Popular liberal gun owners

[JBusch8899]

So... required by personal sense of duty? I can go with that. If someone chooses to be an intentional, willing victim, though, that is their choice, and not my prerogative to overrule or override them.

Well, perhaps. However, there are such laws as the militia act, around since nearly the beginning of the of the republic, which requires compulsory service of a specific people within the militia when called.

Defending oneself, one's neighbor, one's community, is not contrary to the libertarian political philosophy. Otherwise, the philosophy would be just plain ol' anarchy.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, perhaps. However, there are such laws as the militia act, around since nearly the beginning of the of the republic, which requires compulsory service of a specific people within the militia when called.

Defending oneself, one's neighbor, one's community, is not contrary to the libertarian political philosophy. Otherwise, the philosophy would be just plain ol' anarchy.

That the law has been in place for many years is not indicative of it's value, just its tenacity. (which does not mean it is valueless, only that the two are unrelated.)

Defending anyone, including yourself, when you must do so by compulsory force of law, is contrary to the belief that you own your own life and have the right to decide not to defend it, the right to decide that your society does not deserve your efforts in it's defense, etc, or the right to decide that it deserves it, but you simply choose not to do so. To say that I am armed, therefore I must, by law, use that tool and my own presence in defense of someone else is excessive. I always have the option of choosing to rise to the defense of another.

It is that among other things which earns my respect for those who wear our country's uniform in her defense: The fact that they do so completely of their own free will. They all chose to enter the service.

I see it similarly to when a small child is told by his/her mother to apologize for some misdeed: The tone is often begrudging, but even if not, to me, it is not an apology that comes from the heart, else the child would not need to be told to give it.

JMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[spartan933]

They are not quite gun haters then. They just don't want us "little" people to own guns. Only the "important" people can have them.

Exactly. As the NRA has widely reported, it takes favors and power to get an LTCH in states like California and New York. And, the "little" people that actually need some protection because they are not running around in Beverly Hills, can't have them. I don't think these people understand that it is possible to be liberal in some or most of your political leanings, and yet still believe in the 2A. I have family members, that are incredibly liberal in their leanings, yet they believe in the 2A.

I truly believe in the Constitution and that the "founding fathers" were incredibly smart dudes. They created what is commonly known and taught as a "living constitution". It was written so well, that it still has great effect on how we live today. It angers me that anyone would say that they know better than those great dudes, and that some people will pick and choose what should be kept and what shouldn't.

Unfortunately, as we have seen with many celebrities, their abilities to instantly gain attention, gives them the disillusion that they are right and the rest of us are wrong. And, if Stallone, would actually stand up for the rest of us and the 2A, maybe more people would go see his movies.

 

[JBusch8899]

That the law has been in place for many years is not indicative of it's value, just its tenacity. (which does not mean it is valueless, only that the two are unrelated.)

Defending anyone, including yourself, when you must do so by compulsory force of law, is contrary to the belief that you own your own life and have the right to decide not to defend it, the right to decide that your society does not deserve your efforts in it's defense, etc, or the right to decide that it deserves it, but you simply choose not to do so. To say that I am armed, therefore I must, by law, use that tool and my own presence in defense of someone else is excessive. I always have the option of choosing to rise to the defense of another.

It is that among other things which earns my respect for those who wear our country's uniform in her defense: The fact that they do so completely of their own free will. They all chose to enter the service.

I see it similarly to when a small child is told by his/her mother to apologize for some misdeed: The tone is often begrudging, but even if not, to me, it is not an apology that comes from the heart, else the child would not need to be told to give it.

JMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

Metaphorically speaking, can a man then, truly be an island? Would he be able to live by bread alone? Would not then the bell eventually toll for everyone?

Philosophical debate aside then, should not the laws of society, reasonably cede a man's total free will if he chooses to live under even a minimal benefit of said society? Does not his very presence within society, place him under at least a minimal obligation to said society?

I understand what you advocate. However, imagine if self determination trumped every compulsory obligation upon us. Such an image presenting itself as such, I have little doubt that we wouldn't even have the ability to have this very conversation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Good questions. The part you have to figure out is if people are basically good; that is, their own needs (not necessarily all "wants") met, will they give of what they have, of their own free will, to help others less fortunate, or are people basically evil in that even with everything they need given to them free and clear, will they still take from others who have more, less, and the same as they?

Perhaps people meet the "evil" definition above because they are given all their needs free and clear, thus, they never assign value to them?

Perhaps people are a mix of the two. This is where I stand. I think that there are some truly evil people in this world, many of whom are that way in part because it's how they were raised, in part because they are too small-minded to recognize what's wrong with that, and in part because they choose to remain so. (and there may be other parts as well) All that said, though, I think there are an awful lot of people who will give freely of their possessions, their income, and themselves when they find another in need. I've seen both kinds both "in the meat world" (I love that expression) and here on INGO, and the latter is in large majority in both places. I am of the opinion that, given a society that did not stand for evil and that turned its back on those who abused others' good graces, refusing to trade with them and allowing them to either reform themselves or to die of starvation (or of high velocity lead poisoning when their intended victims chose to not be so)we would see a society of people who, figuratively speaking, gave 'til it hurt. No, no man is an island nor can he live by bread alone, but how much more meaningful is the gift of one to another when it is done of the giver's own free will, rather than Robin-Hooded from him as our current administration (and indeed, all since FDR and perhaps before) have done?

What obligations are fitting and appropriate? Hmm. Well.. how about such things as the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Maybe "my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose."

I like the "Bill of No Rights" I've seen (and reposted here a couple of times.) "You do not have the right to never be offended." is how it starts.

Have we an obligation to help each other? I believe in a moral obligation to do so. A legal mandate has no effect other than to enforce the amount of aid I give and to whom it goes, even if I would choose differently. However, if a person feels no such obligation, without a law mandating it, he will not give. What goes around comes around, so goes the saying, though, and when that person finds himself in need, he may find all collars turned to him.

What compulsory obligations do you see that you believe self determination should not trump. (or, put another way, in what ways should you and I be forced to "give till it hurts"?) I like the restaurant analogy: It's a good idea to tip your servers well for good service. That does not mean it should be mandated by law. Pass a law forcing me to tip 15%, and my servers will quite possibly miss out on the extra 5-10% above that that I typically leave. (Same thing applies with delivery and delivery charges: $2.00 on a $20-$25 pizza order means the delivery guy just got screwed out of $2.50-$3.00 in tip money. Sorry about your luck. Take it up with your company or go to a company that doesn't do that.)

Getting back on topic, though, as I said, sure, there are liberal gun owners... Hell, ALL liberals can't be idiots!

(and for those who don't recognize it, that's not intended as an insult, just a joke.)

Blessings,
Bill

Metaphorically speaking, can a man then, truly be an island? Would he be able to live by bread alone? Would not then the bell eventually toll for everyone?

Philosophical debate aside then, should not the laws of society, reasonably cede a man's total free will if he chooses to live under even a minimal benefit of said society? Does not his very presence within society, place him under at least a minimal obligation to said society?

I understand what you advocate. However, imagine if self determination trumped every compulsory obligation upon us. Such an image presenting itself as such, I have little doubt that we wouldn't even have the ability to have this very conversation.