If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

[Bob D]

If a right is something that a person SHOULD be allowed in a moral and just world, then there are several human rights.

There are countless different viewpoints on what is moral and just. Since none can be proven absolutely, then that means that our rights are basically decided by the current public opinion on what justice and morality are. That's just as bad as not having any rights. Unfortunately, I don't see a way around it other than totalitarianism, avoiding which is the purpose of having rights to begin with. Once you start forcing a particular interpretation of morality and justice on people, it's all over.

Every different method I've used trying to determine what a "right" is, I have come back to the same basic answer: A 'right,' whether natural, god-given, constitutional, or otherwise, is in essence a particular freedom that a majority of us have agreed that we should have.

I can't find an example of a populace successfully retaining one of their rights after public opinion turns away from it. Luckily, to this point, we have managed to keep public opinion generally pointing toward individual liberty. There are exceptions though; most people consider social safety nets a 'right' these days, and the right of to own 'dangerous' things seems to be slipping. I believe that's partially due to our culture of suing the butts off of each other at every opportunity. That in itself is considered a 'right' to many in this country, the right to be compensated when bad things happen that aren't your fault.

There are a lot of rights I'm glad we've lost, such as the right to rape your wife and the right to own people.

but I have not been able to think of any situation in history where personal rights have been anything more than social constructs.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

I have a couple people blocked too,

I think at the heart of every post in any forum (or type of forum) a person experiences the impulse to "throw something out there" hoping for a return of responses (+ likes/- dislikes).

I know in my heart that it has always been the in-congruent people and situations in my life that have done the most to prepare me for the next a$$-difficult situation that will come along.

As long as the discussion is civil/andragogical (adult's sharing information without the pejorative language), I like to participate and expect simple responses from those who would agree and difficult responses from those who do not agree.

The best experiences for me is learning which detail I left out of a post that would have increased my chances to convinced the incongruent respondent.

When it comes to a topic that could be considered treasonous; the only way to respond without crossing the line, is to use a healthy amount of ambiguity in our statements. Some Americans (groups) need their a$$es kicked for their actions, and do not deserve my loyalty. So I believe as long as the constitution is in effect, our best option(s) are the cultivations of "healthy" relationships with our representatives and LEOs.

"Crispus Attucks" is held by many people to be the murderous act during the Tea Party which itself is the beginning of the Revolutionary War (we aren't there yet). Having faith that a number of the American people will leave their self-sufficient lives when called, is essential to being part of something "greater".

 

[dmancornell]

Every different method I've used trying to determine what a "right" is, I have come back to the same basic answer: A 'right,' whether natural, god-given, constitutional, or otherwise, is in essence a particular freedom that a majority of us have agreed that we should have.

...

but I have not been able to think of any situation in history where personal rights have been anything more than social constructs.

LOL, let's hear these methods of yours. Historical evidence does not make a legitimate argument, because historically, human society have been oppressive, immoral and authoritarian. Supposedly this country has moved beyond such barbarity when the Founders decided that our rights were not granted by the state or some ruling class, but you seem to have missed that point.

 

[dmancornell]

By definition, a human right is a right that cannot be removed.

That means that there are almost no human rights.

But I digress.

Hah, your digression pretty much says it all. Human rights aren't rights that can't be removed, they are rights which humans are entitled to simply because they are humans, as opposed to rights granted by a ruling authority. The ruling classes can and historically have often removed human rights by applying violence then claiming domain over said rights.

But I must be an "internet chest beater" for calling out your authoritarian dismissal of a fundamental idea in liberty. Molon labe, and all that.

 

[Bob D]

LOL, let's hear these methods of yours. Historical evidence does not make a legitimate argument, because historically, human society have been oppressive, immoral and authoritarian. Supposedly this country was supposed to have moved beyond such barbarity when the Founders decided that our rights were not granted by the state or some ruling class, but you seem to have missed that point.

No, I understand that point, and truly want to believe it. I've been trying to find a way to prove it.
Here's my method: I start with a human right that I consider to be inalienable, and then I come at it from every direction trying to find a hole in its inalienability. I have never failed to do so.

The thing about history and modernity is that they are one and the same. We may be playing nice compared to many historical cultures, but we are still capable of all the same barbarism and authoritarianism that we always have been. Other than the force of public opinion and threat of public reprisal, what is stopping that authoritarianism now? The Constitution would mean nothing if we were all to stop accepting it as a valid authority, so what is it that grants these rights on a level that surpasses our social contract with each other?

 

[Bob D]

I must be an "internet chest beater"

No Dman, you're just an internet antagonist who thinks his own thoughts are superior to others and likes to talk to them like children.

Such a sad, angry person you must be on the inside. Who was it that hurt you?

 

[dmancornell]

No, I understand that point, and truly want to believe it. I've been trying to find a way to prove it.
Here's my method: I start with a human right that I consider to be inalienable, and then I come at it from every direction trying to find a hole in its inalienability. I have never failed to do so.

The thing about history and modernity is that they are one and the same. We may be playing nice compared to many historical cultures, but we are still capable of all the same barbarism and authoritarianism that we always have been. Other than the force of public opinion and threat of public reprisal, what is stopping that authoritarianism now? The Constitution would mean nothing if we were all to stop accepting it as a valid authority, so what is it that grants these rights on a level that surpasses our social contract with each other?

Define inalienable. Is it a right that cannot be taken away? No, because the state has always used violence to deprive people of any and all rights. But is it a right that shouldn't be taken away? The Constitution was written not to give authority, it was to limit the authority of the state so said human rights cannot be deprived. The Founders recognized that the state was the greatest threat to liberty (i.e. human rights) and therefore must be limited in scope and power.

Public opinion has not stopped authoritarianism, because we live under an authoritarian regime today. The 2nd Amendment embodies the threat of public reprisal, and the state has been busy removing that particular threat to their power under the guise of public safety.

Lastly, human rights are not predicated on any social contracts (social contracts are a sham, but that is another topic). As before, those rights are not granted by anyone, but they are respected by morally aware people as inherent rights. 2A ensures our ability to defend those rights against the morally challenged.

 

[dmancornell]

No Dman, you're just an internet antagonist who thinks his own thoughts are superior to others and likes to talk to them like children.

Such a sad, angry person you must be on the inside. Who was it that hurt you?

Awww, and I just spent that time typing up a response to you.

I do wonder why you defend Jammer Six since he is obviously an intellectual neanderthal. I've met teenagers with better reasoning skills.

 

[Bob D]

As before, those rights are not granted by anyone, but they are respected by morally aware people as inherent rights. 2A ensures our ability to defend those rights against the morally challenged.

I have a hard time defining "inalienable." I believe I define it the same way you do, as rights that should not be taken away.

Please objectively define:
1. Morally aware people
2. The morally challenged

Also, I still don't see an answer (maybe I'm just not understanding it) to the question: what objective source grants our inherent rights?

 

[Bob D]

Awww, and I just spent that time typing up a response to you.

I do wonder why you defend Jammer Six since he is obviously an intellectual neanderthal. I've met teenagers with better reasoning skills.

Your previous post was great. When you aren't just being a dick, you're an excellent debate opponent. Your ad hominem attacks aren't quite as logically sound.

 

[dmancornell]

I have a hard time defining "inalienable." I believe I define it the same way you do, as rights that should not be taken away.

Please objectively define:
1. Morally aware people
2. The morally challenged

Also, I still don't see an answer (maybe I'm just not understanding it) to the question: what objective source grants our inherent rights?

Morally aware people have the decency to respect other peoples' inalienable rights. Morally challenged people do not.

Inherent rights are not granted by definition. The moral justification behind those rights are self-evident and therefore do not need any authority (legal, religious, etc.) to be granted.

 

[dmancornell]

Your previous post was great. When you aren't just being a dick, you're an excellent debate opponent. Your ad hominem attacks aren't quite as logically sound.

Pffft, Jammer Six doesn't deserve anything more than a deep dicking.

 

[Bob D]

Morally aware people have the decency to respect other peoples' inalienable rights. Morally challenged people do not.

Inherent rights are not granted by definition. The moral justification behind those rights are self-evident and therefore do not need any authority (legal, religious, etc.) to be granted.

So... correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems that you may be saying that inherent rights are defined as those rights which are self-evident to morally aware people, who are defined as those to whom inherent rights are self-evident to?

 

[coop44]

I will lie my *** off to keep my guns. getting a peace symbol flag, letting my hair grow out a bit, buying a dashiki and some bell bottoms, maybe some cool shades (rose colored). Maybe some "meat is murder" and "peace and love" stickers for the car.

they'll probably just pass me by when they see the "my neighbor has guns" sign


Oh yeah, gotta get sandals

 

[dmancornell]

So... correct me if I'm wrong here. It seems that you may be saying that inherent rights are defined as those rights which are self-evident to morally aware people, who are defined as those to whom inherent rights are self-evident to?

I'm saying inherent rights are rights granted by our humanity, and that morally aware people recognize the inherent nature of such rights and respect them for all peoples.

If you want a definition, I personally believe our inherent rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Bob D]

There are still all kinds of definitions that would need to be defined here, but the thing that causes me to believe that they are defined by our collective personal beliefs is:

If you want a definition, I personally believe our inherent rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[dmancornell]

There are still all kinds of definitions that would need to be defined here, but the thing that causes me to believe that they are defined by our collective personal beliefs is:

No doubt many people have different opinions on this. FDR tried to vastly expand inherent rights in his "New Bill of Rights". The current government regularly kills people with drones without due process, demonstrating it has no respect for those rights.

It so happens that my statement regarding inherent rights is also the philosophical stance of the Founders, and therefore is a convenient line in the sand, so to speak.

 

[Bob D]

If you think that I am not a hardcore 2nd amendment supporter, you don't know me very well.

If you think that there is not a situation in which I would physically fight to retain my firearms, you don't know me very well.

I am not going to fight a battle that can't be won, either through the 'legal' means or by picking up my rifle and firing toward the enemy. We're all on the same side of this debate, like it or not... We're just willing to die on different hills.

If any 2A supporters truly believed in absolute zero compromise, they loaded up and marched on Washington twenty years ago, or even long before that. Compromise to some extent is inevitable, and proven by the fact that we're all still sitting here discussing it, and not bombing federal buildings. The question is not whether to compromise, it is how much to compromise. I believe wholeheartedly that the current level of compromise is already too much, but I have to weigh that against my desire to experience as much of my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as I can.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

There are still all kinds of definitions that would need to be defined here, but the thing that causes me to believe that they are defined by our collective personal beliefs is:

Not to take sides; but the OP's question wasn't as succinct as could/should/would have been.

Define: "Fight" clarify a Fire-fight with weapons, or all the civil actions since (oh say) 1864?
Define: "When they come for your guns" clarify that there has been not been any actions previously taken to limit our Liberties in any way.

To suggest that our liberties aren't already under a siege (of some sort), and that people aren't already fighting (of some sort), is myopic.

Call my "Cold-War" paradigm whatever you like; ladies and gents.

To discuss what actions I would take once a certain threshold is crossed would/could/will be treasonous-talk (to a lot of people), so how would any honest response not be found "all over the place"?

Thanks for the discussion, I honestly believe as Americans; it is important to do this (not for the sake of congruence, but for the sake of Liberty), so as not to squander all the sacrifices (for freedom of speech) made before us.

 

[coop44]

Inalienable is simple- those things and their attributes which constitute part of the individual that cannot cannot be separated without destruction of the individual.