Should gun owners abandon the Republican Party?

[smoking357]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

Natural law is nothing more than a codeword foranarchy.

If law is nothing more than opinion, subject to the whims and tastes of the day, then there is no a priori reason why murder or child rape is bad or why guns should be allowed. If there is no natural law, there are no rights, only permissions.

Opposing natural law is code for tyranny. You authoritarians are truly dangerous people.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system - hence you are squatters. You exist in the realm of your betters who maintain the system of government that provides you with a place to live until the "majority" - the true owners of this land root you out.The beauty of this is you do it yourselves - like suicide. You cut yourselves out of society until you become irrelevent and wither on the vine.

This is the problem with people who think like this, this is OUR PLACE not theirs. The Government doesn't provide most "tax-payers" with their place to live (they sure like to take it away quickly though). And this majority you talk about is not a majority at all. When we have at the best of times only 30% of our population voting. That shows that the majority of people are disillusioned with our our current crop of people to pick from. And then when someone wins, the votes for the two loosers we have to choose from, is usually split fairly evenly. So in reality we have not a majority but maybe 15% of our population being represented.


On this thought most tax payers are paying taxes without representation. What are the figures for who pays the majority of taxes? Hmmmm and for who and for what policies do you think most of them vote for? Food for thought. Especially considering that as of last year most our population went from rural to urban.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

redlegagent wrote:

Yes, the constituion provides you with the right of free speech ...SNIP

Wrong. Try again.

My rights do not come from a piece of paper, anymore than they count on my participation in a democracyritual.

I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system - hence you are squatters. You exist in the realm of your betters who maintain the system of government that provides you with a place to live until the "majority" - the true owners of this land root you out.The beauty of this is you do it yourselves - like suicide. You cut yourselves out of society until you become irrelevent and wither on the vine.

I've read the constitution. I'm just realistic. If it were set in stone, the framers wouldn't have made provisions for the majority to make changes. Never the less. for all you libertarians and modern day whigs and the fringe of the fringe who constantly bemoan why the rest of the country - i.e. that pesky majority - just can't see things your way so they must be out of step - I have a song for you. Civil liberties are importantand their loss is the result of people not participating in the process which created them. Natural law is nothing more than a codeword foranarchy. Civil laws are the byproduct of a organized society and don't spring up from the ground. Laws are created by man and can be changed by man. If you don't want them changed, then make your presence known via the system provided - vote.

I am amazed at the things you write.The concept of natural law is at the very root of this country's founding. As longwatch said, you need to read the Declaration of Independence (not the constitution). That naturallaw stuff is right here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Thisis the document that created the United States and the bedrock of its philosophy of individual liberty, not the Constitution, which came later and can be replaced, as it was once.

For further reading, I suggest John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, from which many of the concepts of natural law were drawn by the Founders.

And for heaven's sake, try to think for yourself. You are a human with a working brain, you can figure what is right and wrong and use logic. You don't need an election to decide these things for you.

If using your own brain to think instead of submitting to an irrational mob or a tyrant's whim is "anarchy", I don't see a problem.

Happy 4th of July, submittizen.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

SNIP Natural law is nothing more than a codeword foranarchy.

Redlegagent,

Permit me to offer for your inspection and consideration some information that may be useful for you.

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

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Can you imagine this dialogue using the names that our mothers put on our birth certificates and/or that are on our DD 214?

ETA after reading your URL:

The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.

Either we are equal or we are not.

Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

redlegagent wrote: 

Natural law is nothing more than a code word for anarchy.

If law is nothing more than opinion, subject to the whims and tastes of the day, then there is no a priori reason why murder or child rape is bad or why guns should be allowed. If there is no natural law, there are no rights, only permissions.

Opposing natural law is code for tyranny. You authoritarians are truly dangerous people.

You got that right.


Tomahawk wrote:

Happy 4th of July, submittizen.

lol, I love it!

I'm amazed I've never heard this before. :lol:

 

[redlegagent]

imported post

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" - Okay, what creator are we discussing here? A Judeo-Christian one, or islamic, or Jewish. Natural Law is an oxymoron. We can, within the realm of science recognize a governing pattern to nature just as we can recognize that in nature - the strong dominate the weak. When we attempt to apply this to mankind and apply moral interpretation to said laws we are in fact codifying the laws and removingthem from nature to the realm of man - hence it's mans law - not nature. Further, such application becomes a debate of interpretation for is it Judeo-christian in nature or pagen, or animistic. How can we say we derive our freedom from "natural law" when under nature, anyone with more resources or strength can subjugate our freedom. Only by applying that principle in a manner that all mankind can recognize and adknowledge does it gain any useful meaning and then again it's interpretive. Any basic rights you may surmise from the air are essentially meanless semantics unless others choose to recognize them. That's the basis of societal governance, the majority recognizes and codifys basic tenets of behavioror "rights" to be applied throughout. Societal government is evolutionary though and requires continual monitoring lest "original intent" is lost. So we are back to the original problem - participation in government i.e - the system. It is irrelevent if 80% of the population chooses to not participate or vote. The 20% who does is then free to set the terms that society will ultimately adhere to with the 80% becoming defacto wards of a state for which they abdicate their responsibility in helping to govern.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

We can, within the realm of science recognize a governing pattern to nature just as we can recognize that in nature - the strong dominate the weak.

Except men are intrisicly different than animals for the fact that we have used our thinking capabilities to even the odds. Sticks, rocks, spears, bow and arrows, guns. So from our very beginning we have employed arms, and thus they are our inalienable right.

We also need to remember that the second was for the protection against our overreaching government. That is why governments have always and always will try to regulate arms for the general public. And why we need to tirelessly fight those regulations.

In my studies I have learned that, a lot of the ideas, the founding fathers included in their declaration of independence and the constitution were borrowed from the natives who already lived here, so that would mean they don't have a judeo-christian start, and one reason why they are so unique compared to the fuedalistic ideas from the countries of their origin.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" - Okay, what creator are we discussing here?

The evolutionary process that gave rise to life, Zoroaster, Jehovah or the Fying Spaghetti Monster, it matters not.

You should have learned this in college.

You're backed into a corner. In absence of natural law, violating the state's law can only be seen as "legal" or "illegal." "Right" and "wrong" are nonsense words in absence of absolutes.

Right about now is when you should quit the game; thank us for the free lecture, and repair to your chamber to review the lessons.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" - Okay, what creator are we discussing here?

The pre Big Bang one , of course .

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

doesn't matter if you believe in God or Evolution ......these are our inalienable rights as humans.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" - Okay, what creator are we discussing here?

Doesn't matter. The creator of your choice. Even athiests believe they were created by some process of nature. Jefferson wisely, or luckily, used a vague word there.

I wonder, though. You seem critical of the key idea behind the Declaration. Do you not believe you were born with the right to be free? If not, why do you think you have a right to carry a gun? Shouldn't you just go along with the majority when they vote to ban them? Not being a jerk, here, it's a serious question, I'm wondering what your basic philosophy is and how it ticks. You seem to be in the "positive rights" school.

To try to stear back on topic:

I understand what you're saying about participating in government. And that's fine. But you are still wrong to say not voting means abdication of the right to bitch.

I happen to believe that for the most part, voting is meaningless, except in local or state. Worse, it contributes to the legitmization of a coercive, some say tyrannical even,system. When you buy into majority rule, than you have committed yourself to abide by that rule, even when they come to take your guns, your books, your money, or even round people up for political crime. Anything the government does to people is legitimized by your willing participation, for good or bad.

If you are naive, you can tell yourself you are only voting for those who abdicate liberty, but the time for such naivety passed by the time you were old enough to vote. Even the "good" politicians these days are anti-liberty, excepting only a very small number, small enough to count on one hand.

The worst is those who vote for a bad candidate because they think the other will be worse. You are, of course, endorsing the bad policies of your candidate by voting for him. The correct choice here is to vote for a no-chance candidate (call it a "protest vote" if you like), or not to vote at all.

Don't give the bastards the satisfaction, in other words. Once you have worked to restore a system of liberty, voting becomes meaningful once again. And you won't restore liberty by endorsing anti-liberty politicians.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

redlegagent wrote:

Natural law is nothing more than a codeword foranarchy.

If law is nothing more than opinion, subject to the whims and tastes of the day, then there is no a priori reason why murder or child rape is bad or why guns should be allowed. If there is no natural law, there are no rights, only permissions.

Opposing natural law is code for tyranny. You authoritarians are truly dangerous people.

I also agree with this. No natural law means no basic morality other than that put forth by the State.

Natural law does not mean anarchy. It is the logical basis for good laws, and the standard by which we determine the bad laws and work to eliminate or nullify them.

Anarchy is simply a choice to live without a formal government structure or rulers of any kind. It is not the absence of rules, it is the absence of rulers, and implies that the citizenry is self-policing. Natural law may be the basis for these rules, but it may also be the basis for a minarchy, a republic, or even a monarchy (again, read Locke).

 

[redlegagent]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

redlegagent wrote:

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" - Okay, what creator are we discussing here?

The evolutionary process that gave rise to life, Zoroaster, Jehovah or the Fying Spaghetti Monster, it matters not.

You should have learned this in college.

You're backed into a corner. In absence of natural law, violating the state's law can only be seen as "legal" or "illegal." "Right" and "wrong" are nonsense words in absence of absolutes.

Right about now is when you should quit the game; thank us for the free lecture, and repair to your chamber to review the lessons.

You are not talking about law, you are talking about morality. To derive rights or morality from nature or some unseen force exists only within the mids of men. In nature, the lion feeds on the young because they are the weakest and easiest to catch. Have you ever seen a rooster in a barnyard? He chases the hen down, bites her on the back of the neck and forcibly mounts her - while she is trying to run away. Tandemount to rape in our society. Nature is a cruel place and devoid of any "natural liberties" until men decidedto find them there. The wolf pack shows that even animals recognize the need for organization for the safety of all - strength in numbers. Some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence probably believed in sea monsters yet these were "enlightened individuals". Natural Law, like some aspects of sociology, is highly interpretive and therefore unprovable. As to what do I believe in, many of the things you probably do except that I recognize that ultimately law is a byproduct of man and doesn't spring up from the ground or outer space. Our Constitution is a great document - that comes with a caveat - it was created with the ability to change it if the majority deems it necessary. It is not necessarily a "living document" nor is it set in concrete. Societies evolve over time - for good or bad-that's a natural fact and it's not unusual for governments to incorporate practices of those under it - the Romans etc. adopted aspects of it's conquered populations religions etc. As I stated before, with evolution comes the risk of "original intent" being lost - that's the debate before us today. I watch people like Glenn Beck rail against "progressivism" yet that cat is long out of the bag and firmly estabilished in our society. The time to squash it has past, it can only be moderated now. Actually, it's almost fair to say that the "conservatives" of the time who thought their view of liberty was untouchableare responsible for the mess we have now as they ignored it's inception and allowed it to grow until it was entrenched in the government process as we have now. So now we come full circle. People are mad and feel disenfranchised so they "quit" the system because they feel they can't control it and it threatens their "god given liberties" which actually came from men - with good ideas. As this idea spreads, more people do the same which only serves to create further justification for doing so because eventually less than a simple majority are now voting and controlling the process while the bulk stand on the sidelines. It's a cycle that feeds back upon itself. This is what the other side hopes for - apathy. It allows few to control many. Nothing is guaranteed - nothing. In nature - all must be acquired at a price. The original question is should you quit the republican party and my response is still - with the lack of any viable alternative, doing so will only serve to feed the cycle and play into the hands of those you rail against. - see, no corner.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

The "minds of men" are a product of evolution (or god, or what have you). Notice that the "mind of man" is what differentiates us from animals. So, "natural" has nothing to do with roosters, or any other barnyard or wild animal. It has to do with the nature of what man is.

Man is a social being, who does not normally predate on his own kind when not under stress. This biological nature cannot be negated with moral relativism.

This is the source of natural law.

You've been advising to do some reading. Perhaps you should consider that advice.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

As I stated before, with evolution comes the risk of "original intent" being lost - that's the debate before us today. I watch people like Glenn Beck rail against "progressivism" yet that cat is long out of the bag and firmly estabilished in our society. The time to squash it has past, it can only be moderated now.

It is never too late. And why many people here are trying to make sure our gun rights don't dissappear, Because as long as we remain an armed society, we can still have a voice wether we decide to vote or not.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

I rest my case. If you are "above" the law of the land, then you are not part of the system - hence you are squatters. You exist in the realm of your betters who maintain the system of government that provides you with a place to live until the "majority" - the true owners of this land root you out.The beauty of this is you do it yourselves - like suicide. You cut yourselves out of society until you become irrelevent and wither on the vine.

WOW.... Really, you need to read the Declaration...

[align=left]When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/align]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Our rights are indeed above the "law of the land". The Constitutiongaurantees these preexisting unalienable rights againstgovernment infringement, itdoesn't grant them.Because"We the People" were dumb enough to allow the government to make laws against these rights doesn't mean thatthe laws are constitutional. Indeed; look at what government has done to ignore the highest court in the land withafterU.S. v. Lopez. Look at when they ignoredSCOTUS's ruling and still kicked theIndians across the Mississippi.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP No natural law means no basic morality other than that put forth by the State.

...(again, read Locke).

+1

 

[reconvic]

imported post

My feelings are most politics are governed by Drug companies, and people we will never hear of. The party don't matter as much as what they will really stand up too. I respect everyone at first, till I am crossed once, then they will lose my respect. Same in Politics' if they say one thing and do another, they can bet I will not let them have my vote again.
S/F. Vic