Most of the following will be my paraphrasing based on two videos, called "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control" and “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. Part one will be mostly from "The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control", while part 2 is more based on “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”. To see the latter, just click on the video below and move on to the next video. Part three will be of my own creation. Everything is of my opinion. By no means is this article meant to represent the views of any other individual or group. And BEFORE YOU READ, let me just tell you that I do NOT associate myself with the left-right paradigm, and I agree with liberals on some social issues (such as marriage), ad I consider myself agnostic. I am NOT anti government, for reasons explained in a video called “So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?”.
PART ONE: A lot of people agree that we all have divine rights, which are rights which should not be taken away. Just to name a few, many agree that we all should have the right to access clean water, good food, peacefully assemble, speak without fear and even access good health care that is, if necessary, free. But there is a right we often forget; the right to defense of self and others. The strange thing about rights, is that, they are actually boundaries. Freedom of speech, for example, can't exist unless boundaries are established to prevent those in power from harming or imprisoning those who speak against them. But who's ultimately responsible for upholding those boundaries? You may believe you have to right the speak. But what happens those rights when a group of armed people start moving from building to building, home to home injuring, killing and/or kidnapping those who disagree with them.
This exact scenario unfolded over and over again throughout history.
It keeps repeating not really because history has been forgotten, but rather it hasn't been properly understood. What if the people who are the victims of the exact same scenario had a fighting chance?
You believe that the government should have the monopoly on force. But in reality, the gang of armed people that I described often IS the government.
It was the governments of the world which were responsible the genocides, ethnic cleansings, and mass murder of civilians. It was the governments who exterminated political dissidents. It was the governments which built the concentration camps and secret prisons. It was the governments who committed the worst crimes against humanity. Governments have been shown to the the most corrupt, most ruthless organizations on the planet. Even all of the worst mass shooters combined can not even come close to the scale of damage overpowered governments have caused.
When the people have no means of defense, the government has no real boundaries. We can not simply hope that their minions (often military and law enforcement who obey) to disobey. That only allows the process to start all over again. You may believe that government may be free of corruption. But in reality, positions of power attracts tyrants, bullies and psychopaths like manure attracts flies. It always has, and always will. Government attracts these types of individuals because of power over others. And for icing on the cake, they get a paycheck! What more can such a person possibly ask for?
Once the types of individuals describe get in, who would you turn to? You can not get safety by giving more of your power and rights away to someone else. The root of the problem is a total monopoly on force. The solution is to give NO MONOPOLIES PERIOD. We as humans simply are not mature enough to deal with that type of temptation. True power balance MUST be maintained. The right to self defense is that counterbalance. It is the boundary which truly makes other rights possible. We are ultimately the ones responsible for protection ourselves and each other. However, the right to defense in meaningless without the MEANS of defense (such as a heavily armed population). This is why I believe the right to defense of self and others is a core right of animals, including humans no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender identity, national origin, color and/or other characteristics.
People who are rational, sober minded and follow a code of ethics and morals neither seek out nor create violence and de-escalate it at every level. This should be how all people operate, especially those who are armed. Perhaps the best people we can find are those who despise violence, but is willing to unleash it on violent predators if they have no other way to stop the predator(s). The right to the defense of self and others should not be selectively right for some people, such as law enforcement officers and military personnel while selectively wrong for others, such as average people who do not commit violence. Besides, in my view, law enforcement officers and military personnel are just citizens granted permission and extra (but not unlimited) power by we, the average people. Law enforcement should directly protect our communities while the military provides an external defense, only to be deployed directly in communities if absolutely necessary (in situations such as disasters, invasions, major civil unrest or a crisis in that manner).
A lot of people would agree that it is right to cause pain, injury or even death to a violent psychopath who had already killed multiple people and intends on killing more. But a question that confuses some is rather or not it is right to do it to people, rather they be regular people, or a law enforcement officer or military personnel. While this may sound scary and be crotroversial, yes, it is the right thing to do rather or not someone is wearing a uniform. Law enforcement officers and military personnel are still human beings. They, like pretty much all human beings, are not perfect, and can still go bad, just as any other person can.
To round part two up, and science people may like this part, as explained in “The Divine Right of Self Defense - Mike Adams documentary”, a lot of plants and animals practice their right to self defense. Cacti, for example, have sharp spines which teach animals to stay away. Similarly, porcupines have spines which do the same. A bird that uses a ranged defense mechanism is the Southern Grey Petrel, which had a stomach which produces wax esters and triglycerides, which can be projectile vomited onto predators. Some Tarantulas what’s called “urticating hairs/bristles”, which can be flicked off into the air at a target using their rear legs. These hairs can irritate, and could even be lethal to small animals. Many species of insects have chemical weapons at their disposal. The Bombardier Beetle, for example, uses thermal chemical reactions to launch a boiling, noxious chemical spray in rapid pulses from special glands in their abdomen. Some ants (specifically, Wood ants) can spray acid. Some Geckos can fire a black or pale sticky fluid from glands in their tail for distances up to about a meter with good aim. The Spitting Cobra can spray venom from forward facing holes in their fangs, spitting up to 1.5 meters. The California ground squirrel has been known to fight predators such as snakes by kicking dirt into their eyes. Elephants have been known to throw various objects.
Some primates, including humans, have been known to throw various objects. And, as a bonus, I’ll mention that Turtles and Tortoises, along with shellfish, have protective shells, which is animal body armor, if you will.
Why is this important? A lot of politicians say that they want the human species to be disarmed. Though not only is this within itself is a violation of a divine right, but also, it is not possible to fully disarm every last human on the planet. To disarm people, the people doing the disarming must be armed, and thus it becomes more like power re-distribution than disarmament.
So you think that a democracy (or republic) will always be sterile of corruption? Democracy is as sterile of corruption as religious holy books are of violence. Though this may sound cliche, I have changed this argument around, let's look at Nazi Germany. The Weimar republic was in a bad situation from the end of World War one to the start of Nazi Germany. Then Adolf Hitler came up, promising the people a lot of good stuff would come when he was in power. And guess what? He goose stepped his own people into a history of bloodshed. He disarmed everyone EXCEPT for the so-called "master race", which made it easier to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies and more. Adolf Hitler came from the right. Josef Stalin came from the left. Yet both were capable of doing the exact same thing.
Some people make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, and often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal and resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, and succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor and anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories and military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles and artillery are often meant for SUPPORT and will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work.
I’ll wrap this up with some quotes. Most from good people, one from one of the most evil. And I know that Malcolm X. WAS racist against whites, though eventually he changed his mind.
"Concerning 'nonviolence' - it is criminal to teach people not to defend themselves, when they are the victims of constant brutal attacks." "I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence." "Non Violence is okay as long as it works." "If you have a dog, I must have a dog. If you have a rifle, I must have a rifle. If you have a club, I must have a club. This is equality." - Malcolm X.
“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” - Martin Luther King.
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." - Ron Paul.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong.
Do you want to help support #gunrights
and the #2ndamendment
? Then please share this post with people who are #guncontrol
P.S: do you wish to keep your community safe from crime and violence? Then we must address other issues, such as economics, availability of services, substance use and population density just to name a few. There are places with a lot of guns that are not that violence, such as Kennesaw, Georgia (which requires every household to have a firearm) and Svalbard, Norway, which requires everyone to know how to use a rifle against polar bears. Restricting inanimate objects such as weapons (there are plenty of examples of homemade guns and ammunition) is not enough to address the actual disease rather than the symptoms. If I had my way on weapon control, I may improve the background check system (specifically updating information about people), and make it illegal for a violent felon to own weapons or knowingly going to transfer weapons to violent felons. Though it is already illegal for felons to own weapons, I feel it is slightly overzealous (so people sometimes end up losing their right to keep & bear arms for a "white collar" crime such as, say, a fake insurance card vs a "blue collar" crime such as unjustified homicide).