Philosophy behind our "reason" for having guns


toreskha

Titles are un-American.
I often hear people use the justification for owning/carrying guns as self-defense, the right to defend others, and hunting. All of these are quite valid reasons, of course. However, I am curious about taking another angle on this: what if we begin to more aggressively assert the "because it's our human right" angle as a public reason?

Basically, this follows from the saying that "the difference between a slave and a free man is that the slave can't have weapons". God makes all people to be equal; none can own another. The right to bear arms is not only a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, it's a divine right guaranteed by God - the same as the right to private property.

This type of reasoning seems less vulnerable to such variables as crime statistics and having to constantly rejustify gun ownership based on changing times. We shouldn't have to give reasons, because the right to self-defense is a universal right granted to all humanity.
 

Brainchild

New member
This is an interesting view,as well as being no less valid than the other previously stated reasons.I agree that we should also ascert this as well as the others when trying to reason why we should be allowed the possession and use of firearms with those who do not seem to understand.
This is a very good point you bring up.
 

sailor

New member
"... self defense is a universal right, granted to all humanity". Not according to the United Nations. Self defense is not recognized by the United Nations, specifically as relates to firearms. It was a shocker to read that spelled out, but I have to confess that I cannot document that. It was to do with the UN attempt to disarm all countries in their latest drive to make everyone safe (sure, you betcha). I should have copied and saved that quote, but did not. If someone else should come across it - please post.
sailor
 

UTdave

New member
In the space of a few months, I've gone from having little interest in firearms and owning none, to having a CFP and owning three. I've been surprised at my sudden interest in all of this, and I think what you're describing has something to do with it. It was all triggered by an invitation to the gun range where I got to try out my dad's friend's impressive arsenal, but it's definitely about more than target shooting. I feel at some fundamental level that we should be secure, and be capable of protecting ourselves, and owning and being competent with guns seems to be by far the best way to accomplish that. This sudden interest has been strange for me, since I'm pretty fresh out of college, live in a pretty safe area, am fairly left leaning, not particularly religious, and I definitely don't have many friends that share this interest. In fact if most of them knew I now sometimes carry, they'd probably think I've gone off the deep end. :rolleyes: Ultimately, it feels like a very basic and important right or mindset, one that a lot of people have forgotten or chosen to ignore. That's what I felt like you're getting at with your post.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Ultimately, it feels like a very basic and important right or mindset, one that a lot of people have forgotten or chosen to ignore. That's what I felt like you're getting at with your post.
Well, what I'm really getting at is this: I've talked to my counterparts of the same people you had mentioned who would "think you had gone off the deep end". I put forth the self-defense argument, and of course they retort with "if no one owns guns, then we don't have to worry" or "have more LEOs/pack a taser" or "your gun is statistically far more likely to kill someone in an accident, than it will ever save anyone in a self-defense situation". Statistically speaking, the last one is probably true (obviously it's not in practice, because no one handles it except me, and I'm fanatically careful).

Here's the thing, though...even if all the bad guys dropped dead tomorrow, we still have the right to own guns. It's our right, because it's our right and that should be good enough for anyone. It's not necessarily a means to an end, but an end in itself.

Mainly, I just don't like having to "explain myself", as if they're aliens from outer space. A right doesn't need explaining; it's self-evident, and self-justifying. Maybe next time, I'll ask them...

"Why do you feel the need to carry around two kidneys? You only need one."

"Well, because it's mine!"

"Oh...well, I have a gun for the same reason."

:)
 

HK4U

New member
Where do our rights come from?

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


Of course we don't teach these things in public school any more so most people just don't get it.
 

kwo51

New member
When the Creator is taken away from the equation we have nothing left. Only what the rulers give us. Needles to say we must dig our heals in to protect our freedom.
 

sailor

New member
UTdave - not to get cross-wise in this thread - I think it is relevant, but can you give us "shellback gunnies" some idea of where your change of heart comes from? As the OP stated, there is an "inherent right" involved, yet it is not recognized by all too many rational people. If there was some doorway, or concept that was useful to help other "non-believers" of that inherent right to understand it better. I would like to convince some certain folks of what we are talking about, but too many seem to have a closed mind. :confused:
sailor
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
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
I couldn't have said it better myself. :D
 

UTdave

New member
UTdave - not to get cross-wise in this thread - I think it is relevant, but can you give us "shellback gunnies" some idea of where your change of heart comes from? As the OP stated, there is an "inherent right" involved, yet it is not recognized by all too many rational people. If there was some doorway, or concept that was useful to help other "non-believers" of that inherent right to understand it better. I would like to convince some certain folks of what we are talking about, but too many seem to have a closed mind. :confused:
sailor

I'm not sure I can help out too much with this. I've never been an "anti" so to speak, I just never had any interest. Plus, while I was on the whole a successful college student, I was definitely not in a good position to own a gun until recently, due to living with different people and general partying and such. Even once I landed a good job after school and lived on my own, I didn't put much thought into buying a gun until I went out shooting with my dad and his friend back home. All the sudden I was taking the time to learn about firearms, and putting thought into the philosophy behind being armed, so in just the course of a month I came to feel pretty strongly about it.

So my suggestion would be to get as many new people out shooting as you can. It'll do so much more than any talking point or persuasive argument could. A lot of people have been programmed to think that guns are inherently unsafe, and that the people who are into them are nutjobs. They'll see the safety aspect, probably have fun, and also see a whole variety of people at the range that are comfortable with firearms. Hopefully that gets their own thought process in motion.
 

Jay

New member
I think this gent makes a compelling point in favor of CCW.......

Why The Gun is Civilized
By Marko Kloos
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger, a 75 year old retiree on equal footing with a 19 year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV. There people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I’m looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation….. And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson
 

New Threads

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,128
Messages
621,631
Members
74,103
Latest member
jawman
Top