WHAT TRUTHS DO YOU HOLD TO BE SELF EVIDENT?

[ARFrog]

In looking at the events in Virginia this past week and those that are coming tomorrow regarding 2A rights, I ran across some pictures of pro-2A persons holding a variety of signs that expressed their pro-2A sentiments. One particular sign made the point that their "Gun Permit is the 2nd Amendment and it never expires."



My initial thought was "right on!" But my second thought was "do I really believe that and think it is the right and strongest position to hold in our discussions of 2A rights."

After much contemplation, I must admit that I do not…

While the Second Amendment to Bill of Rights does include the language:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I believe it is more important to look to the language that precedes it in the Declaration of Independence, which states:

"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…."

I believe so for the following reasons:

1.) The specific 2A language, while important, unfortunately always seems to devolve into the definition of what a militia is and is it something that applies to the individual or group. Even with Court cases to establish precedent, we get mired down in the debate and therefore miss or by-pass larger controlling issues.

2.) The Founders believed:

• In certain self-evident and inherent truths that can be known to be so without proof, and/or by ordinary human reason
• All men are created equal and certain men or institutions should not intrinsically possess more rights that others
• That there are rights that are bestowed by a Creator and not from government. It is the law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, and cannot be repealed by any inferior law, which asserts that man is property.
• That these rights are unalienable. (Synonyms for inalienable include: absolute, infrangible, inviolable, not capable of being violated or infringed, non-negotiable, cannot be bought or sold, nontransferable, unassignable, untransferable.)
• They believed these unalienable rights to be "natural rights" and gave the three examples of: - Life – everyone is entitled to live. Individuals have both a right and duty to protect their own lives; Liberty – everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right. WE are free men and women and not slaves to anyone or serfs to the State; Pursuit of Happiness - to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy; everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade or commerce so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights
• Note: the Founders took many of their beliefs from the writings of several philosophers:

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[19] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.

• These rights cannot/should not be taken away except in punishment of crime
• The power of government was to be vested in the people to whom government was to serve and not vice versa

3.) The Ethical implications of the firearms debate in our country speak to our moral health:

• Do we treat others in a way that honors the gift of our natural rights or in selfish or self-serving contempt?
• Do we believe that every human being or citizen has inherent value or are we but mere chattel of the State who needs to decide what is and is not good for us and/or acceptable activities?
• Will we stand for a culture that celebrates the removal of natural rights in the name of protecting unspecified State approved human rights and safety?

The problem(s) with the above is that we seem to have had a flipping of roles and grants. Currently:

• Many in government seem to believe that they should be or already are in charge of the lives of the citizenry
• That citizens exist to support and provide for the government
• That citizens are incapable of making moral decisions on their own and need to be regulated in every aspect of life
• That a citizen's property can be seconded to the call and whim of the State
• Etc., Etc.

So, on a cold dreary afternoon I am forced to ask myself - what is it that I do believe? What will be my position in these discussions?

I think i will start here:

1.) My gun permit - My right to own and bear arms stem from natural rights - life, liberty and property - that predates the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights but should be supported by them.

2.) Since these natural rights are not bestowed by government and have not been ceded by me to the government, I should be free of interference in the exercising of my natural rights

3.) As long as I am law aiding citizen and not harming others, my natural rights shall not be infringed, abridged or removed by government that more and more seeks to make me a defacto criminal as a matter of law.

4.) I will work spread these beliefs.


What is it that you believe?

Read More

 

[Andy54Hawken]

What is it that I believe...?

I believe that a : ..."government of the people , by the people , for the people"
Is limited to the fact that "the people" will never all think and act in accordance with what the Founding Fathers wrote , worked for and believed in.

While I agree with the OP and feel that what is stated there is inline with just what Thomas Jefferson , John Adams , et-al were thinking and wanting for our citizens and our country...

They very same Natural Right to choose , can be dangerous as it cuts both ways.
Not everyone will see things the way you do , think the same , desire the same results , etc....

To spread the ideas posted in the OP , is both noble and needed...
To do so without causing further divides in our nation and distrust is also needed.
Andy

 

[ARFrog]

They very same Natural Right to choose , can be dangerous as it cuts both ways.
Not everyone will see things the way you do , think the same , desire the same results , etc....

Agreed. My so called "liberty" may be in conflict with yours...

But this leads to a necessary re-discussion of the purpose and foot-print of government and the responsibilities of the people.

Are there any limitations on government in setting up laws in an accountable society? If so, what are they and are they implemented? You may answer:

- the Courts - but given the years and in some cases decades that 2A suits have been crawling through the Courts is justice delayed truly justice?
- the ballot box - but it seems that in our current culture majority legislative rule leads to decisions of implementing what is best for the furtherance of political ideology instead of that of the common good.
- the cartridge box - but I really don't want to go there. The civil wars of the American 1860s, Lebanon and elsewhere in the world show us the devastation and cost of terms of lives and property

Does government or the needs of the bureaucracy take precedence or that of the people or vice versa? How do we have "just enough" government to help protect the liberty of all without removing all liberty through authoritarian rule?

I realize that these questions won't come to resolution today. But we as a nation and a people have to stop claiming and clamoring for "our rights" without accepting attendant responsibilities for them - which includes my liberty not taking advantage of yours and vice versa.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Agreed. My so called "liberty" may be in conflict with yours...

But this leads to a necessary re-discussion of the purpose and foot-print of government and the responsibilities of the people.

Are there any limitations on government in setting up laws in an accountable society? If so, what are they and are they implemented? You may answer:

- the Courts - but given the years and in some cases decades that 2A suits have been crawling through the Courts is justice delayed truly justice?
- the ballot box - but it seems that in our current culture majority legislative rule leads to decisions of implementing what is best for the furtherance of political ideology instead of that of the common good.
- the cartridge box - but I really don't want to go there. The civil wars of the American 1860s, Lebanon and elsewhere in the world show us the devastation and cost of terms of lives and property

Does government or the needs of the bureaucracy take precedence or that of the people or vice versa? How do we have "just enough" government to help protect the liberty of all without removing all liberty through authoritarian rule?

I realize that these questions won't come to resolution today. But we as a nation and a people have to stop claiming and clamoring for "our rights" without accepting attendant responsibilities for them - which includes my liberty not taking advantage of yours and vice versa.

Now if only we can have a discussion and a movement forward as well as more thinking and actions inline with what the Founding Fathers were thinking....

With that said...
A starting point may be just what did the Founding Fathers say , what were their reasons and inspirations , just what was the world like when they lived and wrote and how it differs from today....

Please note that I am in agreement with both of your posts here...

I am just saying that the very people that need to hear this message may well disagree with what you have written...
Let alone agree with or truly understand what the Founding Fathers said and meant by their words , thoughts and writings ..
Andy

 

[ARFrog]

Now if only we can have a discussion and a movement forward as well as more thinking and actions inline with what the Founding Fathers were thinking....

With that said...
A starting point may be just what did the Founding Fathers say , what were their reasons and inspirations , just what was the world like when they lived and wrote and how it differs from today....

OK, I'll play

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788
The Federalist Papers


Here is a great modern article on virtue that goes with the subject matter of this thread:

Freedom and Virtue Are Inseparable

www.cato.org

 

[Ruger Rich]

What is it that I believe...?

I believe that a : ..."government of the people , by the people , for the people"
Is limited to the fact that "the people" will never all think and act in accordance with what the Founding Fathers wrote , worked for and believed in.

While I agree with the OP and feel that what is stated there is inline with just what Thomas Jefferson , John Adams , et-al were thinking and wanting for our citizens and our country...

They very same Natural Right to choose , can be dangerous as it cuts both ways.
Not everyone will see things the way you do , think the same , desire the same results , etc....

To spread the ideas posted in the OP , is both noble and needed...
To do so without causing further divides in our nation and distrust is also needed.
Andy

Another one of your really good ones . . . . .

 

[ARFrog]

This thread is temporary interrupted by Foosball




Go Niners

 

[Andy54Hawken]

OK, I'll play

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788
View attachment 651713The Federalist Papers


Here is a great modern article on virtue that goes with the subject matter of this thread:

Freedom and Virtue Are Inseparable

www.cato.org

I am not sure if :
I am being clear...
If not , understand that : I agree with you...

I am just saying that the points that you are making and works that you are citing ...Some of which that I own and all of which that I have read...
Must be read and understood by those who disagree with you in order to have a conversation .

In the interest of not bogging down a thread to belabor a point...
I shall leave
Andy

 

[ARFrog]

No, I understood your position and appreciated the comments.

I also understand that I/we may be preaching to the choir here. But I think there are times to verify basic assumptions and positions, articulate same, clarify or rework shortcomings and teach those who may have similar sentiments but not strong convictions. (Note:Ronald Reagan did this early on with his monographs and it may bear repeating as a learning tool.)

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No, I understood your position and appreciated the comments.

Thanks...glad to know that the misunderstand was mine...

Ahhh...
The ever present hazards of being on the computer too long and relying on only the written post to convey the actual meaning...
Kinda ironic with what considering what I was posting about earlier...
Andy

 

[Ruger Rich]

..... self evident? My believe in myself and treating others as I "DESERVE" to be treated. And that of course is dependent on what type of person I am. I'll compromise until I feel that tingle somewhere in the back of my head. The one that says "don't take the next step", you've just given up too much and you have to live with yourself. I've pushed this a few times in my years here and I made it through. I've been lucky a couple of those times. But the bottom line is always, you have to be satisfied with yourself first. I respect the "anti's" to a point, their feelings are likely as strong as mine are. However, if it's my deepest of feelings, I'm going all the way.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Self evident that we have a right to the means to protect our lives from any and all who threaten them. That we are not to harm others, but not let them harm us. That I want as few people telling me how to live as is necessary. I have a religion and a creed and I live in a way that assists others and that is my duty.

Basically it boils down to this. I will help, but hurt me or mine and I will stop you if I can. Period.

 

[ARFrog]

Another wise and seemingly precient Founder quote:

No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.
Samuel Adams: Letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775

 

[DunRanull]

View attachment 651673

In looking at the events in Virginia this past week and those that are coming tomorrow regarding 2A rights, I ran across some pictures of pro-2A persons holding a variety of signs that expressed their pro-2A sentiments. One particular sign made the point that their "Gun Permit is the 2nd Amendment and it never expires."

View attachment 651674

My initial thought was "right on!" But my second thought was "do I really believe that and think it is the right and strongest position to hold in our discussions of 2A rights."

After much contemplation, I must admit that I do not…

While the Second Amendment to Bill of Rights does include the language:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I believe it is more important to look to the language that precedes it in the Declaration of Independence, which states:

"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…."

I believe so for the following reasons:

1.) The specific 2A language, while important, unfortunately always seems to devolve into the definition of what a militia is and is it something that applies to the individual or group. Even with Court cases to establish precedent, we get mired down in the debate and therefore miss or by-pass larger controlling issues.

2.) The Founders believed:

• In certain self-evident and inherent truths that can be known to be so without proof, and/or by ordinary human reason
• All men are created equal and certain men or institutions should not intrinsically possess more rights that others
• That there are rights that are bestowed by a Creator and not from government. It is the law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, and cannot be repealed by any inferior law, which asserts that man is property.
• That these rights are unalienable. (Synonyms for inalienable include: absolute, infrangible, inviolable, not capable of being violated or infringed, non-negotiable, cannot be bought or sold, nontransferable, unassignable, untransferable.)
• They believed these unalienable rights to be "natural rights" and gave the three examples of: - Life – everyone is entitled to live. Individuals have both a right and duty to protect their own lives; Liberty – everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right. WE are free men and women and not slaves to anyone or serfs to the State; Pursuit of Happiness - to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy; everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade or commerce so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights
• Note: the Founders took many of their beliefs from the writings of several philosophers:

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[19] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.

• These rights cannot/should not be taken away except in punishment of crime
• The power of government was to be vested in the people to whom government was to serve and not vice versa

3.) The Ethical implications of the firearms debate in our country speak to our moral health:

• Do we treat others in a way that honors the gift of our natural rights or in selfish or self-serving contempt?
• Do we believe that every human being or citizen has inherent value or are we but mere chattel of the State who needs to decide what is and is not good for us and/or acceptable activities?
• Will we stand for a culture that celebrates the removal of natural rights in the name of protecting unspecified State approved human rights and safety?

The problem(s) with the above is that we seem to have had a flipping of roles and grants. Currently:

• Many in government seem to believe that they should be or already are in charge of the lives of the citizenry
• That citizens exist to support and provide for the government
• That citizens are incapable of making moral decisions on their own and need to be regulated in every aspect of life
• That a citizen's property can be seconded to the call and whim of the State
• Etc., Etc.

So, on a cold dreary afternoon I am forced to ask myself - what is it that I do believe? What will be my position in these discussions?

I think i will start here:

1.) My gun permit - My right to own and bear arms stem from natural rights - life, liberty and property - that predates the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights but should be supported by them.

2.) Since these natural rights are not bestowed by government and have not been ceded by me to the government, I should be free of interference in the exercising of my natural rights

3.) As long as I am law aiding citizen and not harming others, my natural rights shall not be infringed, abridged or removed by government that more and more seeks to make me a defacto criminal as a matter of law.

4.) I will work spread these beliefs.


What is it that you believe?

I believe that there are two basic kinds of law- "Mala Prohibita"- that which is wrong because some law says so at the behest of a government or society; and "Mala In Se"- that which is wrong in and of itself. While I am as a citizen and human-being self-required to live by mala in se, I am not necessarily bound by mala prohibita laws which prohibit things and thereby infringe upon my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A sticky wicket to be sure. We all give up certain things to live in an organised and (relatively) safe and stable society and do owe something back for that safety and stability. "Go along to get along"... What and how much is for each to decide.
Just thinking out loud here, my own choices were made long ago..

 

[ARFrog]

One last Founder quote for the day:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams: Thoughts on Government, 1776

 

[Heyjoe]

All creation has a right to protect self and family from injury or death.

How it's done is trivial at best.