Declaring perversion to be reality lacks any type of moral clarity at all. You dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change - the devil changes you. (Which is what we are witnessing in our country presently). Thnk how hypocritical it is. Our Founders claimed God as the reason for Founding the nation. Claimed Him to build the greatest nation ever.

And then their evil progeny dimisses Him and casts Him off. Going so far as declaring Him not to be? There was a time in this very land, when that would have gotten you; burned at the stake, thrown in the stocks, hanged or tar and feathered.

One of the greatest things which the Framers did, was stop this ‘religious’ lunacy. Which was clearly one of their reasons for the seperation of church and state. To wit; “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.” - Thomas Jefferson

And, as witnessed by Samuel Adams;

“In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is
for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom
being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” - The Rights of the Colonists

Sort of spells out precisely how it was intended. And what we ‘absolutists’ intend on returning to.

Now, if Freedom, Liberty and Rights are the gift of God. And, you take away God, the One whom is the source of these. Does it stand to reason that you will keep the gift(s), if the giver of them has been perversely dismissed? Look carefully at our history, and other countries histories. You will discover that whenever a country has become perverse - it falls. And many times is utterly destroyed for its folly.

We took all of these gifts for granted. And now we’re feeling the pains of retribution. Despite whatever the perverse declare. Nature itself shows how the perverse are never allowed to stand for very long. This has been proven repeatedly throughout history.

The perverse are inevitably destroyed and usually without remedy. And I, and many others I’m aware of. Will fight these perverse hyenas, to the death if necessary. There is going to be no Chinese Comm., Nazi, or Soviet style takeover here. Not without one hell of a bloodbath happening first.

All of that is what I call theory. it’s theory ***I agree with***, but it’s theory.

In fact, I would say that both sides in this argument agree with those ideas. The question is what tactics *in reality*, dealing with the actual political and social landscape that exists today, are going to restore the genuine Free Exercise of our rights?

That question is the only thing that matters to me on this.

(and by “free exercise of our rights”, I do, in fact, mean “full recognition that it is a right and not a ‘privilege’.”)

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists
____________________________________________________

“Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice.” - to William Johnson, 1823

“Our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them.” - Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782

“No one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature.” - to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

“Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for…peace and safety…as to render its use impracticable,…it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress.” - Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792

“[These are] the rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all.” - Rights of British America, 1774

“[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights.” - Reply to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809

“The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.” - to William Carmichael, 1790

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

- Thomas Jefferson, Arguably the most intelligent U.S. President ever.

My error. Straightarrow said it, in
this comment at Smallest Minority.

I must be having another senior moment, because I just don’t recall talking about thugs drving my car.

If all your neighbors voted to sell your home and pocket the money, despite your objection and let you know you could get in trouble if you didn’t accept it. Would you? That would be the new reality. Do you really have the right to your home if I want it and people vote with me. (I know this is a bad example, especially after Kelo v. New London) should we just accept it? Can we call it a victory if you are allowed to pay an admission fee to visit your former home. Would it then be just semantics about the meaning of words if you held that your neighbors had no real right to sell your home? Especially since they have already done it and you just need to deal with what is and never demand a return of your property.

“That is just so wrong on so many levels that it should require no explaining as to why. That is not a sentiment worthy of a free man.”

And therein lies a much, *much* larger argument, which lies at the essence of my statement in the post where I said: “In a very real sense this is one of those ‘in the real world’ vs. ‘in theory’ arguments.”

You basically are arguing that “rights” exist outside of human action or belief. I tend to think that — regardless of what a piece of paper might say — if (for example) speaking your mind results in the authorities coming and putting a bullet in your head, then you don’t have the right to free speech. *Should* you have it? Yes.

This is an argument over wording, really, but for different people to have a substantive discussion on anything, the meanings of words must of course be agreed upon — thus such arguments are pertinent and useful. We are at the point of arguing the meaning of the word “right”.

It appears to me that to you, a right is a platonic ideal. You might, for example, argue that a peasant in modern China has a right to free speech, because that is a human right. I would quickly point out that any attempt to exercise that “right” would end very badly for the peasant.

Or… maybe you wouldn’t. The other way you might go is to say that you’re applying the argument specifically to Americans, because we have the piece of paper saying we have the right. Again the question from the main post: does the paper *give* us the right, or merely *describe* it?

And if exercising a “right” written on that paper (theory) earns us a swift trip to the inside of a cage (reality), then which is more real — the theory or the reality?

You can (and should) fight for the reality that you *desire*, but don’t mistake it for the reality that *is*.

The law (theory) says you’re not allowed to enter my home and rob me, but I still lock the door at night, in case reality rears it’s ugly head (and though I don’t currently, I may someday choose to have a gun in my nightstand for that same potential situation). In such a case, the majority of society will probably side with me, but what happens when the majority of society sides with the burglar and his “right” not to get shot?

In a word, England.

In England, they do not have the right to bear arms. Should they? I think so. But they don’t.

Kevin has fought this fight before, and probably done a better job of it than I have in this comment. I’m busy at the moment with other things (damn that reality again!) but would like to discuss this further. If I have time I’ll try to find Kevin’s previous argument on the nature of “rights”. (And Kevin, if you read this, feel free to link it yourself )

I don’t know how long you have read David, but if it has been longer than a short time you will realize the David was not declaring war against the incrementalists that have expanded privilege. However, when an organization of which one is a life member that is charged with protecting the members’ 2A rights, writes and lobbies for more restrictions of the 2nd amendment, calling passage of such victory and an incremental step in regaining our rights through compromise. Something is drastically wrong and needs to be corrected. Ala Gun Free School Zones, Project Exile, Project Safe Neighborhoods, the call for “just enforce the existing laws” some 20,000 of which all are unconstitutional.

I have read David long enough to know that he does not disparage the honest incrementalists unless that person is trying to give away something that is not his to give. David doesn’t need my help, but I did this for you, not him. I think you read him wrong. I can see how that would be if you weren’t familiar with his philosophy. I am sure David will correct me if I misrepresented him.

Now, to my own defense. I recognize the reference to my comments about subject and citizens, though you were polite enough not to repeat them in this reference; “what I see as a relatively minor breakdown of civlity directed toward Kevin ”

Everyone, including Kevin seem to have taken my statement as a denigration of his stance on incrementalism as regards 2A , or his degrading of the characters of those “absolutists” (he actually did infringe civility first), But neither was the impetus for my statement.

This was; ” A “right” is what the majority in a society agrees it is. Period”-Kevin

That is just so wrong on so many levels that it should require no explaining as to why. That is not a sentiment worthy of a free man.

“I don’t believe any of the pragmatists on any of these sites can find an example of an absolutist campaigning to invalidate the incremental gains or condemning the pragmatists that helped bring it about.”

In the “War On Guns” blog link above, David says in comments:

“[Y]ou are creating settled law–binding on me–in a land that makes its judicial decisions based on precedent and stare decisis.

My individual rights are not yours to bargain with, and I will oppose you or anyone else doing so every step of the way.”

Clearly, David is condemning the actions of the incrementalists who are “bargaining” away his rights. I’ve read a whole lot of quotes to this effect in the comments that started me into this discussion.

And to be honest, straightarrow, I think he’s right in a sense. As I say above, his theory is absolutely sound. I just don’t think it’s the best approach to regaining the free exercise of the rights it represents. (Though I’m somewhat on the fence on this….)