Guns As A " God-given Right"

[Socrates]

I don't see what guns, or any kind of weapon, have to do with God, assuming there is one. Humans shape their tools, and then are shaped by them. A piece of metal spraying bullets at another human being says a whole lot about man's deranged existence...I don't see God in a machine gun, as if it were a reflection of some divine order. God is a useful concept to approve and limit man's wild imagination. Man creates lots of tools...machine guns, condoms, vending machines. Is a vending machine a reflection of divine order? Or just a reflection of a mass society where people want things easily, on-demand, with paper money, etc. I guess it makes people feel better to put the name of God behind these kinds of things, but I don't think invoking God ever really makes us more critically aware of our the world we create. It just makes us feel better about what we believe and how we live.

 

Have you even bothered to read any of the responses on this thread?  The whole "what's so sacred about a piece of metal that fires bullets?" spiel has been refuted pretty thoroughly by a number of posters.

 

As has been pointed out, the real issue of the right to bear arms is not that there is something uniquely sacred about a gun or any other weapon, but rather the right to defend one's life (and the lives of one's family, etc.) against aggressors.  The right to defend life is a corollary to the right to life itself.

Since guns are currently the most effective tools for defending one's life in a violent attack, outlawing guns would effectively render law-abiding persons helpless against the state and violent criminals (who always find ways to obtain weapons illegally).

 

 

I realize you may not buy the whole right to self-defense argument, as I seem to recall you subscribing to some form of extreme pacifism that is against using lethal force to defend against aggression.

However, as Winchester pointed out, claiming to be a pacifist, while supporting the state forcibly disarming the people, is contradictory.  This position wishes to monopolize violent force in the hands of the state.

 

The burden of proof should not be on those arguing for a right to own guns, but those who argue for the government taking guns away.

 

The argument for "gun-control" rests on the presumption that government should be able to confiscate property from citizens as it sees fit, unless some extraordinary reason can be produced for owning them.  As usual, the bleeding hearts have it back-assward.

[Era Might]

I realize you may not buy the whole right to self-defense argument, as I seem to recall you subscribing to some form of extreme pacifism that is against using lethal force to defend against aggression.

 

Not at all. I don't deny we are animals...with all kinds of destructive drives, from sex to violence to entertainment. I just don't seek to baptize every fact of human society, but I don't have to wish them away either. Self-defense is one of the absurd realities of being human...though many have sought to actually live a better vision and not just imagine it (Gandhi, etc.)...which IMO is one of the great stories of human history. Christianity has retained its "better vision" worldview with regards to sex...with regards to violence, not so much, it has accommodated to much of the realities of human society.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Era Might

[Era Might]

The argument for "gun-control" rests on the presumption that government should be able to confiscate property from citizens as it sees fit, unless some extraordinary reason can be produced for owning them.  As usual, the bleeding hearts have it back-assward.

 

I suggest you read "The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul. Your vision of America and society in general rests on too many 18th century ideals (understandable, given that is the fount of American government). Ellul explores technique as the defining mark of modern civilization, something that of necessity must control and shape everything. Technique of necessity must standardize and optimize and control, because that is the only way to create the best yield (in the same way a factory cannot be a bunch of independent machines...they must all be controlled and optimized to work together to achieve defined results). There are all kinds of techniques...mechanical, political, economic, etc. The rise of police intelligence, for example, is a necessary consequence of technique...in order to maintain order, police have to know everything, and in return they give people the illusion of safety and benevolence. This is playing out on higher stakes with things like the NSA, etc. The globalization of society isn't a coincidence, it's a necessary development of technique...the old world of isolated nation-states doesn't work in a world where everything has to work together most efficiently. And Ellul points out that political ideology is just window dressing, that technique operates the same whether a society is capitalist or communist (the book was written in the 50s). Anyway, I'm greatly summarizing a thorough analysis that Ellul makes.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Era Might

[RC Patriot]

The rise of police intelligence, for example, is a necessary consequence of technique...in order to maintain order, police have to know everything, and in return they give people the illusion of safety and benevolence.

 

And you don't think this argument relies too heavily on the benevolence of those with that omniscience?

 

If we can agree that we have the same goals, to reduce violence in order to create a more peaceful society, then we can look objectively at the facts. The fact is, there is a correlation between gun-control and violent crime. Historically, as gun control goes up, crime goes up. Conversely, in areas where gun ownership rises (tracking applications for concealed weapons permits), crime goes down.

 

There is a rational reason for this. People who are willing to break the law are deterred by the potential consequence of death by an armed victim. On the other hand, those who prey on the weak are emboldened when they know that their victims are unable to defend themselves.

 

As a matter of Natural Law, we have every right to defend our own life or the life of another against the one who threatens it. And, we have the right to use the best tools needed to do that. In the case of American society today, that means firearms. This is why "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state (states have the right to self-defense as well), the right of the people (as in we the common people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any gun, anywhere, for the sake of exercising the natural right to self-defense.

[Era Might]

And you don't think this argument relies too heavily on the benevolence of those with that omniscience?

 

If we can agree that we have the same goals, to reduce violence in order to create a more peaceful society, then we can look objectively at the facts. The fact is, there is a correlation between gun-control and violent crime. Historically, as gun control goes up, crime goes up. Conversely, in areas where gun ownership rises (tracking applications for concealed weapons permits), crime goes down.

 

There is a rational reason for this. People who are willing to break the law are deterred by the potential consequence of death by an armed victim. On the other hand, those who prey on the weak are emboldened when they know that their victims are unable to defend themselves.

 

As a matter of Natural Law, we have every right to defend our own life or the life of another against the one who threatens it. And, we have the right to use the best tools needed to do that. In the case of American society today, that means firearms. This is why "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state (states have the right to self-defense as well), the right of the people (as in we the common people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Any gun, anywhere, for the sake of exercising the natural right to self-defense.

 

It may be true that there is a correlation. A similar argument is made for drugs, that criminalization only exacerbates the problem. But the political question of criminalization is only one aspect of the issue, and maybe not the most important one. With drugs, for example, why are people today so drawn to self-medicating (recreationally or destructively)? Drug abuse does not exist in a vacuum, it has many other causes, from stress caused by our modern way of life to the industrialization of drug production.

 

In other words, the argument based on correlation may have some political use, but philosophically, I don't think it gets us very far, which has more to do with the nature of violence, the nature of tools (such as guns), etc. You say, for example, that we have a right to use the "best tools" for self-defense, but once you start framing the argument in those terms, it becomes about technique...the "best tools" are the most efficient, most productive, etc. Guns are actually not the best tools...if they were, the police would just go into the streets and start handing out guns. Police technique uses better tools...information gathering, patrolling, etc. Guns are the tools of people with very limited power, and realistically, are only a last-resort when the better tools fail (e.g., police fail to proactively prevent a crime).

 

Of course, just because the police have better tools doesn't mean those tools are good or benevolent, certainly not "God-given." But generally, in a civil society, people prefer those tools of better technique to guns. Gangs would much rather have the tools police have...they would be so much more sophisticated, but gangs have tools of very weak power, such as guns, and they use what they have. In return, the state provides common people with greater tools, in order to protect them, and in civil society we have accepted this course of things...though, of course, we then get scared when we realize the power we have given the state, but in the society we have, that is an inevitable turn of events. Violence is industrial, it's not a petty band of common citizens with guns.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Era Might

[RC Patriot]

It may be true that there is a correlation. A similar argument is made for drugs, that criminalization only exacerbates the problem. But the political question of criminalization is only one aspect of the issue, and maybe not the most important one. With drugs, for example, why are people today so drawn to self-medicating (recreationally or destructively)? Drug abuse does not exist in a vacuum, it has many other causes, from stress caused by our modern way of life to the industrialization of drug production.

I understand what you're trying to say. I don't think it's a very good connection, though. With drugs, there is one aspect of it as the "forbidden fruit," desired simply because it's against the law. The greater issue with drugs, however, is the cost of sending users to jail, where they are only ostracized from society, hardened by their environment, and are released with no true rehabilitation whatsoever, where now they are homeless, unemployed, still hooked on drugs, and already outside of society, and the problem becomes worse. I just don't think it's a very effective example. Your point of "not existing in a vacuum" is very important, however. If we lived in a violence-free society, then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with firearms... but then ownership of firearms wouldn't be seen as a problem at that point anyway, would it?
 

In other words, the argument based on correlation may have some political use, but philosophically, I don't think it gets us very far, which has more to do with the nature of violence, the nature of tools (such as guns), etc. You say, for example, that we have a right to use the "best tools" for self-defense, but once you start framing the argument in those terms, it becomes about technique...the "best tools" are the most efficient, most productive, etc. Guns are actually not the best tools...if they were, the police would just go into the streets and start handing out guns. Police technique uses better tools...information gathering, patrolling, etc. Guns are the tools of people with very limited power, and realistically, are only a last-resort when the better tools fail (e.g., police fail to proactively prevent a crime).

Why would you say that guns are not the best tools? What evidence do you have? It absolutely does not follow that "police would just go into the streets and start handing out guns," if they were the best tool. For one thing, the tool used depends on the person. It is the right of the individual to make that decision for themselves, no one else. A Mossberg 12 guage is one great option for home defense, but isn't easily carried by smaller-framed users. An AR-15 would be better for those people, but who wants to carry a long-gun as they go around town? Pistols would be better in that scenario, smaller, they don't get in the way. But if you live in Alaska and have to worry about such things, a 9mm won't stop a grizzly attack as you go out to your mailbox. A .454 Casul certainly would, though. It depends on the individual's training, personal preference, and threats of their environment. And of course as a last resort... we're talking about self-defense, where you feel a threat to life or limb. And oh, btw, police also carry guns...
 

Of course, just because the police have better tools doesn't mean those tools are good or benevolent, certainly not "God-given." But generally, in a civil society, people prefer those tools of better technique to guns. Gangs would much rather have the tools police have...they would be so much more sophisticated, but gangs have tools of very weak power, such as guns, and they use what they have.

The tools themselves are inanimate objects. They can be used for good or evil, depending on the will of the user, but the object itself is neither "good" or "evil". I'm not saying the guns are "God-given" but that they are a tool for defending ourselves, a right which I believe is "God-given". Gangs... I'm not sure what you're saying here... that gangs don't investigate their targets, or patrol their territory? Cuz... that's definitely not true...

[Lil Red]

[Credo in Deum]

 

It's already begun!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Regional_High_School_stabbing

[Era Might]

The tools themselves are inanimate objects. They can be used for good or evil, depending on the will of the user, but the object itself is neither "good" or "evil". I'm not saying the guns are "God-given" but that they are a tool for defending ourselves, a right which I believe is "God-given". Gangs... I'm not sure what you're saying here... that gangs don't investigate their targets, or patrol their territory? Cuz... that's definitely not true...

 

The smart gangs do those things...because they learn that technique is superior to force. That's essentially the story of modern society, perfecting technique, which makes the world of the 18th century a bit obsolete. Your distinction is useful, but it then opens up the question in my mind of what is a tool, and if we create our own tools, then in whose image do we make them? But that's a complicated topic. I just prefer not to baptize violence on the basis of "God-given rights"...mainly because I think it cheapens the reality of violence and gives us a way to not really deal with our own action in the world.

 

Complicating this discussion is also the tricky fact that I don't really believe in God, so of course, the idea of "God-given rights" creates a whole other mess that probably is too broad for this discussion. But I think one can accept the reality and necessity of violence without invoking "God-given rights." Why do we defend ourselves? Because we want to live. To me, that's enough of a justification, and if I am going to resort to invoking God, I would rather invoke him for a more noble vision than just to baptize the cold harsh necessities of human existence.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Era Might

[Winchester]

People prefer to obey rather than be subject to violence disproportionate to their actions. There's a shocker.

 

In case no one has been paying attention, the "police" will kill you over jaywalking. "Prefer" kind of a bad term to apply to the abusive relationship that exists between the rulers (and their goons) and the ruled. 

[Winchester]

In their peaceful pursuit of peacing and protecting and being the angelic wonderful patriotic bald eagle supergodawesomeses, the peaceful protecting policemens must be able to detain you no matter what.

 

http://libertycrier.com/federal-court-police-can-stop-search-behaving-innocently/

 

 

These are the lunatics wonderful peaceful loving human beings who will enforce gun control.

[Anomaly]

In their peaceful pursuit of peacing and protecting and being the angelic wonderful patriotic bald eagle supergodawesomeses, the peaceful protecting policemens must be able to detain you no matter what.

http://libertycrier.com/federal-court-police-can-stop-search-behaving-innocently/


These are the lunatics wonderful peaceful loving human beings who will enforce gun control.

We get it. Firemen don't like police.
I watched last week's episode of Sirens.

[Winchester]

We get it. Firemen don't like police.
I watched last week's episode of Sirens.

Is it worth watching?

[Anomaly]

Is it worth watching?

Over the top raunchy humor, but still humorous.

How do you know if a fireman is dead?
He drops the remote...

[RC Patriot]

Winner! :rotfl2: