All of which, Kleck said, can be boiled-down to a bumper-sticker slogan: "Bad guys have guns, bad effects. Good guys have guns, good effects."This is a pleasantly surprising balanced report, although I suspect the line about guns and property owners will renew an old debate...
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
University Professors Shape Laws
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
"guns and property owners will renew an old debate..."
You are correct!
To be fair, since it is YOUR BUSINESS after all, I'll let you through out your SUPPOSITION first.
And then I'll refute it with the FACTS.
Ready when you are....
My supposition is that I have a right to associate with another human being on mutually acceptable terms, and if those terms are unacceptable to either of us, we have a right not to associate with each other.
My corrollary supposition is, as long as we're not imposing ourselves on you, our mutually acceptable conditions for association are none of your business.
My final contention is that you have no right to enter my property without my consent.
But, we are operating under the proposition that you have INVITED ME, correct?
If that being the case....
Disregard of the Rights of others, will work its way back to you. Every last attempt at practising the opposite has ended in failure and destruction. History is littered with the bodies of those that did not learn this TRUTH. Fortunately, our Founders did.
Does it seem reasonable that the fear or insecurity of one citizen/establishment, is just cause for negating the Right of another citizen? A Right that is authoritively held out as being 'The First Law of Nature'? Nay....a THOUSAND times NAY!.....
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." - John Adams
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819
I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to
support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident
branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature.
"All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please;
and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the
society they belong to, and enter into another.
"When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a
right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and
previous limitations as form an equitable original compact."
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual
and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal
and immutable laws of God and nature, [418]as well as by the law of nations
and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in
the former."
"[419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but
only to have the law of nature for his rule.
"In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired
servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they
should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes
of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an
equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle
that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which
they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right
to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with
the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they
would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a
private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private
affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of
their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both
cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated
price than are able and willing to perform their duty.
"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one,
or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their
essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the
grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is
for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal
of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men,
through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any
essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of
society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom
being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate
this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"...many private men are tyrants."
"[E]veryone is tyrant who abuses any power over those subject to him which has been conceded from above."
""Some things are . . . so detestable that no command will possibly justify them or render them permissible."
"All tyrants reach a miserable end,"
- John of Salisbury, From the book 'Policraticus' 1159 A.D.
('Policraticus' was studied by men such as Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders. The Bible and 'Policraticus' are probably the two most critical writings responsible for the American Revolution).
"Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your Grace!"
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place."
- Royall Tyler, revolutionary war veteran, in his play 'The Contract'.
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world, as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine, Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)
"These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that...make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill...they will swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah!"
- Amos Singletary, delegate at the 1788 Massachusetts Constitutional convention.
"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction....Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty; that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority"....The Federalist, 1799
"Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society, must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws. Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the Denomination of the LOWER; and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope, therefore, that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, "Stand in the old ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change." - Benjamin Franklin, Queries and Remarks respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1789 Writings 10:55--60
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300 1803
If the business property owner deprives another citizen of their RKBA, as a condition of entering the 'owners' establishment. Is not that owner depriving the citizen of, not only their Right, but their property? How can that possibly be good business practise? Much less common sense?
Is not the whole purpose of being in business to make money? How can you hope to draw customers/employees by advertising 'Come on in, but leave your Rights outside! I want, not only your money, but control of your Rights and property as well.' Sound business practise? Don't think so.
Surely the business owner has rights in asking that certain non-destructive/intrusive restrictions be in place. The owner has the Right of securing their premises against harm or behavior that would drive others away. But, to suggest that he has the power to negate an invited customer/employee in the enjoyment of their own Right and property is ludicrous. It is an exercise of prior restraint, which is clearly repugnant to the Constitution.
Consider the srgument from a different angle - that of security. One would think that having an armed person in their establishment would be an added security. A benefit. The mere presence of an armed person is known to keep criminal activity at bay. If considered in that light, it is now a help rather than a hinderance - correct?
The Framers were attempting to set up a system that would best assure the PROTECTION of everyone's Rights. If you want to enjoy your own, it is your duty to ensure the Rights of others. Failure to do so is a dangerous precedent to set. What goes around, comes around. If you want it, you have to be willing to give it.
In addition to having an USURPING gov., do we want a 'class' USURPING against our Rights as well?
How many Revolutions have started because of 'class'?
Business has opened its doors to customers and employees, it is therefore 'public', as long as the Open sign is up or an invitation to enter has been extended.
The intentions of the Framers, for an Armed populace, was to keep in check any thought of usurpation by government. Aa well as, against "ANYONE who would attempt to abuse them". The 'checks and balances' system is universally applicable, specifically to keep potential abuse of power in check. For it should never be forgotten that 'Absolute power, corrupts absolutely'. If someone is asking that you disarm before entering their property, they are defying the First Law of Nature. And therefore can be construed as a tyrant.
The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - No how, by ANY means, by ANY one!
_____________________________________________________________________
To those who submit that property rights take precedence over an enumerated Right; Prove it.
Provide clear and concise proof in support of your position. Back the position, with readily verifiable data, that must be based upon Founding Constitutional Principles.
The three sources listed below, being the accepted sources of authoritative data;
1) The body of the Constitution itself.
2) Congressional Records of debate during the period of Framing.
3) The Federalist Papers.
Commentary, by those directly instrumental in the Framing of the Constitution, has bearing as well. So long as the commentary has direct attribution to and bearing upon the subject at hand.
Conjecture or supposition would rightfully seem unacceptable.
No. We're operating under the assumption that you and I are deciding whether or not I want to invite you and you want to accept.
David, you are way off topic with all this. You asked me for my supposition and I provided it. You then said you would refute my supposition with facts, and you haven't addressed my direct points at all.
Do I have a right to associate with another human being on mutually acceptable terms or not? Yes or no? I can answer that without writing a dissertation and citing quotes. I say "Yes, I do."
Do you say I don't? Yes or no?
If I and the person I associate with don't impose ourselves on you, are our arrangements any of your business? Yes or no?
I say "No, our affairs don't concern you."
Do you say you have the right to intrude--even if we don't want you?
Yes or no?
Do you have a right to enter my property without my consent? Yes or no? I say "No." Do you say "yes"?
Stay on topic. You asked me for my suppositions and I gave them.
Give me the facts you promised to refute my simple answers that yes, I can associate with whom I please as long as we both agree, no, it is no one else's business as long as they're not affected, and no, no one has a right to enter my property without my consent.
These are simple points. How about a simple refutation?
Oh, yes, E. David, please!
How about a REAL simple refutation in, oh, say 200 words or less?
Not that your education fails to impress me, you understand. I just don't have this kind of time.
In a business sense? Or, personal?
Or, I can just answer both.
If it is in a personal sense - simple, we don't associate.
If it is in a business sense. Your business PROPERTY is located on SOVEREIGN U.S. Soil. That places you directly under the bounds of the Constitution and subject to adherence of its principles. (If it was being upheld as truly intended).
If the business owner doesn't want to honor the Constitution - than go to China or Russia and set up shop.
In the meantime, I will do my utmost to overturn the petty-tyrant. And spend my money with someone who truly honors the principles of Freedom and Liberty.
Do I have a right to conduct business with another human being on mutually acceptable terms or not? Yes or no?
If I and the person I conduct business with don't impose ourselves on you, are our arrangements any of your business? Yes or no?
Do you have a right to enter my business property without my consent? Yes or no?
I'm still waiting for you to address my "suppositions" let alone "refute" them with "facts." You asked me for them, I gave them to you, and have repeated them 3 times now.
Will you answer the questions: yes or no?
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into IMMEDIATE OPERATION UPON THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had ENCROACHED ON THE NATIONAL RIGHTS." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16
'In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal; but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws.'" - Thomas Jefferson, copied into his Commonplace Book from [Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, VIII,c.3:]
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." -Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816
Despite owning property, the owner thereof is still a citizen, correct?
Then, in consideration of what Alex wrote in Fed. #16...NO, you DO NOT have that RIGHT to ask me to disarm as a condition of ANYTHING. The United States of America is a Republic - not an aristocracy, democracy or petty-tyrant dictatorship. If a person is on U.S. soil, they are BOUND by the Constitutional Republican principles thereof.
All the above would be applicable, assuming the government was operating in a Constitutionally correct manner.
E David, I have asked you specific questions several times now and you have avoided them completely, instead quoting Adams and Hamilton and Jefferson, and doing everything but staying on topic.
I have yet to see you refute my suppositions with those facts you promised.
I have provided you with 3 "yes" or "no" questions that couldn't be simpler. Why won't you give me a simple "yes" or "no"?
If you're not going to directly address what YOU asked me to provide at the outset, this will go nowhere.
And I directly answered you in my second to the last comment....
"Then, in consideration of what Alex wrote in Fed. #16..."
"NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT TO ASK ME TO DISARM AS A CONDITION OF ANYTHING."
"The United States of America is a Republic - not an aristocracy, democracy or petty-tyrant dictatorship. If a person is on U.S. soil, they are BOUND by the Constitutional Republican principles thereof."
And once again, that is all predicated on if we were operating under the true principles of the Constitution.
I hold my property rights above my gun rights, I mean, guns are property.
If I don't like a certain armed person, and for whatever reason, I have the absolute legal authority and right to force him to leave, but do yet do not have the right to render himself defensless wherever it may be.
If you want to disarm, dislocate.
The answer is simple.
No, David, you have not, as my 3 specific questions said nothing about you disarming.
Answer the questions or don't.
Lee Warner said...
"Oh, yes, E. David, please!
How about a REAL simple refutation in, oh, say 200 words or less?"
Try that in a court of law and see how far you get.
How is an argument refuted, unless it is backed with fact? A basis must be established.
Otherwise, David says yes, and I say no and that's it?
The article indicates the premise that it is 'business' property.
David has held out that he has a 'right'. I'm providing evidence that he does not have that 'right'. At least in a true Constitutional sense.
David C. said...
"My supposition is that I have a right to associate with another human being on mutually acceptable terms, and if those terms are unacceptable to either of us, we have a right not to associate with each other."
On a personal one on one basis, YES you have that right. On a business basis, if your open to the public in any way - NO, you DO NOT have that right.
"If I and the person I associate with don't impose ourselves on you, are our arrangements any of your business? Yes or no?"
No. You can do whatever you want on a personal basis. As long as you or I do not interfere with each others Freedoms or Liberties.
"Do you say you have the right to intrude--even if we don't want you?"
No. If I am not invited. I have no right to intrude.
"Do you have a right to enter my property without my consent? Yes or no?"
No, absolutely not.
David, your your questions don't make any sense in the light of the article.
As it involves a public business which is open to employees and/or customers. If the doors are open, to allow another citizen in, than you must abide by the law of the land. Or what's the use of a Constitution?
If you will, please answer my question:
"To those who submit that property rights take precedence over an enumerated Right; Prove it."
I've provided evidence supporting my contention. Is it out of bounds to request the same in return?
David, I have an absolute right to conduct business with anyone who wishes to do business with me as long as we both agree to the terms. All transactions are individual. If I have the right to do it on a an individual basis, I have the right to do it with multiple individuals--as long as everyone agrees, there is no problem--as long as I cannot employ force or fraud, people can take or leave business offers.
"To those who submit that property rights take precedence over an enumerated Right; Prove it."
When did I say that? I contend that one right can't be used to infringe on another. I have recommended nothing that infringes on anyone. Everything I have endorsed is based on mutually acceptable conditions. Everyone involved is free to say no and go their separate way.
And what's so special about enumerated rights? That's why the Framers didn't want to include a BoR--because they feared people would jump to the same conclusion you have--that soem rights are aloowed, and others not mentioned may not be.
The Constitution says nothing about breathing or eating. Do you have a right to do either? They're not enumerated--do they take precedence over, say, the unused enumerated provision against quartering troops?
But, David we are talking about a business here. And, that business is open to the public. Whether it is open just to employees or if it is open to the general public. The one whom you are dictating unconstitutional terms to, would be insane to comply.
For you to try to lay down rules that are in violation of the Constitution, is criminal. (Again, if our country truly was operating under it).
Just by the true nature of the Constitution. And considering the whole reason for We The People forming a more perfect Union is as follows:
"...establish Justice, INSURE domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE the GENERAL Welfare, and SECURE the Blessings of LIBERTY to OURSELVES and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..."
(Preamble U.S. Constitution).
Somewhat ALL inclusive isn't it?
And being that it is an indisputable FACT that "This may be considered as the TRUE palladium of LIBERTY....The right of self defence is the FIRST LAW of nature..."
I hold that the RKBA takes precedence. Since, after all it is "the true palladium of liberty" and the "FIRST law of Nature."
It is my contention. That people who hold out the position of 'mutually acceptable terms'. I.E. - I won't hire you or you can't come on my 'property' if you are exercising your God given and supposedly Constitutionally protected Right. Are the reason why we are in the fix we are in today.
In my book. It is petty tyranny, unconstitutional and criminal. Yet, because these people have 'property' or money, government cows to their perverse demands. And the 'common man' ends up at the 'hind tit' yet again.
In effect, it is now the 'property' owner who is also 'Permitting the Right'.
Am I wrong?
So now, it's not just the government Usurping against the RKBA, but other citizens's as well.
I’m not E. David but I’ll answer:
David: Do I have a right to associate with another human being on mutually acceptable terms or not? Yes or no? I can answer that without writing a dissertation and citing quotes. I say "Yes, I do."
I agree completely; you do have a right to associate with another on mutually acceptable terms.
David: If I and the person I associate with don't impose ourselves on you, are our arrangements any of your business? Yes or no?
I say "No, our affairs don't concern you."
Again, I agree completely.
David: Do you say you have the right to intrude--even if we don't want you?
Yes or no?
Do you have a right to enter my property without my consent? Yes or no? I say "No." Do you say "yes"?
I say “no”, I do not have any right to intrude given the conditions stated above. And, no, I do not have any right to enter your property without your consent.
But now we come to where I suspect we will disagree: corporate “property”. My take on the matter is that corporations, as creations of the state, do not have the same “rights” as “natural” persons. As they are also creations of, and “owned” by, natural persons, I would say that the state does not have complete and arbitrary control over the actions and policies that may be taken by a corporation.
A balancing of the rights of individuals who own the corporation, those who work at the corporation and those who conduct business with the corporation must be made. I have not engaged in the “heavy” thinking that would be required to fully flesh out this view. However, I would present one possible “balancing”: arms locked within the confines of an individual’s automobile while on the “property” of a corporation. In my view, a proper balance is to prohibit the corporation from prohibiting such acts. The arms locked in a automobile can in no way affect the operations of the corporation as no one there could even be certain they existed; the “owners” of the corporation cannot be harmed by such if the operations of the corporation are not affected; and last, but certainly not least, the rights of the individual owning the arms and automobile are not unduly burdened.
Such balancing happens now and is somewhat contentious, but I do not see this as violating any individual’s natural rights (the concept of balancing that is; in some instances the “balance” is anything but). As long as the balance favors individual rights without obviating the whole reason for allowing the state to create corporations, I think this provides reasonable protection to individuals and helps to limit unwarranted power in corporations.
I've an even better idea. We The People can follow the advice from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #26:
"If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person."
We The People should take our money and our Rights, divide ourselves away from the Usurpers. And let the petty tyrants usurp against each others rights.
Let's see how far your 'property' will take you when you don't have any business to support it.
Believe this is part of the reasoning behind the Free State Project(s).
"Let's see how far your 'property' will take you when you don't have any business to support it."
Bingo! That's the answer. Not you sending men with guns to force me to do your will.
E David, the fact that it's a business has nothing to do with my property rights. Codes of conduct apply to all individuals. And if you're going to at least be logically consistent, private relations should not be exempt. I will use your own words with a minor substitution:
"Your [private] PROPERTY is located on SOVEREIGN U.S. Soil. That places you directly under the bounds of the Constitution and subject to adherence of its principles. (If it was being upheld as truly intended).
"If the [home] owner doesn't want to honor the Constitution - than go to China or Russia and set up [house]."
Or is it your contention that private residences are Constitution-free zones? Because you've flat-out said if this were personal, we wouldn't associate. I say the same response should apply to all voluntary associations, but you seem to think that you and the state have some claim on my economic activities justifying dictating how I--and others who agree with me--may use my property in mutually satisfactory commerce.
Bull. If you don't like it, shop or work saomewhere else. I owe you nothing but product or services you find acceptable for an price you find acceptable.
Your citing the Constitution is also meaningless, as that was intended by those you quote as a restraint on government, not We the People. Ditto The Federalist, which was an apologia written to gin support for its passage.
Besides which, in every instance I have cited, the people complying do so willingly. You don't have to. You're free to not support my business and warn others to boycott me as well.
If someone else volunatarily signs up to deal with me under those terms, it is quite bluntly none of your business. If you don't like my property entry conditions, stay off my property. Nobody's got a gun to your head--everybody there is a volunteer.
BobR--interesting theory--I've heard it before. I'm not talking law here, I'm talking principles. If I own a corporation, I can set the rules. As long as it's all voluntary, it falls under my 3 suppositions:
It's mutually acceptable to parties involved; If you're not involve, it's not your business; you may not intrude on ouf holdings against our consent--in this case, as expressed by our employed management.
Now here's the kicker, E David--it just so happens, I agree with you that any business or individual who would impose such conditions is wrong and acting like a tryant, and any sheeple who would accept such conditions are fools unworthy of liberty.
But if Sarah and Jim Brady wish to start a private community called Gun Free Acres, and they get a million moms who want to live there, I will not interfere, and will certainly not use the power of the state to impose my will on them.
I have--and will continue--to publicly decry any business or individual that subverts rkba. I think they're wrong, and like you, I think they're trying to be petty tyrants. If I can help with a boycott, or do whatever, I have and I will.
But I won't use the force of the state to prevent them and people who support tyhem, from dealing with each other.
Now I've spent far too much time here. If I want to blog before work today, I've gotta go do that.
David C, this has been discussed before. On March 9, I posted the following but never received a reply from any of the persons posting:
Food for thought:
1. Son falls during an outdoor activity and breaks leg, rib, etc. Since you are in a rural location and it would take a while for EMS to arrive, you decide to transport him to the local Hospital yourself. As you enter the ER, you notice the "Weapons Free Zone" sign. You have your carry gun on you but at this moment it is the last thing on your mind since you notice he is a little pale and blue lipped. You suspect he might have a collapsed lung. You carry your son into the ER and place him on the gurney. While placing him on the gurney someone notices your gun (you had to remove your jacket to keep your son warm). They call police and you are arrested. Did you really have the freedom to disassociate in this case?
2. Disaster strikes. Infrastructure is devastated and survivalist operations are in full swing. You thought you prepared well enough by stockpiling food, water, gas, guns, ammo, etc. You are beginning week two and your potable water is running low with no immediate help in sight. You travel several miles to a distribution site where you hear they are handing out water. At the entrance to the "area" you see a "No Weapons" sign. Are you really free to disassociate in this case?
3. You are in a completely strange (more ways than one) town on a vacation. You and your wife (both armed) just left a concert and are making the long trip back to the hotel. It was a long concert and you forgot to put gas in the car earlier in the day (your fault). It's now after 2300 and almost everything is closed as you look for a gas station and restaurant that might still be open. You find a gas station but as you go in to pay you notice the "No guns on premises" sign. You can disregard, enter, pay and be on your way or you can return to your car, disarm and then go pay. You note the local night life and decide on choice number one. You find a restaurant, same sign and now you can either disregard the sign entirely and enter and eat or you can disarm in the car or you can move on and go to bed hungry. Were you free to disassociate at the gas station (you already pumped the gas)? Are you free to disassociate at the restaurant?
The analogies in all of these are not perfect but could fall under the topic at hand. All of these are viewed from the citizen's viewpoint, not the entity that posted the sign. Admittedly, in the third example the citizen bears the biggest burden of responsibility for being in the situation he and his wife are in ... out late, hungry and low on gas.
I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I would hate to have the government tell me what I can or can not do with my own property. I also know that I could never forgive myself if harm came to my loved ones because I had voluntarily disarmed in adherence to someone else’s wishes regardless of whether it was on their property or not.
Wild Deuce said...
1) Emergency Room
2) Water Distribution Site
3) Gas Station, Restaraunt
The answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes! Why should any of the mentioned establishments be in any way beholden to you? Why should they be subject to your demands? If you have no contract with them, why should they be required to to anything for you? If you do have a contract with them, that implies that their conditions have been satisfied. Your scenarios all are based on the premise that if you "need" something, it must be provided to you by someone else who may NOT impose their own terms on your usage. Your need better not have ANY bearing on how I run my business or how I treat you as an individual. If it does, we might as well adopt the slogan, "FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED"
Do you think you have a right to enter my home armed, even though I have told you I will not allow weapons on my property? No! You do have the right not to come. Maybe I'll get tired of being lonely and allow my friends to pack when they come over. That's fine too, but the choice HAS TO BE UP TO ME. Your right to bear arms can never override my right to choose who may and may not enter my premesis.
You just can't use your rights to force other citizens to give up theirs.
Mr. Codrea's points are all absolutely valid, and have not been refuted in the slightest here.
Nicolas, my scenarios were provided as food for thought and in context of the original post of March 9 which addressed government regulating what a property owner can or can not allow on his property. I hope you didn't (it seems you might have) think I was advocating against David Codrea's view.
I was merely pointing out possible scenarios. Scenarios that would put the property rights purist approach to the test. You are correct in stating:
Why should any of the mentioned establishments be in any way beholden to you? Why should they be subject to your demands? If you have no contract with them, why should they be required to to anything for you? If you do have a contract with them, that implies that their conditions have been satisfied. Your scenarios all are based on the premise that if you "need" something, it must be provided to you by someone else who may NOT impose their own terms on your usage.
However, I take issue with your adding qoutations to the word "need." It's almost as if you are saying that a critically injured child is not in "need" of immediate medical attention (scneario 1). Would you have the parent delay delivery of the child to the ER in order to secure his firearm somehwere off the property? Are you saying that persons are not in "need" of water (scenario 2)? That seeking emergency supplies is akin to buying a DVD player or choosing ice cream? That driving a hundred miles further in search of water or disarming is a proper moral choice for someone to have to make? I take no issue with the third example. The people in that example are responsible for their actions and the consequences (running out of gas, being hungry, etc.) The property owners should not surrender their property rights. However, I think it is a different story when you are the exclusive provider of a critical (and potentially life-saving) commodity such as emergency medical care or water.
On a less drastic note, what if a friend entered your house armed against your wishes and you discovered it halfway through the visit? Would you ask him to simply leave? Would you call the police? Would you attempt to disarm him?
Personally, I believe you have the right to determine what you allow on your property. If I disagree, I will not visit. If you are the exclusive provider of a required commodity and you require my disarmament, you are morally corrupt. I will disregard your requirement in as much as I can guarantee the consequences of being caught will not outweigh my need.
I currently have this issue before me. Relatives that we visit regularly are very anti-gun and are quite vocal about it. My wife and I are very subdued around them about our views and don't discuss this with them. Even though we know they would never allow a firearm in their house, we carry with us everytime we visit. The day they find out, we will no longer visit but we will tell them that they are welcome to continue visiting us at our house.
One other thing, Wild Deuce--in all my examples, I have been talking principle, and made it a point NOT to talk law. So yes, the principles apply, even though you have need.
Sometimes life is no damn fair.
What I'm dead set against is the property owners calling the police on you and having you arrested. That is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
So when you take your coat off to warm your son and they see a gun, they will be within their rights to ask you to leave and come back without it. Unless you refuse to do that and become a criminal trespasser, if they call the cops on you, they are snitches and enemies of freedom. Otherwise, it is merely a civil matter, and police should have no authority to involve themselves.
Now we know in real life the law will work the way you illustrate. That's why I'm working here with moral examples, not legal recommendations--other than to say we need to overturn any law that would allow a free citizen to be arrested for keeping and bearing arms.
David C., it seems we are in the same ballpark. So far, I see nothing I can disagree with you about. I agree that a property owner has a RIGHT to set whatever terms he wants. The more important question is "What would the property owner do if he caught you violating his terms?"
You have mentioned in the past how this can cut both ways. What about the church that forbids membership of individuals engaged in what they define as immoral behavior (adultery, incest, homosexuality, etc.)? Though I can't think of a religous entity that would withold a lifesaving commodity (medical care, food, water, etc.) for which they are the exclusive provider of such commodity.
Anyway, you're right ... sometimes life isn't fair.
Yeah, it seems that the ownership of dirt is far more important than that of a fellow person's life.
Stupid me! What could I have been thinking?
Of course the safety of the dirt owner takes precedence over that of a living breathing soul!
What would our Founders think of us today:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Sorry Tom, George, John, and you also 'divine Providence'....but, dirt rules now!
Wrong.
Your rights can't infringe on mine.
I don't know why that's so hard to grasp.
My being armed does nothing to violate your property rights. You still have your property whether I am armed or not. Unless you think all people that are armed are out to cause you harm.
I think some people here that defend property rights over RKBA have serious control issues.
Is it right to say what color of person can come on your property? What clothes they may wear? Are they overweight or too skinny?
When you tell me I have to disarm you are violating my ability and right to protect and defend my life and the lives of loved ones etc. You are also taking my property from me IE: My Gun. As I said before my being armed does not remove your property rights. You can still dress as you choose, you can eat what you want, you can bath as little or as often as you want, watch the shows you want etc.
As I said before those who talk about property rights are not talking about property they are stating control issues. Please realize the difference.
“If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the Inhabitants of these Jobs/Colonies might at least require from the Employer of Private Property some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The Owner of Property, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very Constitution of that Country, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these Employees by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from Reason to Arms. - Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.” - Excerpt from 'Declaration of Employees Necessity for Taking Up Arms'
Wrong, anonymous.
Answer my 3 questions.
besides which, I CAN dictate what you wear on my property: No shirt, no shoes, no admittance. Jacket and tie required. Dress codes. Uniformn requirements. Safety shoes and hard hats.
I can even control what you eat--you don't bring your own snacks into my movie theater or you'll be escorted out with no ticket refund for willfully viilating the rules. Ditto bringing your own beer to my ballpark.
If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If you don't willingly accept the terms, go someplace to your liking.
The control issue is yours. Everything I advocate is based on mutual agreement. You're the one4 who wants to force me to allow you to enter my premises on your terms--and if I say "no thank you"--an option I'm giving you in my scenario--you will use the coercive force of the state via an edict to make me obey--and if I don't, your agents will imprison me, or kill me if I defy them.
Talk about control issues!
And ED--you don't have a right to be employed--unless it is a situation that you create and control. Otherwise, it's at will, unless we have a ocntract stating other terms and conditions.
Anonymous said...
My being armed does nothing to violate your property rights.
You're right, it doesn't. Well, it doesn't UNTIL you think your "right to be armed" means you can be armed anywhere you please, including in my house. On my property, I have the right to set the criteria for admittence. If I don't (and you or the government do?), how can I call it mine?
All tyrants have a very short attention span. Especially concerning history. They don't care to remember all of the different Revolutions that have occured throughout history.
Nor do they consider what usually happens to the previous tyrants, (An angry people can be VERY nasty). Perhaps yet another Revolution may be necessary.
Judging from the rising discontent in our nation, it could very well happen anyday. I know I surely wouldn't want to be known as a tyrant in that event. Believe it was Jefferson who had written, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."
You know, Tom just might have something there....Looks like we're WAY past due....
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
passion or principle but that of gain."
- Thomas Jefferson to Larkin Smith, 1809.
David, you are wrong and or you fail to understand my answer.
I'll say it again my being armed does not take away your property.
You still own it whether I am armed or not.
A person asked how can I say its mine? Well you can say it is yours because I am not taking it from you.
David I have never seen a sign at a personal residence stating no shirt,no shoes no admittance. I have only seen these at businesses and that is not because of property rights but due to liability reasons.
A movie theater does not want me bringing my own food or drink because it cuts into their profits not because of property rights.
David if you are telling friends and family how to dress when they come to your house than you must not have much company.
Also if you are telling them what they can and can't eat sounds very controling to me and that's what this is.
You want the right to control everyone and everything that comes onto your property.
Well are you home 24/7
If your home is like mine USPS comes on my property everyday but Sunday, UPS, FedEx people soliciting all come on my property bringing me things or trying to sell me stuff.The meter readers come on my property. Kids will cut through my yard sometimes. I do not mind unless they are causing damage especially if it is intentional.
Do you feel that a person that is armed is a threat to you and if yes than why do you have this blog?
What is your reason for wanting me disarmed? So you have control over me? An armed peacful citizen is an asset not a liability.
Your questions are not yes and no questions because they deal with rights. Do you have to go to the bathroom is a yes or no question.
In the exercising of ones rights they sometimes do affect others rights whether you like it or not. What you have to do in these instances is prioritize them. Which is more important?
My right to defend my life and the life of my loved ones or your right to control people?
Without life you can't possess anything so I choose the RKBA 1st. because it helps to protect all my other rights.
No I'm not wrong, you are, and if you had read this entire thread, and knew the first thing about my body of work, you would know I do not want you disarmed, and have advocated nothing except people willingly dealing with each other.
Now answer the 3 questions if you expect me to spend any more time on this. I'm not going over old ground again.
No, David I don't have time to waste going round and round with you. I have read alot of your stuff and I also have you in my favorites but I now realize that control is the big issue with you.
I did answer your questions. As I said they are not yes or no questions. Sorry but your wrong. You want to deny me the right to keep and bear arms due to some percieved threat that I present to you in your mind.
Do you even know what I'm referring to? Of course they are yes or no questions.
You're copping out.
That's your prerogative. I have no wish to control you. And I'll bet I have far less time than you do.
You have a right to associate with whom you want, you do not have a right to violate their RKBA.
Not all our associations are under mutually agreeable terms in life sometimes we have to accept what we can't control.
You are imposing yourself on me if you want to disarm me and it also is my business since you are compromising my safety and my rights.
If I come to your house I am not intruding whether I am armed or not. Now when I get there if you tell me to leave and I refuse than I am intruding.
I am not for passing more laws but these laws have come about because people are denying others the RKBA.
If I had my way laws would be removed from the books not added.
As I said they are not yes or no answers.
You replied to some one with "wrong your rights can't infringe on mine" but here you are wanting to infringe on my RKBA.
You have written alot of good stuff on your blog and I thank you but on this I disagree with you completely.
Now we're getting somewhere.
I cannot and would not violate anyone's rkba.
However, if they do not wish to exercise their rkba, and wish to voluntarily associate on those terms, who are you to interfere, since it does not affect you?
How am I imposing if we both agree?
Now, let's restate something I said earlier, because it doesn't seem to have gotten noticed by you:
I do NOT want to disarm you. I do not want to disarm anyone. I want everyone to exercise unpermitted rkba, and am working toward seeing that happen everywhere.
I loathe businesses that attempt to prohibit carrying of arms, and have written fairly extensively about that in the past. I think they are wrongheaded and foolish, and abetters of evil.
When I find out about them, I do not patronize them, and warn others about them. Ditto anti-gun individuals.
It should be clear that when I was making my arguments, I was taking the 1st person to illustrate a point. But the person who wants to prohibit and restrict and control is not me. If I had a business, I'd put up "armed patrons welcome and preferred" signs. And my friends who visit know they are welcome because in order to be friends I trust them implicitly--and fully expect anyone I respect to have the means to protect themselves--and hopefully me and mine if need be, just as I am ready to protect them.
But I absolutely reject the notion that I have a right--under force of law--to make someone who doesn't agree with me bend to my will. If I'm not welcome without absurd restrictions, I don't wish to associate with the idiots. And I certainly don't wish to reward a fascist business with my patronage.
My bottom line-- I won't force myself on another human being and dictate how they can control their property.
I think the answer to this ultimately will come via freedom and the free market--most businesses make a small profit margin, and a shift of just a percentage point or two can give their competition an overwhelming advantage. We can use that reality to induce change, but that means we need to be involved, educate ourselves, educate our countrymen, and get a critical mass of freedom activists who can effect such changes.
Or, we can continue the old way--of employing state coercion to force people to do what we want, and get more of the same predictable results--more government power over people's peoperty and choices, that is, more government control.
It's time we got away from using the state to intitiate force to get what we want.
David,
You had indicated in an earlier reply about the Constitution, Federalist and quotes from the Founders being meaningless. And, to the Usurpers, they obviously are.
However, to others that are not fully aware of the true freedoms and liberties ensured to us in those documents. I contend they have tremendous weight. For ultimately it will be the weight of the masses of We The People that will force the government and business to cave.
You have a lot of different people who come on your site. Many are L.E. and believe I've spotted comments from military people also. As well as others from all walks of life.
The point that I''m attempting to make. Is what Jefferson said about 'education'. And that the answer wasn't found in restriction or removal of a right, but rather enlightening people of their indiscretion.
Start the ball rolling, and it will pick up momentum on it's own. All people desire Freedom, it's just most are to lazy to pursue it.
There shouldn't be any need for gov. to force anyone. (Although it is a clearly enumerated duty of gov. to 'secure' that liberty). That is, if everyone was aware of their rights and duties as citizens. If they were, we wouldn't be having the problems we are in our country.
One of the problems I've noticed in this debate is people taking what I said, and then responding based on what they think I said.
This started by you asking me what my "supposition" was--I gave it, in 3 parts--none of which said a thing about anyone forcing anyone else to disarm.
I never said the Constitution was meaningless. This is yet another example of my words being twisted. I said that your citing it as a refutation of my "suppositions" was menaingless, as its purpose was to provide a restraint on government, not on We the People.
There shouldn't be any need to force anyone? But force is justified if the need is perceived?
What started this debate the first time I posted-- a proposed law REQUIRING compliance on the part of employers. That means if they don't obey, they get punished--and if they defy they get destroyed.
So nice try that there shouldn't be any need, but that doesn't take away that you're advocating the use of naked force to bend others to your will--even if neither party wants to have anything to do with you.
Hell E David, you even wrote that declaration parody where you advocate we have a right to replace businesses just like we do government. There's a word for that system--it's called "communism."
I don't believe giving the state more power and control is the way to freedom.
David,
It doesn't matter what you or I believe. That is insignificant to anyone else but us. It is an opinion and everyone has one. The whole purpose behind our Constitution was as follows;
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Whether or not you, or I, or anyone else for that matter, likes it. That is the way it is. But, because of opinion and those that have 'power' to exert their own will. If a person or business is usurping against others rights. It is the duty of the government to cause them to cease and desist. (If the gov. were working as intended). Whether you want to admit or accept it, those are the facts. (Again, hence the reason for it being placed on paper).
We are in the situation we are in. Hence;
"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must have recourse to the second." — Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince.
That statement is in direct agreement with the Constitution. If certain people usurp their authority. People will historically put up with for a while.
When the Usurpation becomes intolerable. People will rise up and and shake off the chains that bind them. This is historical fact. And nothing you or I opine will change this fact.
Having authority or property does not make one God.
You are in extreme error in your reference to 'communism'. If people choose to be overbearing, to the point where it becomes detrimental to the liberty of others affected by them. They will invariably pay the price.
Tyrants historically wind up alone and/or dead.
David C. said:"But I absolutely reject the notion that I have a right--under force of law--to make someone who doesn't agree with me bend to my will."
I submit David that that is exactly what is happening with those that require the divestiture of one's rights to participate in employment or commerce. I further submit that they use force of law to bend others to their will. This cannot be denied. Ergo, since the situation you speak against already exists, wouldn't it be better to use force of law to protect individual rights than to use it to restrict them at the will of those that would deny them?
SA, first you need to establish that you have a right to participate in employment or commerce WITH ME.
I maintain that no such right exists. If you deal with me, it will be on mutually acceptable terms. If they are not mutually acceptable, then we will not associate.
SA, same challenge--this started because EDavid told me to state my suppositions and he'd refute them with facts. I stated my suppositions and then restated them in the form of 3 questions. I'd appreciate you addressing them.
And no, I'm not for laws that allow employers or stores to call the cops on you for bearing arms. However, if you willfully violate a posted code of conduct and I as a property owner find out, I should have the right to tell you to leave. Then if you don't, it's not a matter of me violating your rkba, it's a matter of me protecting my property from tresspass.
Anonynous went one step further and maintains he has a right to enter my personal property in violation of my wishes. (Again, using terms like "my" is for arguments sake only--I repeat I am against businesses and individuals with anti-rkba rules)--I juts believe the free market provides a non-coercive and superior means of protecting the rights of everyone. I don't believe continued reliance on state coercion is a formula for liberty.
David C. said - "This started by you asking me what my "supposition" was--I gave it, in 3 parts--none of which said a thing about anyone forcing anyone else to disarm."
Indeed, that is a fact, David. There was no threat of force.
Rather, and even more sinister, there is the implied loss of benefit of an essential, (whether real or perceived), product or service. Predicated upon the potential customer surrendering their God given Right in order to obtain it. That potential customers Right, which has long been considered as the First Law of Nature. Which fact would give it natural precedence before ANY other including property, considering it’s the FIRST LAW. It would naturally follow to reason that the right, being the FIRST LAW, would be secured before all others. It would be, indeed the act of a devilish person if the ‘property’ owner were to demand disarmament to gain entrance. In that it defies the FIRST LAW of nature. And after all, the devil is considered as an unnatural being.
You can indeed have property, but without the means to defend it, you lose. Because another, that is stronger than you can take it at their pleasure. Unless of course you call the police for protection if threatened, correct? For that is one of the supposed PROTECTIONS, which is the duty of government to secure, isn’t it?
Even if you exercise your right of defense, the authorities will still, nonetheless be called to retrieve the body. And you will go through the ‘trial of the damned’ for exercising your natural right, regardless of how ‘just’ it was employed.
To practice denying others exercise of their natural right, in order to supposedly secure the safety of your own right. Would be the ultimate in cowardice and selfishness, as well as Constitutionally Repugnant. It would be hypocrisy at its zenith.
As Samuel Adams put it, "Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," and he was quoting John Locke whom was and still is a highly respected legal authority.
Whether by force expressed, or loss of benefit implied, it is still the tool of a tyrant. To allow this type of arbitrary rule is to invite anarchy. It subscribes to the doctrine, if it seems good in thine own eyes - do it! It is legally equitable to extortion, especially if the service or product purveyed is of a necessity.
So the business ‘property’ owner has two choices, (if the system were operating as intended). Either they submit to obedience of the Law of the land voluntarily. Or, be forced into submission by those whose duty it is to uphold the True law of the land.
That is how it is outlined in the Constitution of The United States of America, which is the true law of the land. This is supposed to apply whether you, I or anyone else agrees with it, or not. For it was a vital check implanted by the Framers to discourage ANY attempt by ANYONE to abuse another citizen’s rights.
In addition, the Frmaers meant to ensure against establishment of an aristocracy, democracy, or any other form of tyranny. Whether it is the tyranny from just one or a few, or tyranny from a majority, it is still tyranny.
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
David C., I know your personal stance on rkba. I also know you are one of the good guys, I just think you confuse issues here. I will take time later to answer your three questions, when I can. Despite your assertion, they are not amenable to yes or no answers and each deserves a thesis.
In the meantime I would ask you to think closer to home. Do the other owners of R Ranch have a right to divest you of your rights under the guise of mutually acceptable conditions?
Can you afford to give veto power over your life to everybody you deal with in order to deal?
Do they have the right to veto what is guaranteed you by birth and constitution?
Had that been a condition of the contract when I bought in, I would have no beef. But the board has exceeded their authority, and the members have no such power via CC&Rs.
And, of course, I disregard it anyway.
As I disregard what any sob disrespecting my rights in the other situations has to say about the matter. If they disrespect me, I disrespect right back.
But that's not the issue being debated.
Yes David, it is the issue being debated here. It is exactly the same issue.
They would have had no more right to do it prior to you joining in ownership than they do now. Your rights predate and supercede their desire to quell them, as theirs do yours. They have no right to divest you of yours. You do have a right to exercise them or not as you see fit. How they feel about it doesn't matter in principle.
The problem with your argument is that it becomes custom or practice and somehow becomes acceptable to make it a condition of existence if one is to live in the company of others.
Mutually acceptable conditions between reasonable people or as matters of courtesy are desirable, but when it becomes a condition of existence the witholder of agreement is in charge and has dominion over all others. That violates every tenet of liberty and the rights of free man.
Only if the man is not free to reject them.
This controversy first arose when NRA backed a law requiring property owners to allow guns in cars on company parking lots. In other words, a new law--a new power for government, with new penalties to impose for noncompliance.
But it's to "enforce" the 2nd Amendment?
We see the way they enforce the 1st-- no prayer in schools, "campaign finance reform," this latest outrage charging the Chinese protestor.
Asking government to assume more power produces results that lead to more individual liberty? Do you think they have demonstrated they can be trusted not to abuse and interpet so that We the People don't end up being more screwed than before they got involved? T
I believe there is a superior way to guard our rights.
Don't think ANYONE is going to like this reply, but the truth hurts.
We complain when government doesn't act in the way we think it ought to. And there is nothing wrong with that. Other than it doesn't accomplish squat.
It is up to us, in fact it is every citizen's DUTY to take gov. to task. And, hold their feet to the fire. If we are the TRUE master's, (which, IN FACT, we are).
Then WE are letting our SERVANTS get away with it.
As George Washington observed, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
It is OUR OWN FAULT, for letting them get away with what they have. We are the Legitimate and Ultimate Authority. We need to start exercising our Rightful Authority and ensure our SERVANTS carry out their responsibilities within the bounds of the Constitution. We MUST be ETERNALLY VIGILANT.
We have the problem we are in because we trusted gov. to do its job. And fell back from our duty of excersizing oversight. They have proven themselves untrustworthy. So, we must take them to task. We MUST get off our behinds and follow the advice of Madison;
"The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. THESE GENTLEMEN MUST BE REMINDED OF THEIR ERROR. They MUST be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, WHEREVER the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than DECENCY, REQUIRES that the event in EVERY CASE should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and SANCTION of their common CONSTITUENTS." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46
Failure to do so, will be to our own peril, AS WELL AS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Once again, it is clearly spelled out that it is the PRIMARY DUTY of Government to SECURE our Liberty.
And as indicated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story;
"The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
The word Palladium basically means a Guardian or Sentinel.
The above also provides clarity as to the importance of the RKBA. In that it is the GUARDIAN of our Liberties in the Republic. For without it, you can't SECURE squat.
And NO ONE has the Right to tell another to surrender their Arms, other than God. The One who gave it to begin with!
Only if the man is not free to reject them.
Which is exactly the case as it now stands.
No government can't be trusted to get it right. However, what chance of getting it right do we have if they aren't even tasked with doing their duty.
Post a Comment