Comment

Comment by ATUM RA on January 31, 2013 at 1:44pm

Phillip – “Suggesting that any "rights" are "unalienable from God" is part of the problem. The "progressives" have done an amazing job of capturing our education system, and legal system, and driving any notion of "God" from the discussion on rights, social values, etc.  We must deal with this by proclaiming that all rights come from our simple existence as human beings with the ability to own our labor, possess property, and defend our lives and property. 

Unfortunately, as "natural beings", we seem well inclined to submit most of what we value in the face of force, or promise of care. Once in a while a generation shows up that says enough.”

Me – Wow, John Locke could not have said it any better in support of his philosophy on natural rights.

Thomas Jefferson referred to Locke as one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception." In writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson drew heavily on the doctrines concerning the general principles of liberty and the rights of man which Locke set forth in his work; Of Civil Government. In particular, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson copied Locke's words, "Life, liberty and property" which were subsequently changed to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

How can nature determine the morality of the soul? Will the nature of law determine whether matter can think of itself or whether a soul is necessary for thought or whether it is God who communicates thought to matter? To be a believer of Lockean theory one must be willing to make a huge leap of faith to support his basic essential element required to complete his definition of natural law [which he himself admits that he does not know what that basic essential element even is]. Since the nature of man is still subject to controversy, how can an entire rule of law be established in its image?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is always subject to the nature around us. It would be impossible to secure all of our rights acquired by whatever theory strikes our fancy by its support of our desires at the time without depriving another’s rights in the process. Only by deciding on what is best for the “greater good” can due process of law come to a fair and balanced decision on whose rights remain and in what form and who’s right’s are limited or denied to uphold another’s right.

Comment by Mark Twain on January 31, 2013 at 1:12am

@phil 

Why don't we have stashed, at least for those who could afford them, fully automatic rifles, tanks, surface to air missiles, etc.?

who says the people dont ... :)

 

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/12/28/tsr-dnt-l-a-gun-...

Comment by Mark Twain on January 31, 2013 at 12:12am

@Midnightmom    

it goes well beyond just the federal government,    low level  bureaucrats  have no fear of the law because they are not being held to any kind of legitimate standard of accountability  ,

 A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state    

simply put what ever the bureaucrat says the law is  is the law and your going to summit , no matter if what they are doing is in actually directly  violation of the law 

Comment by Phillip J. Barker on January 30, 2013 at 9:24pm

Comment to Jeff and Michael:

 I think we (the people) have given exactly as much attention/zeal to all the rights (your list, Jeff) as we have to the 2nd Amendment.  Unfortunately, as you, Jeff, correctly point out, we have given little to the 2nd Amendment.  Why don't we have stashed, at least for those who could afford them, fully automatic rifles, tanks, surface to air missiles, etc.?  The reality is that we, and the NRA, have caved in with respect to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and allowed the discussion to be driven by the "rights of hunters, personal home defense, and sport shooting".

Suggesting that any "rights" are "unalienable from God" is part of the problem. The "progressives" have done an amazing job of capturing our education system, and legal system, and driving any notion of "God" from the discussion on rights, social values, etc.  We must deal with this by proclaiming that all rights come from our simple existence as human beings with the ability to own our labor, possess property, and defend our lives and property. 

Unfortunately, as "natural beings", we seem well inclined to submit most of what we value in the face of force, or promise of care. Once in a while a generation shows up that says enough.

Comment by Midnightmom on January 30, 2013 at 1:45pm

Very insightful analysis of the current tyranny:

Comment by Michael Bryant on January 29, 2013 at 11:23pm

Jeff, Well stated.

"Yet we find it entirely uncomfortable to admit that the large majority of those unalienable grants from God, tools given to accomplish what we exist to do, have been given away, left to rot, and/or routinely undermined in day-to-day living."

You also correctly state;

"Unalienable....that which cannot be taken away or given away."

Thus all that is required is enough that understand that it is WE who still retain all of these rights, who only need to assert them. If .. we understand them!

Comment by Jeff Gardner on January 29, 2013 at 11:03pm

Mr. North makes the case for an American exceptional attitude regarding guns.  But this argument, along with most others in the current buzz, misses the greater point.

This-all does not demonstrate what Americans mightily resist nearly as much as what they do not.  We may not permit our weapons to be confiscated, but do not confuse that with any great love of the Second Amendment.  2A, after all, provides an unalienable right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.  Unalienable....that which cannot be taken away or given away.  Many Americans these days want to loudly tout their 2A credentials.  Yet in varying degrees there is near-universal support for background checks, for 'obvious' restrictions on individual ownership of F-22s or Sherman tanks, mental heath checks, permits, &c &c.  All of which may or may not offer "reasonable" advantages of one stripe or another, negotiated and enforced by an entity with no power to do so.  But none of which adhere to or even respect that is is a right that shall not be infringed.  Once Americans tolerated contours of this unalienable right granted by God, gun ownership became a privilege to be negotiated with a replacement pseudo-superior, government.

Americans' resistance in this matter underscores an even greater failure.  While we have shown our collective mettle to possess firearms under highly restrictive conditions, this feint shadow of a right highlights even greater collective indifference for our American birthright.  Consider what the nation would look like is we demonstrated as much zeal and determination to protect freedom of religion.  Freedom of speech.  Right of assembly.  Right to petition.  Right to assemble.  Search and seizure protections.  Due process.  Civil and criminal process.  Protection of other rights not enumerated.  Strict limitation of federal power to those so enumerated.  A hundred other protections and limitations not deemed important or sexy enough to bother protecting.  Not lip service, but real, asserted, in no uncertain terms.

The instant controversy shows where Americans will draw the line.  We are animated by one privilege, largely deteriorated, that we have placed on our side of the line.  Yet we find it entirely uncomfortable to admit that the large majority of those unalienable grants from God, tools given to accomplish what we exist to do, have been given away, left to rot, and/or routinely undermined in day-to-day living.

Indeed, the current resistance highlights what we can do.  More importantly, it highlights with crystal clarity what we do not.

Comment by Mark Twain on January 29, 2013 at 10:47pm

@phil you nailed it ,     the issue of tyranny is more ingrained then most realize its just a matter of people seeing through the fog    of propaganda  pushed on them    , most people don't realize how screwed up the system actually has become because they either have no direct knowledge or rely on the mainstream media  which never connects the dots on tyrannical behavior going  on ,

Comment by Mark Twain on January 29, 2013 at 10:30pm

the intelligence of those in Sacramento in regard to guns  Sacramento city council  member sandy sheedy

Comment by Phillip J. Barker on January 29, 2013 at 8:54pm

teresting post!!!

I would take exception to a few of his points, or at least question them further:

1) ....... on the question of gun ownership, America really is exceptional.

One might think so, until one sees the crowds in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and many other countries, firing their weapons (albeit stupidly) into the air in celebration of whatever event has inspired them at the moment.  Whatever one might think of their cultures, politics, and religious convictions, these "armed" people do represent a force that must be reckoned with in their respective countries.

2) The ownership of weapons in the United States by private citizens is not matched anywhere else in the world. Switzerland is close. The training is far better. In other words, in Switzerland it is a matter of national priority that men be willing to fight, trained to fight, and armed with military weapons. The American tradition is far more a matter of individual autonomy, individual ownership of weapons, and not a matter of national pride. Americans do not have anything like the training that the Swiss have in the use of their weapons. Americans are not expected to answer a call to arms, and go down to the local armory to get those arms. 

I disagree that the training is better, unless one considers "training" to mean ongoing rehearsal in "operating in concert in a tactical way".  Many American gun owners are military trained.  Many more are well trained by their Dad's and Uncles in the safe handling of firearms.  Many are trained in tactical defense; others at least have a rudimentary understanding of the regulations of "carry permits".  If the "militia", as originally understood in America, still existed, then there would be a place for these people to become "tactically proficient", as are reportedly the Swiss. The Swiss simply have a version of the National Guard.  Comparing the Switzerland to America is not really valuable in understanding anything.

4) political liberals who are in favor of gun control do not understand it. They do not understand that they are attempting to knock down a wall that goes back prior to the American Revolution. They have been successful in virtually every other area of life in which they have extended federal power over individual rights. But in this area, they meet resistance every time. It drives them nuts. They do not understand it, and they deeply resent it.

This is true!!!  And, I love it!!

It is an indication that in one area of life, Americans will resist the extension of federal power.  The importance of the gun issue does not have to do with weekend play-pretend warriors who belong to something they call a militia, who go out and tramp around the woods and carry a weapon. It goes much deeper than this. It also goes much wider than this. It is also not a matter of a commitment to the right of secession, or the right of armed resistance, or anything like it. It is simply an emotional, traditional, and uniquely American commitment to the right of a man to own a weapon, and his obligation to resist any attempt by government agency to take away this right.

In Colonial America it was common for the citizens of the community in which they resided to be armed as a mandate, and to show up for periodic training.  They supplied their own weapons as a requirement, but there were also armories for cannon, powder, ammo, and additional weapon storage.  Male adults could be fined for non compliance with the requirement to be part of the citizen militia. 

Denigrating "weekend play-pretend warriors" is simply a stupid attempt to appear intellectually superior.  And, "it" is not only about a right to own a firearm.  It does have to do with a national consciousness among many that tyranny is an ever present force to be contained.  The Southern States armies during the Civil War were largely outfitted with private weapons (logistically not good, but a fact).

6) The federal government is not going to come to take away our guns. That is not because the federal government thinks we are going to resort to armed resistance. It is because the federal government relies on voluntary cooperation to get anything enforced, and in this area, it will not get such cooperation. Just because the government passes a law that says that Americans must turn in their guns, the guns are not going to be turned in.

I agree, but there will be laws passed that Americans will have to consider rejecting on a personal level.