58 votes

We are defending the right to bear arms with the wrong argument

I see a lot of back-and-forth about the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms and it dawns on me that we are going about this completely the wrong way.

The first thing I notice is that people use the Constitution to justify keeping and bearing arms. The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.

Another major problem with using the Constitution as the basis of our rights is that it leaves the debate up to the interpretation of the words of the Amendment itself. The words are just a means of communication. While they do serve as specific instruction to the government exactly what to do with an armed people (shall not be infringed), it does not by itself stand the test of time. The words themselves tend to take on slightly different meanings over time. That means that same Amendment will have different meanings to different people at different times. This is the source of the "militia right vs. individual right" argument.

Another thing I notice is that people argue the intent of our founding fathers when defending our rights. This leaves the argument up to the various interpretations of the several statements of the founders. The founders couldn't agree on a lot of things but they were very good at compromise. The argument then shifts to our recollection of those statements and our recollection of what the founding fathers intended.

In order to make our arguments infallible to the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms, we must defend the rights on behalf of a higher power. A power higher than government itself. Indeed, the right is not derived from people, from government, from paper, or from the intentions of a group of people that passed away a long time ago. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the inalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator. Our founders recognized that people had these rights. Of course, they also knew that governments didn't always respect those rights so they did write them down as a set of instructions for our government. What you must keep in mind is that our rights exist not by grant from the government, but because we have a right to life and liberty. How do you preserve a right to life and liberty if you do not have the means to protect it. It is why the rhinoceros was given a strong horn by its creator, to protect its life. It is why the shark has so many teeth. Whether you are predator or prey, your only right to life is your willingness to preserve it. I can not reinforce this enough, it is simply by our Creator's design that we have such rights.

Never let someone argue that changing the sacred document of the Constitution, or that any mild piece of legislation can ever take away our right to self defense. The government didn't give us the right to self defense, so it can never take it from us. It was never theirs to begin with. It is no less cruel to disarm a free people than it is to cut the horn from a rhinoceros.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

http://www.dailypaul.com/2690

http://www.dailypaul.com/269048/the-right-to-bare-arms

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

rights endowed by our Creator

This modern discussion of ideology is wonderful and necessary. Nazi Germany lacked this kind of discussion several decades ago, when armed resistance should have happened, but didn't.

Thank you for helping my own conversation. It's not the 2nd Ammendment so much as it would be against my religion to give up my gun.

Lot's of folks look at guns in different ways. Self defense and hunting are cited reasons against gun legislation. I'd like to elevate the reason against gun legislation to include a quote from one of our founding fathers:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrrany in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

This brings me to my largest concern. Everyone who recently watched the lastest 2 hour YouTube documentary thrivemovement.com is wondering the same thing I am.

The police state infrastructure is already in place, and the mainstream media is complicit in promoting the New World Order, most folks will hand over their guns if they decide to go door to door.

And I'm thinkin' that's the time to shoot back, but how? We need a raging debate about this. And we have to do it basically word of mouth, because television will mutate and destroy it.

I have more bullets than I have stomach for shooting people.

If they go house to house, what do we DO? They're only supposed to pry my empty smoking gun from my cold dead hands right? Give me liberty or give me death? Right? What are we gonna DO? It's not "if"... it's 'when' folks...

What

"This modern discussion of ideology is wonderful and necessary. Nazi Germany lacked this kind of discussion several decades ago, when armed resistance should have happened, but didn't.".

This comment is simplistic in nature and lacking in all aspects.

The reality is the overwhelming majority of people on the DP and society in general don't know a damn thing about Hitler and have had their opinions formulated for them by a lying Jewish owned media.

Adolf Hitler Declares War On Zionist Occupied USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bj740Ge_Ng

http://mk.christogenea.org/content/hitlers-war-what-historia...

Adolf Hitler - The greatest story NEVER told!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lejfGhWeakY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHqfOzBW188

The failure to investigate is our greatest failure

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth". - AH

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

I agree. Similar to how

I agree.

Similar to how people try to say that the income tax is unconstitutional. Even if that were proved to be the case, it would be a minute before legislators devised a constitutional amendment so that it became legal.

On the gun control idea. I personally don't have a gun but realize that most people who do don't have it to commit crime with. After thinking long and hard I've realize that the government , though, not evil, needs a healthy dose of fear to work well.

There needs to be a balance of powers and for that it is better that citizens are allowed to have guns. I do, however, support some kind of criminal background check...

*Slow clap*

I find this very agreeable. I have noticed as I have been engaging people with the inalienable-natural-rights argument that I'm winning people over when we begin to venture into "What are rights and where do they come from". If done in a polite manner and with sincerity, you can prove self-ownership in a way that is agreeable to virtually everyone. Tom Woods posted something on this that helped me out a lot.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/where-do-rights-come-from/

His liberty classroom program is strengthening my arguments as well as reassuring me this philosophy is the most justifiable.

You'd think I was a paid advertiser but really... the Natural Rights argument is the way to go.

In order to unify while embracing our wide diversity in beliefs,

perhaps we could say that 'Life' is the source of such unalienable rights. The fact that one is living would be the only requirement to lay claim to these rights. This seems to be more true in my own perception of reality. Maybe the theist, the atheist, the agnostic, and others could all agree on the point of Life as being our common ground.

No individual or group can grant you any right unless you are a slave to them. Being a slave requires one to offer his or her own consent, or submission, to the master's perceived authority. Freedom is a (difficult) choice. Most humans seem to settle for various degrees of (evolved) slavery.

Great point.

"The government didn't give us the right to self defense, so it can never take it from us."

Someone needs to make obama read that.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

writing letters

I encourage people to write letters to the President and Congress.

If we're going to make fundamental changes to shrink the size, power, and cost, of our Federal Government, end the FED, and enforce fiscal responsibility, and insist our foreign policy reflect the Golden Rule, we should be on record as demanding it.

I established correspondence with President Obama and have copied those letters into my webpage http://lango.us

Yes his reply could be dismissed as a "form letter", but the alarming remarks are signed by him on official WhiteHouse letterhead.

So it's on record, like a paper trail, and I hear the Post Office could use the bump. We all should write, write, and write some more!

Good points, Duane -

I think it's better to make the case based on fundamental
principles rather than getting bogged down in legalese
and seeming to be worshiping the Constitution for its own
sake.

I could be wrong, but I think the operative word, though is
"unalienable".

And if any right is unalienable, it seems like the right to
defend one's person/home/family/community would have to
be.

Then you can frame the discussion in terms of what likely
threats are, and what constitutes reasonable tools and means
for exercising the right.

If you can get anyone to look at the history of "democide" that's
going to provoke a some kind of response even from the tuned
out. Democide basically being the killing of people by their own
governments. For the last hundred years or so adding the toll from
all the wars and whatever other forms of violent death you can come
up with and you still have just a fraction of the totals for democide...

Context is important and Words have moving definitions.

For example, Robin Hood and his band of merry men. These men were not going around drinking and having big smiles on their faces. Merry in the 15th century was referring to "mighty". They were mighty men.

As to what authority should our rights come from, I claim them to be from God of the bible. The bible is the final authority for humanity. Rest these rights on something other and you will have laws arbitrarily being made like the kings of old. Oh, wait, our law makers today are resorting to that now, why? It's because we as a nation have fallen away from any idea of absolutes and have decided to do what is right in our own eyes. No standards here any more. The constitution was meant for a virtuous people, we are no longer virtuous and will be ruled by tyrants instead of properly governing ourselves.

As for a resource for that second amendment right, its in the bible. I just had this quick reference for us here, http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/ .

Using nature as the source of what is right and wrong will lead us to the strong will prey on the weak. The idea of murder being wrong becomes vague. Oh, wait, we have abortion in our land too. So, we are a nation that can not even decide that killing the innocent is wrong. I'm sure there's a bunch of us on this web site struggling with that one.

One more word example, many can recall that Christmas song, "God rest you merry gentlemen, Let nothing you dismay." Kind of confusing isn't it? Well, what it really means is this, "God make you mighty, gentlemen, let nothing discourage you (or let nothing cause you to lose courage)." May God certainly do that for all of us freedom lovers.

Have a blessed day and a happy new year.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.

Nice!

I'm with you all the way. But...the opposition will ask "show me?"...meaning how do we know our "Creator" has endowed us with the right to bear arms? Where in the Bible does God give man that right?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

Right

People are always appealing to higher power to justify their claims. It is against 'standards of human decency' for there not to be universal healthcare, etc. These conversations rarely get anywhere.

In my experience the most useful way to argue is to adopt the other side's argument in another context and apply it in this context. For example, there seems to be a tendency for people who are for very strict gun control also think that racism in police departments is rampant. When talking to such people I would show them the arguments of people like Malcolm X on the importance of gun rights.

The second ammendment

hasn't stopped the erosion of our freedoms by the Federal Reserve.

unfortunately many of the people attacking the 2nd amendment

don't believe in a "creator". Many of them view religion as a problem. So making this case with them could do nothing more then strengthen their conviction. That's just my opinion of course. In my area and age bracket, there are many atheist progressives.

We should use the language Judge Napalitano uses in such cases. He has stated that humanity is the source of our rights. Seems to work better for me anyway.

We have to understand who we are speaking with and pick the appropriate language. If you are talking to people who are faith based, using creator is great. Everyone else, possibly Judge Nap's language would be more effective.

It is time we start ignoring the Privileges we grant the Gov't

Since they are ignoring the Rights that come with Creation.

You don't recognize Inalienable Rights?

I don't recognize You as legitimate.

Gov'ts do not have Rights, they only have the Privilege (Consent, Permission) to govern as long as the People see them as fit.

It is obvious our Gov't has long been unfit to provide public services. They are truly a divided Special Interest Group that provides services for their Plebs at the expense of the Free.

Vicki Weaver is the reason . . .

Yes it is in fact a right bestowed by God and acknowledged by the founders. The founders purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to justify in the civil realm the common man defending himself, his family, and community against the abuses of a tyrannical state. Perhaps if Randy Weaver had more fire power, his wife would be alive and her would be murderer Lon Horiuchi dead. The trouble now is the Leviathan state where they will amass whatever firepower is necessary to destroy you.

Whether it be a county sheriff for removing children from their home because the parents dared to home school them, a state for arresting someone who collected rain water, or the feds for arresting someone for selling milk. Every time we read another one of these stories about government abuse all we do is get outraged. Our self-imposed isolationism and unwillingness to act is something we need to come to grips with before we are in the full clutches of a totalitarian regime.

God

Neither the Founders nor the Constitution refer to "God". Religion should not be mixed with inalienable rights.

We have all been "created" by "unknown".

I suggest the argument we make...

is just carrying our guns around. EVERYWHERE. Let it be known you have a gun. Carry in groups. Don't be afraid of what your neighbors say. Don't be afraid to be stopped by the police and invoke ALL your rights. Record every contact (live stream if you can) Don't let "THEM" intimidate you. Be strong, be principled, be armed to the teeth.

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

It is YOUR duty...

to be armed. I agree MoneyMike. Need to be armed at rallie's etc. Remember A Armed Society Is A Polite Society! You would be surprised how peaceful it can be at a rally, police are REAL polite!....When you are ARMED!

There was a good argument against the Bill of Rights

Wasn't it argued that the Bill of Rights was a ridiculous idea because the Constitution only granted limited powers to the government? If it wasn't in the Constitution, the government couldn't do it. And listing out certain rights would make it appear that they were our limited rights. Of course, the tenth amendment was intended to take care of that.

Just imagine the abuse our government would weigh upon us if we didn't have the Bill of Rights!

The shame is, we shouldn't have to refer to any amendments to assert our rights... and the greater shame is thank God we can.

Bottom Line is

We the People have the right to defend ourselves from TYRANNY
So with that in mind, we must ask "Why are the ones wanting our guns the very ones we need protection from?"...
That is the argument! Who protects us from a criminal Government employee?

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Excellent!

I truly prefer the term "Natural Rights" but I do give the Constitut5ion credit for doing a good job of spelling them out pretty well. But it did not bestow them, any more than it can defend them.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Fishy

This is really long but I'd like to get your perspective on this. It covers Jubilee, one of your favorite topics too.

http://jahtruth.net/plan.htm

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

I like it

It gets to some very core truths - like governments are not the path to liberty, and begging governments to restore the liberty they (by their very existence) destroy is a little like asking a rattlesnake to bite you, but begging it not inject the poison.
I am less than enamored of the KJV - King James had his own reasons to make a KJV, but that is not a critical issue. I don't care if it comes from "Peter Pan" if it is the truth. And the fact is, it is Natural Law that can trump the Law of Men, and only Natural Law can do so. So as a record of "precedents" the KJV is the best we have.
The declaration is an excellent one. Of course, any plan that involves relying on "when we all do it" is problematic, but we have to try something. We need a major push back, a PEACEFUL one, before they try to force a gun battle. You know damn well they will send in one of their goons to play the role of "Crazy, right wing gun owner goes berserk" if the real gun owners remain cool and calm. It is in our best interest to make a BOLD move, and do it peacefully
Lol - this would be GREAT project for retired Congressman Paul to spearhead! Eh, won't hold my breath!

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

I agree 100% with the op

I will however point out that a constitutional amendment nullifying the 2nd amendment would NEVER pass. The founders purposely created the amendment process so that votes could not be stolen/forged/faked etc...

They also set it up that way because they knew the general population would by and large be quite ignorant in a free country where most become complacent and forget their history. State reps are supposed to be a bit above average in intelligence then the general population and better able to weigh in on very SERIOUS decisions such as a constitutional amendment.

What we are debating here - at the core, is "What are self-evident rights?" Obviously you have the right to exist and that is self-evident thereby you have a right to have equal firepower as anyone else who might try to take that right away.

2nd Amendment= Vague, lousy wording

If the gods that created your Constitution were so brilliant then why is there any debate as to what the 2nd Amendment really means? (or the other Amendments for that matter too)

They wanted the states to ratify the Constitution but they wouldn't do so without some assurance of protection for the citizenry so they came up with ambiguous wording to get THE PEOPLE (whoever they were) to vote for the thing.

Patrick Henry (Mr. Give me liberty, blah, blah, blah) was opposed to the Constitution.

The Constitution created the framework for a centralized government and the Great White Fathers darn well knew what they were doing and why. POWER! Just a few years after the Constitution was rat-I-fied you had Adams crushing those that opposed him. Hamilton created the monster central bank and the US was in debt...just like he wanted.

Think of it! Countless American and British people died during the Revolutionary war just to secure American independence only to be fooled into establishing an unnecessary central government. The Articles were sufficient. The colonial congress couldn't even fund the wretched war without paper money!

So, your country got the 2nd Amendment along with a bunch of others that are now subject to so much debate and uncertainty as to what was meant in the wording of them.

Really brilliant Founders.

The wording is quite clear to

The wording is quite clear to me. What part are you confused by? The militia? The militia is the people as was stated when the amendment was proposed. Does the word "right" confuse you? "Infringe"? What part is vague?

What he's telling you is this....

9 unelected, life tenured justices can tell you what the words mean, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

...and yet they have already

...and yet they have already made it quite clear that it means exactly what we all think it means.