-64 votes

Constitution is just a piece of paper, not an Alex Jones call to arms

I've heard a few people on this site and Alex Jones himself, call for violence if the government takes away assault weapons. I personally don't have much of an opinion on whether or not an assault weapons ban would help stop mass murder in this country. I do know that the constitution guarantees little in regard to your freedom, and the right to bear arms is just a few sentences on a piece of paper rather than a natural right you own based on being alive. Therefore, the fight to protect the "right" to bear arms has to be given a proper cost benefit analysis rather than a philosophical stand to the death based on "rights" that are granted by a piece of paper.

There are some lawful avenues that the liberty movement can take to help ensure that gun owners can hold onto the weapons they want. All of these lawful avenues include non-violent protest, whether it is marching to the white house, going on TV, or simply posting a Facebook message. Nonviolent protests have again and again proven to be a successful means of convincing others of any arbitrary message, and have kept guns in the hands of civilians for more than 200 years. Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive.

Unlawful violent protests are more probable to hurt the movement in which they are meant to support. 9/11 has caused almost the entire world to feel hatred for ultra-conservative Islamic belief. Violence committed by Israel into Muslim regions, which is mainly retaliatory, has continually united terrorist organizations to continually terrorize the Israeli population. Violence almost never works. When Alex Jones and other "hardcore gun owners" threaten violence as retaliation to 2nd amendment offenses, it only strengthens the opposition's resolve. Is it possible that a guerrilla style revolution with AR-15 style assault rifles could stifle a government strike against its own people? Yes; but what is more likely is that a military, which has technologically advanced beyond anything available to the public, would mow down revolutionary gun owners and kill the second amendment for the next 200 years.

The constitution is a piece of paper written by a group of old, rich, dead, white men. It was so flawed that it actually allowed slavery to exist for nearly 100 years after its creation. The rights that the constitution "ensure" do not actually exists. You can kill almost anyone you want to if you wanted to. The constitution, as a piece of paper, can do nothing to protect anyone. You may go to jail for murder, but the person you killed is dead and nothing will ever bring that person back to life. What does exist, is public opinion. The only way to ensure freedom for ourselves, our children, and our people, is to sway public opinion in our favor. The best way to do that is non-violent protest using logical debate with provable facts.

I've heard many of you give constitutional arguments as to why it’s illegal for the government to take away our guns. Realize that you are quoting a piece of fiction that was used as a means to unite a group of states around one federal government. It was a compromise of power, and it was almost immediately brushed aside (See 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts). The only way to keep your guns is to use the power of logic and persuasion to get the public behind your ideology. A piece of paper will do little to help you.

If you don't want to take it from me, let George Carlin explain your rights to you:


Comment viewing options

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

Maybe is was 08

not 07 when I came around to this site. But it was one of the 07 republican debates that turned me on to Ron Paul. Peter Schiff was right, closed the deal for me, although I did a lot of research after that. Tom Woods taught me more about liberty than anyone else.

Liberty is comprised of many different walks of life...

I didn't stumble on to this site, I've been around since 2007, strangely enough. I only recently became a member, and I don't expect you to believe me. I really use the site as a place to get liberty minded news. Personally I agree with almost nothing the liberty movement uses as a basis for its beliefs. I just happen to agree that I don't want a government telling me or any of my people what to do. I think the individual knows whats best for the individual and anybody who thinks otherwise needs a lesson in liberty.

All the philosophical arguments are nonsense to me. They are opinions based on other opinions. For instance, someone gave me an opinion below and sited another opinion as proof of that opinion. As a man of science, I do not use opinions as a basis for my beliefs. In fact I have very few beliefs at all.

One thing about your statement I do find funny,

"it is quite perplexing how someone who thinks the constitution is a piece of fiction written by dead white men could stumble upon this website and decide to stick around."

The constitution was, without a doubt, written by dead white people. It also is an opinion of our rights as humans, not a scientific argument based on experimentation, and must be taken for what it is, a very persuasive piece of fiction that sometimes designates how our laws are created and enforced. Nothing more, it has no properties that can undoubtedly prove that the natural rights it says we have, actually exist.

I do believe you on how long

I do believe you on how long you been here I also have been silently reading for years before first posting and for the most part am still just a silent reader.

I am not trying argue natural rights. I believe that what some argue are natural rights should exist because they are logically and morally the best way for peaceful people to interact to build the most prosperous society with the most good happening for the most people.

I should have left the last paragraph off my first post because I was more interested in your response to my comments on your misunderstanding of Alex Jones stance. It was intended as an after thought interesting side comment.


I was thinking of responding to the Alex Jones stuff that was in the beginning of your comment. I just got sidetracked cause everyone else has been debating me on natural rights.

Let me say something about Alex Jones. I have a lot of mixed feelings toward the guy. He has been non-violently fighting the system for years. Some of what he's done is amazing, hell, a lot of it is. I personally like his show, say what you want, its damn entertaining. Some people say that we wouldn't have a Ron Paul like we do now without an Alex Jones.

My big....but...statement to that is the 1776 stuff on Piers Morgan. It's illogical because you can have every type of assault rifle, machine gun, rocket launchers, flame throwers, all that stuff, and today's government could wipe you out in a few weeks. The AR-15 can't stand up to an air-force like we have today, we would lose and all of liberty would die with it. There's no 1776 all over again, that would never happen, all those that chose to fight are really choosing to die, and for nothing.

We can't give our government the reason to kill us. We have to have an approach like Gandhi in India. It is the only way, there's nothing else.

You add the conspiracy stuff to it, and I'm not saying his conspiracy theories are wrong. Hell, somebody could of brought Bin Laden to my house in a body bag and I wouldn't be able to identify the body, I don't know him and I'm not qualified for DNA testing. I don't know for sure, who did 9/11, or if Bin laden even existed, not for 100% sure. I mean, I wasn't there, and neither was Alex Jones; but he spews out his conspiracy stuff with 100% certainty, anyone who is that certain about anything, scares the sh#t out of me.

Thanks for your response. My

Thanks for your response. My final comment would be that if one percent of gun owners choose to stand up, that's 1.6 million people. That's not an insignificant number by any means. Stopping that type of revolution would mean losing the world empire (bringing the troops home). But again he only advocates doing this when they come kicking in our doors. Good luck with peaceful revolution after that. Our government already believes in assassination and torture for foreigners. Since they think the principle is good how long till they would begin applying this to a defenseless population.

it's not that they "should" exist,

they do. absent some governing authority, would you hesitate to stop an attacker from harming your mother?
of course not.
it is understood anywhere on this planet without a written or uttered word.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I think morality has a lot

I think morality has a lot more to do with how you're raised rather than a natural inclination generated at birth. Maybe you and I would protect our mother; but some people don't have a nice Mom who took care of them.

Some people grab a gun, go to class, and shoot everybody, including their mom. And I don't think the guy who did that is evil. I think he's a misguided organic robot(human) who made a very tragic decision. You ever watch the third zeitgeist about psychology?

That's some deep stuff right there, it really delves into why we do what we do when we do it.

Yeah and defending yourself

Yeah and defending yourself would be the moral and logical conclusion.

how did logical persuasion

how did logical persuasion work for the jews who used to live in germany about 80 years ago?

It didn't

That's because natural rights don't exist. If they did, those natural rights would have protected them. If I lost my life in that fashion, I think that I would wish that I had figured out what was going on sooner, and I would have fled the country with nothing and tried to start a new life somewhere else. That being said, many of the victims would still never had that option. No amount of violence would have protected those poor souls who lost there lives by one of the worst humans to ever walk the planet, Hitler.

Now, violence, in the end remedied some of the situation that occurred; but it did not change minds. There are still dumb, jew-hating, morons all over the world. Killing them will make no difference, because they teach their offspring the same silly illogical nonsense that caused their own bigotry. Educating them as to why jewish people are the same as the rest of us is the only solution.

comparing natural rights to the concept of GOD is silly.

it would seem that you do not know what an "Abrahamic" faith is.
it would probably also help if you define what a "race" is.
I faced these same decisions myself and became a Deist.

it will also help you to understand the original meaning of the word "Nazi" or at least what it means and stands for.
it means the national socialist German workers party.

as far as "race" goes, there are only 3, some would argue 4.

so, you do not believe in natural rights.

and you do not believe in rights at all. and you attacked us for disagreeing with you.

so, why don't you give us the same chance and state what you believe?
oh let me guess, you don't know! but you DO believe in PROGRESS!
your turn.


I don't believe in natural rights. I believe that were here and have decided that it is best for people to make decisions on their own. I believe that is the fundamental philosophy as to why liberty is better than tyranny. I think we live in a world where we can make choices; but those choices are limited by our environment and those in our environment that choose to limit our choices.

If I have created a posture with my words that is seen by the majority as an attack then I need to restate my position in a less aggressive manor. I'm not sure how to do that yet. I will work harder to give my message a less sharp edge.

OK, I see now.

" I think we live in a world where we can make choices; but those choices are limited by our environment and those in our environment that choose to limit our choices."

both political concepts, natural law and Liberty. are very peaceful concepts. they are intended to unite all people. and promote peace.

they recognize that we cannot stop nature from limiting your free will. but we can stop man from doing so.

I hope that makes sense....

I dig it


No.7's picture

Our Rights are "endowed by their (our) Creator"

Rights come from God, not the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States is there to defend those rights and it is much more than "A piece of paper", It's the supreme law of the land.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

If rights came from god,and

If rights came from god,and god is all powerful and all knowing. Then why does god need the constitution to defend those rights?

I'll bite.

Because the Constitution(s) was/were written to restrain government(s), NOT to protect rights.


Our Creator endows us with those rights. It is OUR rights that we protect, not God's. I'm confident in saying that no one on Earth can violate His rights and they are NOT in need of defending.

What you are describing is theocracy, not liberty.

Liberty is the rejection of the initiation of force. It is an absolute principle that cannot be violated, or there is no liberty.

You are free to say whatever you'd like. But if you perform your "cost/benefit analysis" and then as a result you decide to come take away my gun, you will be initiating force, thereby violating the principle of liberty.

Also, you will receive a point blank shotgun blast.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

No wait

I wouldn't due the cost benefit analysis to take your gun away. I wouldn't even think about taking your gun away.

I'm saying if the government wanted to take my gun away, I would do a cost benefit analysis on whether fighting the government was worth it. I don't actually own a gun though. I'm in Arizona, we have concealed weapons, I don't mess with anybody. haha


Not a threat :) Just a

Not a threat :) Just a promise! ;P

But you're right, on an individual level everyone has to weight cost/benefit of every choice they make.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You lost me at:

Therefore, the fight to protect the "right" to bear arms has to be given a proper cost benefit analysis rather than a philosophical stand to the death based on "rights" that are granted by a piece of paper.

Rights are not granted. And that is that.


Why do you think your rights are natural when they can be taken away by anyone? I don't get this natural right argument, I've listened to it a thousand times. Click the link at the bottom and listen to George Carlin, he's way better than me at this type of thing.

rights can't be taken

only surrendered.

if all the politicians, God willing, disappeared from the planet, are you going to arrest your neighbor for smoking a joint? probably not.
if the same guy was shooting random people would you and your neighbors put a stop to it? i imagine so.

you don't need politicians to have law. really the concept is pretty simple.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Agreed to a certain extend..

I think that if somebody who is physically able to take away your life chooses to do so, then your life is over even if you don't surrender. Therefore, that person just took away your "right" to life, and because of that, you never really had the natural right to life in the first place.

because someone

successfully violates my rights, does not meant they don't exist.
if i put three in his chest and stop him, are you going to arrest me?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

I wouldn't

but others would.....I think it's because you have no natural rights that something so awful could happen to you.

I mean getting arrested for defending yourself.
It's happened before in this weird ass country.


You naturally have the right because you are physically able to do it.

Liberty -- the principle of non-aggression -- suggests that we put one, and only one artificial limitation on those natural rights, and that is the initiation of force (which, in the event of violation, is to be met with greater force).

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us


People say you have the right to your life; but if someone who is more powerful than you chooses to take away your life, then you become physically unable to defend your life. Therefore, you never really had the right to your life in the first place.

Then that person is violating

Then that person is violating the principle of liberty.

It is not some magical force. It only works by consent, and consent only occurs with incentive. The incentive, in my opinion, is that the world would be a much better place.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us