[Lnc-business] Taking the discussion off the voting thread

[steven.nekhaila at lp.org]

Arvin,

I think it goes without saying that the proper use of the Second 
Amendment is to give the citizenry the ability to fight back against a 
threat, both foreign and domestic, including ones own government. It is 
stated so explicitly in the Federalist papers, and the violent 
revolution against the British should be evidence enough as to what the 
intentions were. I don't recall anyone explicitly stating that the 
Second Amendment is to put food on the table, it sounds like the 
argument you are stating is concerning acts of aggression. Are all 
actions of the State acts of aggression, yes. If a robber steals your 
money and gives it to his wife and kids to buy food, do you have a right 
to use violence against the robbers wife and kids? I would say it is an 
inappropriate reaction. Even if the wife and kids were to support the 
actions of the thieving, perhaps even violent husband/father, I do not 
believe that justifies lethal force against the recipients. Benefiting 
from force DOES make them morally culpable, even civilly liable. But I 
think the greater extent of this argument you are trying to make, Arvin, 
is at what point is state funding considered aggression, my answer is as 
long as it is funded through aggression. That includes just about 
everything, perhaps to a lesser extent when it is funded through 
inflation and borrowing, but that is a compulsorily imposed monetary 
system. And that does indeed make public education morally abhorrent. 
When you made a joke concerning hunting government, I thought it was 
quite charming, for the reason that the Second Amendment is often 
excused as a protection for hunting, not resistance to government 
tyranny. When you made your controversial joke about shooting school 
boards not schools, the hidden meaning was that at least one was 
justified or preferred. I took it as a purely ostentatious comment. I am 
not offended by a joke, however, I do think the fear of this body is in 
the best interest of the reputation of the Party. Although I believe the 
threat has been overstated and every effort of this body to squash 
dissent has been counter-intuitive and the equivalent of turning your 
joke into a pylon marquee sign for all to see and analyze, I do think 
the sentiment is at least easy to understand.

As for your concerns Arvin, I believe force is force, and those who 
benefit, organize and call for force are as morally culpable as those 
who commit it. That is why we are here, to show them that they are 
wrong, to light up another way. Never stop fighting, the alternatives 
are a horrifying future and a dystopian present.

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila
Region 2 Alternate

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."



On 2018-04-05 07:43 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:
> 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