Sunday, May 15, 2016

The Right to Own a Gun Is the Right to Own Yourself

The following argument also applies to those who believe that God owns you instead of the government.  Modern statists do not want any competition for your loyalties, including God.

There are many angles to the debate over whether people have the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control advocates like to bicker and haggle over the meaning of the Second Amendment even when our rights exist outside of paper documents. When that doesn’t work they resort to social utility arguments about what’s best for the “good of society.” Or they create propaganda painting gun owners as dangerous anti-social psychopaths.

But all of this is irrelevant and ignores the fundamental question.

Who owns you?

Liberty lovers understand and cherish the principle of self-ownership. That is, that every individual has property in themselves.

They, not the government, are sovereign.

Because people own themselves, they have the right to use the legitimate amount of force or violence necessary to protect themselves against harm as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. The debate over modern firearms as the means of self-defense is merely a reflection of our technological advances. People do not debate whether we can own swords or bows and arrows because they are primitive compared to the power of a semi-automatic rifle or pistol. If this debate were to take place 400 years ago they would have been relevant.

As a result, people must be able to adequately match a potential threat with equal or greater force. As technology changes so does the means by which we defend ourselves.

The Second Amendment directly acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, but it tacitly acknowledges the right to self-defense and by extension the right of self-ownership.

Beneath all their rhetoric and doublespeak and Orwellian terminology gun control advocates do not believe people ultimately own themselves. They believe the government owns them.

Such a claim sounds radical or melodramatic but it makes sense once you closely examine their perspective and their arguments. When they say people shouldn’t be allowed to own certain weapons or they “don’t need them,” they aren’t talking about the government as well. They are talking about private individuals. They speak as though government has the final say on what a person needs in order to protect themselves.

More importantly, when they say “you don’t need” a certain weapon much of the following rationale for that argument revolves around the claim that law enforcement is sufficient to protect you from harm.

Let’s put aside for a moment that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment was to ensure the people could overthrow a tyrannical government. The inevitable conclusion one must arrive from the argument that you don’t need a gun because the government has the sufficient means to protect you is that they have final authority regarding the defense of citizens because it owns them. In other words, the government has total control over what people are allowed to use to legitimately defend themselves.

More Here


Anonymous said...

When you boil down the arguments it comes to the questions of Why cant I have that. Who says I cant have that. then why do they say I cant have that. If I can afford to have it, why can not I not own it. the word sovereign means you have the right to determine how you spend your money and what you decide you need without asking anyone else's permission. Sovereign citizens have the right to decide for themselves what is best for them. How many people try to tell you how to vote? in the end it is you that has to pull the lever. You are responsible for your own actions and nobody else's actions. God gave us free will not the government. We make our own decisions. and we have to take responsibility for those decisions. I could, if I wanted to afford to buy a fully automatic weapon, But I know how expensive they are to shoot. being a tight wad I cant see wasting that much money on ammo. Experience has proven to me that spraying bullets is not as beneficial as hitting what you want to drop. Learning to shoot faster and more accurate is far better than spraying and hoping you hit something. don't get me wrong I have seen times when spraying can be very beneficial. but that is when a wall of targets are coming at you. Spray when there is no chance of missing something. One bullet does not weigh much 200 bullets is a completely different story. 500 or more like I like to carry Is beginning to show on this old man. The difference is if you carry 200 bullets and don't hit anything, You have wasted a lot of effort. If you carry 500 bullets and have a hit for every bullet you have accomplished something. Most fully automatic weapons have a selector switch so that you can fire one round at a time. I have seen 3,000 rounds fired through an M-60 with a total body count of eleven. that is less than one body per 200 round can. The last time I went deer hunting I took a 20 round box of ammo with me. I got my deer and came back with 19 rounds left. Most things do not die from the bullet hole, they die from loss of blood or lead poisoning. The 1.6 Billion rounds the government recently bought is specifically designed to cause as much bleeding as possible and lead poisoning as a back up. This is the ammo Homeland security will be using if they decide to fill up the FEMA camps. Local police agencies have been using this kind of ammo for may years. Military ammo is designed to cause injury not actually kill. sure lots of people die from military ammo but only because it is too far from medical attention. People were not designed to leak large amounts of blood. Exploding hollow point ammo is designed to cause as much bleeding as possible as soon as possible. the many fragments of lead make lead poisoning very likely. that is the ammo our government has purchased to use against civilians and they bought it with our money. Obama, by executive order,just gave himself the power to declare martial law as he sees fit. Now back to those question why would government want to prevent citizens from owning guns? we severely out number them if we have guns. Armored vehicles are only a protection if you do not know how to disable them. the solution to tear gas is to have a gas mask with extra filters. Poison gas is very easy to make and very dangerous to handle. One gallon of regular gasoline has the explosive power of 14 sticks of dynamite, mixed with flour and it is very hard to stop the resulting fire. foo gas or napalm.

Anonymous said...

Our government has given its self the power to raid our homes, take our groceries and anything else it wants, Why? because If you know what you are doing with common house hold items, many just in the kitchen, Americans might just become American Cong. and put an end to the gun grabbing. Many foods, chemicals, cleaning products and Medicines can be made into very dangerous weapons. the need to know just may come sooner than you think. the only reason the government wants our guns is to have complete control to carry our its agenda. You think it is a conspiracy theory then why so many executive orders? why bypass congress if it is so good for every body? time to wake up and keep your guns and ammo. Local cops used to carry ball ammo, now they carry killer ammo. Local cops went to the .40 caliber guns, hoping to convince people that is was a better caliber and drive down the ownership of 9mm guns. Why? because 9mm guns penetrate body armor and the .40 caliber does not. Scientific fact. body armor, most body armor, will stop a .454 magnum. It will not stop an arrow fired from a 50 pound pull bow or a 9mm round. and the government is worried about fully automatic weapons? I have an M-1 .30 caliber carbine it is referred to as an assault weapon. put a five round magazine in it instead of a 30 round magazine and it becomes a deer rifle. I have made shots with my .30 carbine I know I could not make with an M-16. the ammo is lighter and smaller and just as deadly and I can carry a lot more ammo. 30-30, .357, .38, 9mm, .22mag, .22lr are far better than the M-16 for my money. Every gun I have has a specific purpose and I have yet to find a good purpose for an M-16. basic ammo amount issued for an M-16 is 200 rounds once that is gone nothing else fits. and they make a rotten bayonet.