It’s About So Much More Than Your Right To Own A Gun

I continue with my writing on the upside-down understanding of so many things in our society – especially our understanding of rights and liberty. As always, the central theme is the struggle to control, but the specific issue – the thing everyone sees and never looks past – is gun control.

The issue isn’t really about our right to own a gun. You and I do not so much as we have a right to own a gun as we have an inalienable right to defend ourselves and our property. A gun is just one of the most effective means of providing us with the ability to defend our persons and property. While an able-bodied man who has become proficient in martial arts may be capable of defending himself in most circumstances, a crippled old woman in a wheel chair who knows how to use a small .22 caliber pistol is infinitely more able to defend herself from harm, and infinitely more capable than is she had nothing but her bare hands. So, when we look past the guns, what we are really dealing with is the right to defend ourselves and our property.

But it is more than that. We are dealing with our inalienable right to defend our individual rights and liberty. This is more than a personal right, it is a duty. Even in this modern age of increasing isolation, few of us live in total isolation from one and other. The majority have families and loved ones for whom we care. When properly understood, Natural Law imparts a duty upon each and every individual to care for their family, then their loved ones and, finally, even for the whole of society. This means we have a duty to each other to protect and preserve the individual rights and liberties of every individual in society – even to the point of our own death. That duty transcends our own survival. If it doesn’t, then the whole possibility of there ever being a free and self-governing society is rendered impossible. Fortunately, we know that such a duty does exist as our founding fathers provided us with their living example of how it works. Read and reflect on the last few lines of the Declaration of Independence, and remember how many of the men who signed it actually gave their lives as proof of their commitment to these words:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

But today, there are people who seek to take your ability to defend yourself from them because they aim to control you. This desire to control people has been with man since the dawn of his existence, but the chains of control are becoming harder and harder to break. In many cases, we don’t even recognize them anymore. Your television is a means of control. So it shouldn’t have surprised us when the government funded TVs and analogue boxes for “the poor.” They were not trying to help; they were seeking to maintain your access to their manipulation. Drugs are a means of control. Not only is there a connection between many of the recent incidents of mass murder and depression medication – a FACT INTENTIONALLY omitted by the manipulating media – but there is a connection to what is increasingly becoming the forced use of medication to control what was once understood to be the normal behavior of children. You should look at how often Riddilen and other such drugs are forced on parents by the government – sometimes to the point of losing their children if they do not comply with the State’s demands. Gun control is just one more symptom of the desire to control other people. If they disarm the nation, then the nation will be helpless to resist more overt acts of tyranny.

When it comes right down to it, you and I really only have one “right.” There is only one thing you and I can control and no one can ever take from us. Everything else we call “rights” is derived from this one thing, this one thing that we can truly claim as ours and ours alone. Our free will! And any attempt to force you to act outside of your free will is a violation of your right and all those rights attached to it. Just understand, free will does not mean the freedom to do whatever we desire. There are limits to what actions we can take in relation to others and to the free will of other people. But, so long as we stay within those limits (i.e. do not harm or restrain the free will of others), then there is NO JUST AUTHORITY by which anyone can claim to restrain your will. Our founders called it the rights of conscience and, if you will research it, you will find that phrase was intimately connected to the drafting of the 1st Amendment.

I would strongly urge you to start understanding that there is more at play here than the false flag issue of gun control. Your liberty – REAL liberty is at stake – not this false notion of freedom under the “benevolent” hand of an all-powerful and all-controlling government. We are being ruled by people who seek to enforce their will on the entire world, a will that stands in direct opposition to natural law. And they are prepared to enforce it over your will – even if it means they have to kill you.

18929_223717331096080_272387523_n

36 thoughts on “It’s About So Much More Than Your Right To Own A Gun

  1. Blah, blah, blah. And yet you stay at the philosophical level, Joe, apparently afraid to say what weapons, if any, you would outlaw. Hand grenades? Land mines? An alligator-filled moat? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Blah, blah, blah.

  2. Speaking of blah, blah, blah ….

    C’mon McPhatty. Is that the best you’ve got? Hopefully you will put more effort in to your work out routine in the coming days, and months. :)

  3. “Is that the best you’ve got?

    Apparently it’s more than G.I. Joe or his pitiful little personal proctologist can handle, since you simply offer insults and he can’t answer it at all.

    • Talk about a good case of hypocrisy and dementia. Let me refresh your memory a bit …

      James McPherson
      December 15, 2012 at 18:54 (Edit)

      “Funny, auggie, I don’t remember directing those questions at you.” <— I suppose that you did not write that asshat?

      " I’ll ask in the form of yes/no questions, short enough that even you and Don should be able to comprehend" <— I suppose that you did not write that either, asshat?

      Go hyperventilate elsewhere McPhatty. You were wrong in the other thread, and you are obviously wrong here as well. You simply reinforce what we already know about you. While the rest of your family got the walnuts, you were left with the peanut … intellectually speaking, of course.

      • You didn’t fully answer the question over there, Dumbo, and you haven’t here, as anyone can see. But so what? More importantly–since you’re not the author of either post and are simply a reactionary dimwit trying to suck up to Joe while he hides–Joe apparently doesn’t have the guts to answer at all. You notice that he didn’t answer those yes/no questions yesterday, either.

        Go ahead and sputter, li’l proctologist–until Joe answers (which he likely won’t), I have no interest in your inane gibberish.

        • If you had no interest in my “inane gibberish” asshat, then why respond … you simpleton?

          And yes ignoramus, I did answer your questions. I made no apologies for not providing the “Yes”/”No” response you needed so that you would not have to put the Big Mac and Shake down, Mr McPhatty. Despite what you might think, we are not here to do the research for your lazy morbidly obese self.

          As far as sucking up to Joe, maybe you should give it a try. Maybe, just maybe, he can fund your obsessive eating disorder. For myself, I am self sufficient to fight with you at my leisure. I do not seek, or request Joe’s or anyone else’s approval to bash you, and your stupidity.

          We clear on that, Mr. McPhatty?

          Have a nice evening. Don’t put too much food in your mouth at one time. It’s dangerous.

        • Doing Ur “Godly” work there ….Uhh ….Deacon.?

          After reading your “sermons” on this site…..I think you are McPhoney. There is no answer because you make no sense. Except to yoursel and your CheezeBurgers.

          • Really, Don? Engaging in the same fourth-grade-level as our resident proctologist, despited the fact that neither of you has ever seen me?

            For the record, I play hoops a couple of times a week and suspect I could take either of you losers in about any sport you care to name (except maybe golf–I don’t get to spend as much time on the course as doctors and unemployed folks down in those warmer climes). But of course, that might be “unchristian” of me to call out such deep thinkers as you boys.;-)

            • Well there’s the pot calling the kettle black. Just look at yourself in your photo, McPhatty.

              Yeah, I will take you on in any sport. How about with start with a 10k run?

              • Sure, Auggie. Of course you’d have to clearly identify yourself–for some reason I don’t trust you not to bring in a ringer. And since you’re always bragging about your money, I assume you’ll come here for the race?

                • “Of course you’d have to clearly identify yourself–for some reason I don’t trust you not to bring in a ringer”

                  You got me dead to rights, Mr. McPhatty. I guess I owe you a slushie, or something.

  4. I do not think SBJ looks fat. I think he was trying to ask B. where he’d draw the line. I think B. answered it quite nicely here: http://therionorteline.com/2012/12/16/its-about-so-much-more-than-your-right-to-own-a-gun/

    When your liberty is at stake, you must fight fire with fire. It is unfortunate and sad. History has proven that by being the victim, it is far more horrific and sad for the individual to be helpless. (Well, if they live.)

    All together in song now: Ask any Jew boy you happen to see, What’s the best weapon? The one you took from me.

    • “I think he was trying to ask B. where he’d draw the line.”

      No Kells, he was looking for a string to pull. Reasonable people can answer reasonable questions with rationality. However, Mr. McPhatty here was attempting to back Joe, and everyone else reading the thread in to an ideological corner. Had Joe said something like “Yeah, I think 10 ton bombs should be off limits to the private citizen”, phat-ass over there would have tossed along some flippant and off base comment about the Founding Fathers living in a time where muskets, and cannon balls ruled the day vs the technology of the day …

      It’s the age-old socialist/progressive agenda about parsing the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers. It’s old, dry, and stale.

      And suddenly we are the criminals, for believing in the Founding Father’s, or the US Constitution.

      • Augger,

        James suffers from the same irrational assumptions as most who think that technology changes human nature. He proves most of my arguments just by challenging me based on these fallacious assumptions. It shows how truly shallow his thinking/understanding really is.

        The tragedy here is that he is typical of our college professors today, so we should expect little different from our children. We are caught in a social death spiral, and the few of us who are trying to snatch the controls away and save us are being attacked by people who are loudly insisting that the way to salvation is to go deeper into the spiral. Unfortunately, sooner or later, we are going to run out of altitude.

        But not to worry. When we finally crash, the Jameses of this world will be there to blame those of us who tried to save them :-)

          • Augger,

            For a philosopher, there is little I can accuse somebody of being that is more insulting than to accuse them of being willfully ignorant/irrational.

            BTW: I know — from personal experience — that “FOS” is a technical medical diagnosis LOL ;-)

  5. “I do not think SBJ looks fat.”

    Thanks, Kells. For the record, I’m 6-2 and about 200 pounds (maybe a couple more today, because my wife just made fudge yesterday). I wouldn’t mind losing 5-10 pounds, but probably never will, and I’m about 10 below what I was back when I was a third-string receiver on a bad college football team. :-)

    “I think he was trying to ask B. where he’d draw the line.”

    Exactly. And apparently he’s afraid to answer, maybe afraid that too many people even here would think he’s nuts–unless you meant to link to something other than this same post.

    By the way, I mentioned a couple of the boys here in a response to Greg’s comment on my latest blog post.

    • Side bar: James seriously man, get your BMI down. You are a few points high, and are placing yourself at risk for an M.I.

      The formula for calculating your BMI is: Body Mass Index (BMI), Kg/M 2 – or you can find a calculator online somewhere.

      I’m 6’1″, 157, and have a BMI of around 20. And though no Triathelete by any stretch of the imagination, I did turn in a 42:31 10KM this month in FWB. Weather was horrid. At my age, I think I did reasonably well. Those old knees just aren’t what they used to be.

      We can now resume our normal flippant commentary. :)

      • “You are a few points high”

        Yeah, my trainer at the gym said the same thing (though she checked it with a fancy machine that looked like a scale, and I don’t remember exactly what it was). But not terribly high because of my build–perhaps I’m a bit more muscular than that photo makes me look. But I can identify with the old knees–as a youngster, I could dunk a basketball. Now I’ve got a vertical leap of about 2 inches.

        And yes, I agree that your10K time is good–you’d probably even beat me, though for the past several years (again, thanks to the knees, both of which have undergone surgery) my motto about running has been that other than for my twice-weekly basketball games, I’ll run if there’s something very good in front of me or something very bad behind me.

        “We can now resume our normal flippant commentary.”

        Thanks, but I think I can mostly resume ignoring the RNL, since Joe–predictably–loves to talk in grand philosophical tones but can’t answer real-world questions. And since I likely won’t be back before then, Merry Christmas. :-)

        And believe it or not, I don’t think I’ve ever had a Slushie.

    • In all Seriousness…and with all the Luv I can muster for the Deacon……at 6-2 and 200lbs……you bees fat fella….been there done that.
      New Diet and excercise and Im stayin off any and all Cholesteral and Lipid and Glucose meds and whatever else they were gonna give……back down to 188 at 6′-even…was 205….did it in 8 months. My goal now if another 8-9 lbs by my next 6 months check-up. All done with diet and excercise……even with the occassional Brownie or Balvenie 21 Port !!!

      So you most definitely CAN loose that 5-10 lbs…..just a little effort.

      • “6-2 and 200lbs……you bees fat fella”

        Got to disagree, DA and Augs. BMI is a poor indicator of physical build and health. According to BMI, a muscular person could be considered obese. Likewise, a person with low BMI could actually carry a lot of fat and therefore be in poor shape.

        Other than that, I trust your insults to McPherson’s reasoning are sound, though I don’t have the time or patience to verify right now.

        • Justin – send about 3,000 patients to the Cardiac Cath Lab from the ER, and get back to me.

          As the kids would say …. kthx.

        • Yeah, by the good “doctor’s” reasoning, I must have been even more “obese” when I weighed 10 pounds more, even though my waist was 2-3 inches smaller and my coaches kept urging me to gain more weight (and no, I’ve never done steroids). I’m also amused at how quickly folks like Auggie resort to fourth-grade-level insults about such things as physical appearance, as opposed to addressing ideas. I guess they gotta go with their strengths.

          • “I’m also amused at how quickly folks like Auggie resort to fourth-grade-level insults about such things as physical appearance, as opposed to addressing ideas”

            It was an amazing lesson learned from this benevolent Christian professor at Whitworth University. I think I am a good study. :)

            • Augger,

              He seems to have a selective memory. He started this stuff, just like Greg started it before him and then acted like he was the injured party — and Rezz before Greg.

              Hey! I think I’ve discovered a trend here ;-)

              • Joe, you are absolutely right. Let’s borrow for a moment from McPhatty’s own discussion with another liberal on his own website. McPhatty cannot even bring himself to have civil discourse with his own ideological brethren, as you will see:

                “I’m not sure dismissing the pro-gun crowd as ‘Morons’ is going to win us any battles here.”

                You’re right, Kyle, though I hope it was clear (and my apologies if it wasn’t) that I don’t consider all gun owners to be morons. With the folks I’m talking about here, though, I fear that this is a battle that can’t be won, though.

                Here, we see a clear example of his god-fearing Christian benevolence. Obviously, the application of the moniker “Moron” displays all the benevolence of the God he so claims to aggrandize and follow.

                “Principles like ‘self-reliance’ and ‘the second amendment.’”

                I own guns myself, and grew up as a hunter, so I get that, but self-reliance doesn’t require 100-shot magazines or assault-style weapons. And in my view the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that I should be able to own any weapon made.

                Here, he demonstrates he is utterly unable to be honest with Kyle. He does not admit to the fact that while 100 shot magazines make for more fun on the gun range, he would paint people who own magazines (they are actually drums) as desperate for “self-reliance”. Fact is much different. I just simply get sick of reloading 15 round magazines with my paid time on the range.

                Even worse is his last statement. It’s utterly false. You simply cannot own any weapon made, and if he were truly honest, and intelligent, he would know better. And he probably does, but like Kyle had pointed out in an early offering, McPhatty proffers nothing more than “polarized vitriol“.

                That brutal honesty, is likely what chapped McPhatty’s ass in the first place … how dare Kyle disagree with the great and omnipotent Professor McPhatty!

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s