Second Amendment Rights - Gun Rights - Are Human Rights
73Gun Rights Enable the Human Right to Self-Defense
Due to your nature as an independent being, you have a "right" to protect your being (yourself). That means you can protect yourself by any means necessary. The universe does not have a rule that you can use only lying down or sticking your butt in the air and squealing "please don't hurt me" as a means of self-defense, as opposed to using a 9mm pistol, a shotgun, an AK47, or whatever you can get your hands on, to protect yourself -- or your friends, family, or neighbors..
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes that right of self-defense. The 2nd Amendment does not GRANT the right to gun ownership and self-defense; it ACKNOWLEDGES it, and puts the U.S. Federal Government on notice to "butt out". Of course, your out-of-control governments at all levels (Federal, State, County, and local) routinely violate your rights in that instance as well as in myriad other ways.
Gun Control Laws Work
Free? Or a Slave? Depends on the Second Amendment
The Bill of Rights is a Package Deal
During the writing of the Constitution, the writers did not originally include the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). They were added at the insistence of some of the writers so that the Constitution could be ratified by the States. The Constitution without the Bill of Rights laid out the powers and some of the limitations of the new Federal Government, but some of the writers wanted a stronger guarantee of protection of the rights of the citizens and States. The Bill of Rights was conceived of as a “package deal” -- a unified construct -- where each of the ten amendment supported and was supported by each of the others. There was an obvious reason why the 2nd Amendment -- the right to bear arms -- was one the amendments at the head of the list, and not one added as an afterthought.
By the way, the modern gun control debate about the “militia” is due to a deliberate campaign by those who want to see the Second Amendment emasculated. They deliberately ignore the meaning of the language at the time the document was written.
What both the commie/socialist/ liberals and the fascist/Nazi conservatives now attempt to do is to “pick and choose” which of the amendments they will honor, and which they will ignore, if not outright violate. The Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- is a package deal. It includes the Second Amendment. It is not an a la carte menu.
About Your Second Amendment Gun Rights
 | by John R. Lott
A follow-up to his controversial study "More Guns, Less Crime". Economist Lott argues that widespread gun ownership prevents crime. The benefits of untrammeled gun availability are clear, Lott insists, and only the anti-gun bias and selective reporting by the media and government officials have kept this fact out of public consciousness. Amazon Price: $17.91 List Price: $27.95 |
 | by John R. Lott Jr.
John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies shows that concealed-carry weapons permits reduce the crime rate. His book provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument. Amazon Price: $4.95 List Price: $23.00 |
Two Groups of Gun Control Laws Promoters
There are two main types of wannabe gun-grabbers. They include pussy-wuss liberals on one hand and a*hole power seekers -- politicians, bureaucrats, and their puppet-masters -- on the other.
The liberal pussies think (or at least say that they think) that only if guns were banned, we would be living in a violence-free utopia. Liberals engage in magical thinking on this subject no less than do conservatives on other subjects. "Cain't we all jes' git along?" "Kumbaya." "As Miss America, I will work for world peace and feeding starving children in Southwogland and Wogistan. Sniff, snuffle (wiping her tears)." They think that "programs" to "end poverty", provide school lunches and counselors, whatever, will end all the problems of society. Or at least most of them. They are looking for what never was and never will be.
Females Exercising Their Second Amendment Rights
Click thumbnail to view full-size
About Your Second Amendment Rights
 | by J. Neil Schulman and Gary Kleck
Did you know that every 13 seconds one of America's 70 million gun owners uses a firearm in defense against a criminal? That American women use handguns 416 times a day in defense against rapists, which is a dozen times more often than rapists use a gun? That a gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as likely to be used in defense against a criminal than it is to cause the death of an innocent victim in that household? Amazon Price: $12.96 List Price: $19.95 |
 | by J. Neil Shulman, and Brad Linaweaver
Schulman approaches the topic with a consistent liberty-oriented viewpoint. The few negative reviews seen to be based more on Schulman's rejection of the nanny-state than on the validity of his analysis. Amazon Price: $12.98 List Price: $19.95 |
Liberals Against the Second Amendment
The liberals seize upon every Prozac-induced gun violence rampage like Columbine or Virginia Tech to cry "See, see, see, see what guns do. Bad guns. We need more gun control laws. Ban guns." Of course they don't really want to ban guns; they just want gun ownership banned for most people, but not for those they specifically perceive as their friends -- those who are in actuality the power-grabbers promising utopia here on earth.
The main problem with the liberal wannabee gun-grabbers is that they are simply stupid, and cannot follow out a chain of possibilities to the logical consequences. (Of course, that applies to most everyone, but that is another story.)
The liberal pussy gun-grabbers are the biggest enemy to your right of self-protection. There are so many of them! They are even a bigger threat than the power-seekers to your Second Amendment rights. That is because the crybaby "feelers" enable the power-seekers. If there weren't so many sniveling liberals, no power-seekers would dare to propose depriving you of your right of self-protection, much less implement those violations they have already accomplished. The liberal pussy-wusses are the “useful idiots” for the power-seekers.
Nazi Gun Control Laws -- Ours Are Similar, and Getting Closer
Exercise Your Second Amendment Rights for Self-Protection
Click thumbnail to view full-size
Power Seekers Against the Second Amendment
The power seekers say to themselves: "So what if people have a right to protect themselves?" They correctly see that if people are disarmed, that they (the power seekers) will have an easier time of controlling the populace and thus extracting the perks of power from the populace. Do you see any parallels in this country, not just in the pest-holes of the "third world"?
A helpless and unarmed populace is fair game for the employees of the power-hungry, those employees being their police and armies. They know that the anti gun control advocates know that gun ownership is not just about duck hunting. So what if the populace is also made helpless against crazed dupes of the pharmaceutical and "child services" industries and wacko Christian and Muslim religious fanatics?
You think "it can't happen here" like it did in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the pest holes of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East? Totalitarianism where anything not expressly permitted is forbidden? Well, it is already happening -- it has happened. And liberal cry-babies are too stupid to recognize how and why.
History of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights
 | by David Young
From Amazon: "A concise history of the Second Amendment that traces every term and phrase of this much disputed provision to their AMERICAN roots and earliest authors. All details of the Second Amendment's terms and development are explained and thoroughly documented..." Amazon Price: $30.00 |
I Want YOUR Book Selection Ideas
If you know of a good book that discusses the background of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights, feel free to mention it in the comments.
I am particularly interested in what the founders and early scholars had to say about gun rights, not just for self-protection from local thugs, but also from government tyranny.
More Information about Your Second Amendment Rights
- Second Amendment Foundation Online
The Second Amendment Foundation - Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - Homepage
America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership - Learn to Observe -- Urban Survival Techniques
Urban Survival Techniques include learning to observe those around you. How to become aware of your surroundings and of people around you. Most people are oblivious to what's going on around them. Don't be one of them. - Urban Survival Techniques
When chaos hits the cities, you will need urban survival techniques
Gun Control Laws: Disarmed Citizens are Sheep for Slaughter (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Jews, Armenians...)
Extreme, in-your-face and truthful; you've hit the nail on the head.
A lot of other people I know, especially those in foreign countries don't understand what it is to exercise freedom. I have a gun, I don't want to use it, but break into my house or threaten my family and/or personal life and I hope it's only in the legs.
It's true that violence breeds violence. That said, those who are most violent and ruthless are also holding the highest seats of power.
No thanks to disarming the populace.
The less power you have is the more butt bonking you're willing to submit to by your out-of-control corporate-backed politician.
I think that being able to own a gun is a human right. I also think that owning a gun is the same as the right to self defense. I even think all women should own guns.
Reading this article makes me very happy to have gotten my Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card here in Illinois before firearms become completely inaccessible. Criminals have never had a problem obtaining weapons illegally, and I personally believe that all the hoops a law-abiding citizen must jump through for the same access just makes it that much harder for us to defend ourselves.
Tighter gun control laws only affect people who have a regard for the law in the first place. Kudos for standing up for our Second Amendment rights.
Yes, the real purpose of gun-control laws is to make law-abiding citizens helpless. Then, most being stupid, they cry to government to "protect" them rather than allowing them to protect themselves.
The U.S., Britain, Australia, et al, governments are well on the way to FURTHER subject us to their totalitarian aims. If they weren't, they wouldn't be so keen to disarm us.
Amen to that! Great article - The first course of action for any government, in order to enslave the population, is to disarm it!
Keep shouting 'dabeaner'!!
Are there any statistics on how often people actually use guns for self-defense? (It might be hard to compile.) I am not anti-gun, but personally, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where I would actually use the thing. By the time I am sure that I am in danger, it might be too late to use it. And if I shoot first and ask questions later, then I might land in jail. (An in-home accident seems the most likely scenario.) Of course, statistics, if they exist, might prove me wrong.
Like with all issues, I try to be as practical as possible. I'm tired of political arguments involving name calling and attempts to prove who is either smarter or more virtuous.
Freeway Flyer (and any others)
Yes, there are lots of statistics. You don't see them in the major media. In case you aren't aware, the major media are part of the establishment. The establishment -- government, major and international corporations, media, government "clients", etc. -- does not want an armed citizenry.
At least two reasons:
1) They are aware of what happened in 1776+
2) They know that a helpless, dependent populace will lead to increasing their power, as that populace will bleat "save me" to the establishment.
See the Hegelian Dialect video on my Hub
America, What Went Wrong...
http://hubpages.com/hub/america-what-went-wrong-th
The reason you and many others are not confident having and using guns is that you do not have easy access and training. That, again, is courtesy of the anti-self-protection lobby.
For the same reasons, yes, if you EFFECTIVELY defend yourself, you are as much or more likely to end up in jail than who you were defending yourself against. That, again, is courtesy of the anti-self-protection lobby.
The in-home accident bugaboo is, again, courtesy of the anti-self-protection lobby. The fact that people today have to keep their guns locked up from their kids is the reason for so many gun accidents with kids. Kids are curious about secrets. When I was a kid, somehow I managed to learn (was taught) the difference between a real pistol and my cowboys and indians games cap-guns. And I learned, many years before the age of 10, that you don't point a real gun at someone unless you mean to shoot them.
How is this an issue of "practicality"? That sounds to me like a cop-out. Either you own your body or you don't. (That should make clear that I am not an anti-abortion wacko christian conservative.) Either you have a right to SELF-protection or you don't.
How's this for name calling? Lberal weenies and establishment lackeys are a-holes.
Trying to prove selves smarter or more virtuous is a contest where liberals are way ahead of conservatives. (But the conservatives are valiantly trying to attain that dubious crown.)
STATISTICS -- You want statistics?
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) by John Lott
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493660/
The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong by John Lott
FF: BTW -- the Amazon book links for the John Lott books about guns/firearms protection statistics have also been alongside the text since the Hub was published.
I understand both your desire to have a gun for self-defense and your disdain for gun laws that criminals, by definition, will find ways to get around. I also agree that the Second Amendment was largely created in order to prevent the national government from having a monopoly on gun ownership. Like all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, it was created in order to set limitations on federal power and prevent the national government from abusing individual citizens. What confuses me, however, is your description of an alliance between “liberals” and “power seekers” in creating some sort of a liberal establishment. So I decided to spin my own conspiracy theory. I don’t know if it is entirely accurate, but like your interesting take on things, it may contain an element of truth.
You seem to think that gun-hating liberals represent a grave threat toward individual liberty in the United States. Now from what I can tell, the institutions that represent the greatest potential threat toward individual freedom are those in the security establishment: the military, defense contractors, police forces, and justice system of courts and jails. Officially, they have the function of protecting us. But in the name of security, they also have been given the power to fine, spy, imprison, physically coerce, and even kill. Ideally, these powers are used for the good of individual American citizens. The potential exists, however, for these institutions to become the oppressive central authorities feared by those who created the Bill of Rights.
Few would question the fact that these security establishment institutions tend to support and benefit from conservative political policies. Conservatives are often the ones, after all, pushing the hardest for defense spending, tough sentencing, tight security surveillance, and plenty of cops on the streets. One might counter, however, by saying that conservatives are also the ones who want to protect individual gun ownership. So if, as I claim, there is a conservative security establishment that could be a threat to personal liberty, then why do conservatives want individuals to have guns? Gun owning individuals, after all, are able to defend themselves from central government oppression.
There is a fundamental, practical problem with this line of reasoning. Militias just are not what they used to be. In the late 1700’s, militia groups might be able to resist the U.S. military if the need arose. Today, a battle between militia groups and the U.S. military would be a joke. First of all, few individual citizens are likely to take up arms against the United States. Loyalty and a sense of national identity are much stronger today than when our nation first began. But even if a significant number of people did rise up against central authority, they would not stand a chance. My money would be on the $700 billion dollar a year U.S. military to mop up any modern day “minutemen” in short order.
It is in the interest of the conservative security establishment, however, to let people play the part of “minutemen.” People can then maintain the delusion that they are able to defend themselves against central authority. Also, as an added benefit, conservatives can keep gun enthusiasts paranoid about those liberals who want to oppress them by confiscating and restricting access to weapons. And in the meantime, the real potential threat to individual citizens can linger and possibly grow even stronger.
The Roman Republic lasted for hundreds of years. But then, once they grew into a massive empire, military leaders asserted control and established a dictatorship. Will this someday be our fate? I hope not. We would be wise, however, to heed the words of Dwight Eisenhower, a man who could hardly be called a member of the “liberal establishment”:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Hello FF:
The alliance between the "liberals" and the "power seekers" is that most liberals ARE power seekers. The liberals want government to "do" more and more stuff to "help", essentially, the "useless eaters" and politically correct causes of all kinds (name your favorite lobbying group).
That means more and more government power is required to "set things right" since all the less enlightened, such as myself, are not going to give a crap about or do anything about them. More and more government programs are thus required. That takes more and more taxes (stealing from taxpayers portions of their lives -- that portion they have to work to feed others) and controls and bureaucracies to establish the programs and provide sinecures for the bureaucrats.
So those liberals elect the power seekers. That creates the liberal arm of "Big Brother" government.
Then there are the puussy-wuss liberals with the "cain't we all jes git along" bleating-sheep mentality -- "Kumbaya". In their view, no one should have guns or any armaments. Those with the most extreme views even rag on the cops for, as in Los Angeles in 2010 September, shooting some drunken illegal alien attacking someone, instead of appealing to his higher nature. And heaven forbid that a person threatened or attacked should be so arrogant to defend himself EFFECTIVELY without having to crawl to the police.
Those sniveling liberals are "useful idiots", further enabling the establishment which seeks ever more power (the "security establishment institutions" as you call them).
BTW, there is a difference -- deliberately blurred -- between some conservatives (classical liberals) and others (commie-fascist-Nazi-corporatists). So some conservative are OK with people being armed, and others are not.
Yes, militias or minutemen today would be readily wiped out by the military establishment armed forces -- as long as the armed forces remain loyal to the government. But that is no reason to to void the Second Amendment. And, OTH, tens of millions of pissed-off Americans could raise hell with the military establishment just as the Muslim wogs are doing in the Middle East. (They might even get help from the Chinese or Russians. :-) )
It's amazing how some of our rulers give us these warnings after the fact -- after they have screwed us royally. Patton was assassinated. And the establishment toady Eisenhower became President.
History repeats. But each cycle has its variations. Rome went to dictatorship via the military. The U.S. has gone via the military-industrial complex, aided and abetted by the liberal power seekers.
Yes, this is rather disjointed. To tie the threads together neatly would mean my devoting much more time to a useless enterprise. We are effed -- stupidity rules (just look at the Q&A here on HubPages) -- so why bother?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
That is one of the reasons why the founding fathers limited the franchise to property holders. Somewhere along the way, the seduction of the shibboleth/platituder "one man one vote" led us to lose sight of the fact that democracy is "how" of government, not the "why". "One man one vote" leads to tyranny in the end.
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
See
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytl
and "America -- What Went Wrong: The Answer"
I completely agree with you!
"IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THEN PENCILS MISSPELL WORDS."
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It doesn't matter what you use to kill them! If i stab someone to death with a fork then that means a fork killed them huh?
I took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Domestic meaning dumb ass government and/or american people who think they can take my rights away! ill die before i see our american rights taken from us!
Can you do me a favor and delete my second (longer) comment above? I used it as the basis for a hub, and now my new hub is listed as being "duplicate content" (even though I was essentially quoting myself). It seems like a strange policy, and we are apparently not able to delete our own comments. It's just one more example of rights being taken away :)
joer4x4 Level 3 Commenter 2 years ago
I have to agree.
The liberals believe the elite rich politicians that guns are bad and play into their hands. Guns aren't bad - people are.
They promise to protect you but they don't. Why on earth would someone depend on government (or any other person) to protect them? Maybe they don't like doing their own dirty work?