Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Keeping and Bearing Arms as a Civil Rights issue

Jenn Jacques over at Bearing Arms has a post that points to another post by Dom Raso at the NRA entitled Too Many Americans Don't View Second Amendment as a Civil Rights Issue. I get it. Being raised on the notion of racism and minority rights as civil rights, we don't here to much about the older universal rights. But the universal rights were the first civil rights. The right to speak, the right to spread your ideas in print, which is the freedom of the press, the right to practice your religion, all free from Government interference (not the interference of the people). Among those rights, of course, is the right to defend yourself when attacked.

I have on occasion noted that if the current administration treated the right to keep and bear arms as it does the right to healthcare, then every individual would be required to obtain and train with an M4 Carbine, which would of course handily do away with the "assault weapon" debate that currently distracts us from real issues.  But, what is a "right?"  The term is loosely bandied about and many things are said to be "rights," of which the Government must get into the middle, and usually must pay someone or other something, all of which is designed to get "free stuff" for some at the expense of everyone else. Here is one definition of a right provided by The Free Republic
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.
A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.
The emphasis is mine. That last, "not gain it through theft" includes not gaining through the actions of Government to tax one person and give it to another-or in other word, redistribution of wealth.

Where there is a right, there is also a concurrent responsibility.  You can exercise your rights only so far as you do not interfere with the rights of others.  So, while I have the right to bear arms, which means carrying them in public, I do not have the right to endanger innocent others.  The mere carrying of a gun does not endanger others.  The mere knowledge that I am carrying also does not endanger others, no matter what they may say. (No one has the right to restrict another based solely on their own internal feelings, real or imagined.)  But I may not brandish my weapon without being under threat of attack.  And I may not fire my weapon in such a way as to endanger another.

Criminals will always disobey the law, as well as steal the rights of others.  That is what makes them criminals.  But we don't have a problem with the normally law abiding citizen brandishing their weapons and shooting up the place.  No, the problem is that certain members of Government wish to steal our right to keep and bear arms (remember what I said about criminals.)  More Americans need to assert their civil right to keep and bear arms.  It is not truly a Constitutional right, because it exists prior to, and independent of that document.  But it is a civil right.

Ever since man has walked the earth, he has been at a disadvantage relative to the other beasts.  Man has no natural weapons,  Instead, what man has is the ability to shape weapons from the items he finds around him.  As such, he has always carried some sort of weapon, whether it be a stone knife and spear, a bow and arrows, or, as today, a gun.  Whether you personally feel the need to exercise this fundamental civil right is entirely your choice, based on your evaluation of your risks and your situation.  But your situation may change, and you should not be willing to give up any of your civil rights.  If you happen to be one of those who want to tell everyone else what to do, you might want to think about that.

No comments:

Post a Comment