issues is Instant Run Off Voting. I want to empower you Bailey or whom ever to vote for who you want to win and not force you to vote against those you want to lose more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
UrbanWolf
10-23-2013, 12:25
Bingo.
I've seen stupid articles written by smart asses like the author of this article since 2011. According to Colion Noir they all live in a place called Hypothetical Land, where everything in reality turn out the way they are written in paper.
If you only read skin deep, many will fall for a nicely writen article, just saying.
Please point out anywhere in there where the author is arguing against the 2nd Amendment.... please show me
UrbanWolf
10-23-2013, 12:33
Political rights are mostly for those in office. Protect oneself is a human right, and when you don't know what kind of threat may appear in any given circumstances, have the most powerfull tool a individual can handle in any given circumstances would just be the individual exercising one's human right. If they really want to make self protection some kind of political right, then it will have to be the victim ordering the suspect to be punished whatever way they like after the harm has been done. But how any victims survive a violent crime?
UrbanWolf
10-23-2013, 12:36
Please point out anywhere in there where the author is arguing against the 2nd Amendment.... please show me
Manipulate term such as "Political Rights"... He/she doesn't have to openly arguing against the 2nd Amendment to show his/her true intent.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 12:36
Please point out anywhere in there where the author is arguing against the 2nd Amendment.... please show me
Please point out anywhere in there where I said voting GOP fixes everything.... please show me.
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 12:38
Besides...I've already pointed out to you where he explicitly stated the 2A was a political right and not a natural or God-given right. If he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand the 2A. It's not my fault he feels the need to dumb-down his writing to appeal to liberals.
I can't find that quote. I came up with 12 instances using "political rights" as my search term. Regardless, I think the author goes on in depth how he intertwines political and human inalienable rights as being one in the same. He uses that wording to reach a different reader who has different mental trigger words.
UrbanWolf
10-23-2013, 12:45
Ok, from reading the most recent posts, I believe this pic describes this thread very well...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bwJe_5_Jajs/ThoYB1ZVjoI/AAAAAAAAHgk/kZZ113pZpWM/s1600/nomnom.jpg
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 12:47
No right is “god-given” or “natural” (although there are some that we, for good reason, treat in our socio-political discourse as if they were).
That's what he wrote...right near the end of the article (remember...I didn't read "far enough in"). If he believes that he doesn't believe in the founding documents that our country is built upon. Which means he doesn't believe in the 2A as it was intended. Which means he's another liberal poser.
Rucker61
10-23-2013, 12:47
Regardless of whether one believes that one’s rights derive from a divine Creator or are inherent in the human condition, the free exercising of ones rights doesn’t depend on the source, or even that anyone else believe in that right. However, the attempted deprivation of any such right is purely political, and the defense of those rights itself reverts to being a political action.
I second what Rucker said
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 13:20
Regardless of whether one believes that one’s rights derive from a divine Creator or are inherent in the human condition, the free exercising of ones rights doesn’t depend on the source, or even that anyone else believe in that right. However, the attempted deprivation of any such right is purely political, and the defense of those rights itself reverts to being a political action.
I couldn't disagree more, especially in regards to the "free exercising" of one's rights. For crying out loud...we just went through two recall elections partly over this very thing and we're in the midst of trying a third. I'd argue we the people were put in that position by politicians who thought they were the source certain "political" rights and who made it illegal for us to exercise those rights.
If they believed as the founding fathers did that certain rights are natural and bestowed upon us by a Creator and are thus unalienable I'd also argue they wouldn't have been recalled. We also wouldn't be having the 2A battles we have.
That statement also explains how certain things that aren't in the Constitution suddenly become Constitutional rights like abortion (not bringing up the topic, just using it as an example) and "health care".
I don't believe in your God, does that mean I have no rights or rights don't exist in my mind according to you (Bailey)?
Bailey Guns
10-23-2013, 13:37
"their Creator", nynco. You don't have to believe in what I believe. That's the beauty of not being a liberal...you don't force your beliefs on to others.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Zundfolge
10-23-2013, 13:58
I don't believe in your God, does that mean I have no rights or rights don't exist in my mind according to you (Bailey)?
Not trying to answer for Bailey (although I suspect this will be close to his thinking on the issue) but if you don't believe in God but I do and I believe rights are "God given" then chances are I am more likely to believe that YOUR rights are real and carved in stone than you are mine.
Rucker61
10-23-2013, 14:18
I don't believe in your God, does that mean I have no rights or rights don't exist in my mind according to you (Bailey)?
I'm not Bailey, but if rights are truly God-given, whether you believe in God or not doesn't determine if those rights exist for you.
Many of the Framers had different ideas on the nature of God or the Creator. They all agreed that however men were born, all men are possessed at birth with inalienable, natural rights. The Constitution does not grant these natural rights to citizens. Citizens are born with those rights and the Constitution declares many, but not all of the rights we are born with, the most important being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Most of the Constitution, including specifically the Bill of Rights are limitations on the powers of government. The Constitution is a social contract where, We the People agree to give power to the federal government. All powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the People and the States. If the author or anyone else does not see this in a reading of the Constitution and the beliefs of the Framers, then they won't ever understand where conservatives are coming from.
Laws come and go, but the natural rights a man is born with may only be taken by the government through due process as provided for in the Constitution and laws which have been made in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution recognizes many of these natural rights in the Bill of Rights. Healthcare and welfare are not natural rights. They are legal rights granted by the Congress and President. They may be altered or rescinded at any time by the legislature, executive or the judiciary. The right to assemble peaceably, freedom of the press, keep and bear arms, not have troops quartered in a private home against the owners will, etc... are natural rights that the federal government has no right to alter or rescind.
Aloha_Shooter
10-23-2013, 18:26
Good God, don't they teach Locke anymore? Has our education system become so decrepit that liberals (I wish Democrats and their ilk would quit misusing the term "progressive" -- I hate the way anti-Western socialists keep messing with the language in order to try to escape their past) don't even understand the concepts that shaped the language of 18th century philosophy and law anymore? English common law (and thus American law everywhere but Louisiana) is founded on the concept of natural law regardless of whether you actually worship a single Deity.
I agree with Bailey and others that the author of the article nynco posted still has some fundamental misunderstandings about the Constitution but I'll applaud his/her treatise to the extent it gets other liberals to understand guns are not evil and the ability to defend yourself from the forces of tyranny is an essential element of freedom.
I'm also with Bailey in believing the GOP has its own issues but restoring our basic freedoms and heritage starts with getting Democrats out of office -- a goal that is essentially unreachable via the third party method. I'll take a GOP candidate that can win over his/her Democrat opponent over the ideologically pure GOP/Libertarian/Constitutionalist/etc. candidate then work on replacing the Rockefeller (i.e., establishment) Republican with a non-Democrat who understands the Constitution.
The first step in any treatment is stop the damage.
So... what about this article?
"Dear Liberal, here's why I'm so hostile.
Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers. I know that thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.
Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem — it’s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,
Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.
Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.
Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”. In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?
Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are:
-The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
-The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
-The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
-The right of every family to a decent home.
-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
-The right to a good education.
At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”
I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.
FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”. It’s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?
You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.
You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It’s quite simple — your political beliefs are a threat to liberty — not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.
How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.
The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea — you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket — you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty — it’s an axiomatic truth.
What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.
I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.
I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:
“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.
In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it — why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it."
Original post: http://sufficient-reason.tumblr.com/post/26781491317/dear-liberal-heres-why-im-so-hostile
Rucker61
10-23-2013, 21:25
So... what about this article?
"Dear Liberal, here's why I'm so hostile.
Very nice selection.
I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician,
I'm going to bet the house on the second one.
I can't wait until the world is populated with unwanted crack whore babies..
Gun rights on the other hand are another issue.
sent from a soup can and some string..
Aloha_Shooter
10-23-2013, 22:29
Nice one spyder.
Bailey Guns
10-24-2013, 01:51
Now THAT was a great article in contrast to the one in the OP.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.