[Lnc-business] Taking the discussion off the voting thread
Arvin Vohra
votevohra at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 19:43:11 EDT 2018
Hi all,
It seems quite surreal to be arguing that guns are specifically there to
defend us against a tyrannical government. I probably have a far below
average number of guns on the LNC (zero), and I follow a personal code of
avoiding violence, even when it is morally justified or state sponsored.
And yet, this is not about my views, but about the Libertarian views. It
has been argued that the view that guns are there to oppose government
tyranny is not a Libertarian view, is a violation of the NAP, etc. But this
is not some far extreme opinion shared only by me. It is a common view
among Libertarians and even conservatives - including those who have the
ear of the mainstream that many of you so desperately crave. I've included
a few here from minarchist and conservative sources, not the anarchist
sources that tend to be more aggressive.
If you don't believe that Libertarians view guns as weapons to be used in
defense against tyranny, here's what a two minute google search turns up:
According to the Libertarian Party of North Carolina: "The Founding
Fathers wrote the Constitution after overthrowing their own tyrannical
government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to insure that
the fledgling government of these United States would not devolve into the
totalitarianism they had just defeated. The Framers gave the people the
ability to force the new government to abide by the Constitution." (
http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control)
According to Rand Paul: "Some citizens are holding out hope that the
upcoming elections will better things. We'll wait and see. Lots of us
believe that maybe that's an unreliable considering that the Fabian
progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well over
100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the Second
Amendment." (
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
)
Acording to the Future of Freedom Foundation: "In other words, the right to
keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It has everything
to do with defending one’s self and others from people who are initiating
force against innocent people, such as robbers, murderers, rapists,
torturers, and tyrants (and their agents)."
According to the Daily Wire, responding to Rolling Stone: " We Americans
don’t want to keep our guns so we can overthrow the government; we want to
keep our guns so we never have to." (
https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-happen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke
)
According to the National Review: " But a tyranny, an invader, or a
pretender-government are more effectively resisted with guns.
Sometimes people put Schermer’s argument more baldly. They ask something
like this: “Do you really think Bubba in camo gear hiding in the forest is
going to take on the U.S. military? The U.S. military has nuclear
weapons!”" (
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-government-force-history/
)
According to the Libertarian Republic: "Therefore, if the government were
to function as the sole executor of force, minority populations would be
severely at risk. It is widely assumed that the United States is a
democracy, for precisely this reasoning, we are not; we are a
representative republic. Second, and of most pertinence, military might was
restricted to the ruling party;" (
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/)
According to Ted Cruz: " “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for
just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right
to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children,
your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check
against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” (
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyranny
)
And if this is about appealing to the mainstream, here's what Rasmussen had
to say a few years ago: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone
survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second
Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from
tyranny.... Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family
regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even
a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view."
I've argued that we are becoming, as a movement, culturally democrats. We
insist that people can't stop themselves from having 9 kids on welfare, or
that it is their natural right to do so, or that if it wasn't for
government, all those people with no economic skill to speak of would be
instant millionaires, so they would be able to afford to have 50 kids, so
government owes them stolen money because they kept themselves to 9. From
what I've seen in this discussion, we've lost touch with even the most
basic principles of supporting the Second Amendment. I find it quite
striking that I am, somehow, the only person on the LNC who believes that
the Second Amendment, and the natural gun rights it expresses, is for
resisting government tyranny.
Respectfully,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
Hi all,
It seems quite surreal to be arguing that guns are specifically there
to defend us against a tyrannical government. I probably have a far
below average number of guns on the LNC (zero), and I follow a personal
code of avoiding violence, even when it is morally justified or state
sponsored.
And yet, this is not about my views, but about the Libertarian views.
It has been argued that the view that guns are there to oppose
government tyranny is not a Libertarian view, is a violation of the
NAP, etc. But this is not some far extreme opinion shared only by me.
It is a common view among Libertarians and even conservatives -
including those who have the ear of the mainstream that many of you so
desperately crave. I've included a few here from minarchist and
conservative sources, not the anarchist sources that tend to be more
aggressive.
If you don't believe that Libertarians view guns as weapons to be used
in defense against tyranny, here's what a two minute google search
turns up:
According to the Libertarian Party of North Carolina: "The Founding
Fathers wrote the Constitution after overthrowing their own tyrannical
government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to insure
that the fledgling government of these United States would not devolve
into the totalitarianism they had just defeated. The Framers gave the
people the ability to force the new government to abide by the
Constitution." ([1]http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control)
According to Rand Paul: "Some citizens are holding out hope that the
upcoming elections will better things. We'll wait and see. Lots of us
believe that maybe that's an unreliable considering that the Fabian
progressive socialists have been chipping at our foundations for well
over 100 years. Regardless, the founders made sure we had Plan B: the
Second Amendment."
([2]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional
-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241
298/)
Acording to the Future of Freedom Foundation: "In other words, the
right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with shooting deer. It
has everything to do with defending one’s self and others from people
who are initiating force against innocent people, such as robbers,
murderers, rapists, torturers, and tyrants (and their agents)."
According to the Daily Wire, responding to Rolling Stone: " We
Americans don’t want to keep our guns so we can overthrow the
government; we want to keep our guns so we never have to."
([3]https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-hap
pen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke)
According to the National Review: " But a tyranny, an invader, or a
pretender-government are more effectively resisted with guns.
Sometimes people put Schermer’s argument more baldly. They ask
something like this: “Do you really think Bubba in camo gear hiding in
the forest is going to take on the U.S. military? The U.S. military has
nuclear weapons!”"
([4]https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citiz
enry-vs-government-force-history/)
According to the Libertarian Republic: "Therefore, if the government
were to function as the sole executor of force, minority populations
would be severely at risk. It is widely assumed that the United States
is a democracy, for precisely this reasoning, we are not; we are a
representative republic. Second, and of most pertinence, military might
was restricted to the ruling party;"
([5]https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/)
According to Ted Cruz: " “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t
for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your
right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your
children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the
ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of
liberty,”
([6]https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-governme
nt-tyranny)
And if this is about appealing to the mainstream, here's what Rasmussen
had to say a few years ago: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national
telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of
the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect
themselves from tyranny.... Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun
in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against
tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their
home hold that view."
I've argued that we are becoming, as a movement, culturally democrats.
We insist that people can't stop themselves from having 9 kids on
welfare, or that it is their natural right to do so, or that if it
wasn't for government, all those people with no economic skill to speak
of would be instant millionaires, so they would be able to afford to
have 50 kids, so government owes them stolen money because they kept
themselves to 9. From what I've seen in this discussion, we've lost
touch with even the most basic principles of supporting the Second
Amendment. I find it quite striking that I am, somehow, the only person
on the LNC who believes that the Second Amendment, and the natural gun
rights it expresses, is for resisting government tyranny.
Respectfully,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party
--
Arvin Vohra
[7]www.VoteVohra.com
[8]VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
References
1. http://www.lpnc.org/gun-control
2. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
3. https://www.dailywire.com/news/22002/yes-government-tyranny-can-happen-and-yes-armed-tyler-dahnke
4. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/second-amendment-armed-citizenry-vs-government-force-history/
5. https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-guns-2nd-amendment/
6. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyranny
7. http://www.VoteVohra.com/
8. mailto:VoteVohra at gmail.com
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list