Limitless Nexus
Search site

exhibition Info
Right to Firearms, Protect Human Rights!

Type: Literature (txt)

Submitter: [anonymous]


Exhibition Date: 2014-05-25 00:42:31 MST

Views: 822

Score: 5.00 / 5.00
(Based on 1 votes.)

Rate this exhibition



View in new window

If someone wants to sell firearms or anything else regulated by the government, they have to deal with government tedious processes. In order to sell firmarms you need a FFL license, but for selling ammunition, black powder rifles and antique guns before a certain date you don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t. How easy do you think it is to open a firearms store and how much on an inconvenience do you think should be put on them by the government? Would you rather live in a country where everybody has a firearm and assist another citizen in danger at any time, or would you rather live in a country where everyone is defenseless and who are the biggest can bully others without serious threat of retaliation, and where those in charge of protecting people only show up to punish the criminal after the crime has been done?

With black powder rifles, you can load them up with pellets of compressed gunpowder, stick the bullet in, then you have an unregistered firearm. With 3D printing, its possible for people to now print their own fully functional guns without even buying one.The number one reason I can think of for owning a gun is security, you are not secure if it will take the cops 10 minutes to get to your house in an emergency and you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve already been victimized. Making guns available to all sane citizens should be considered something desirable, since everyone could take out an enemy soldier, criminal or dangerous animal which might cause harm to people.

Some people talk about firearms dealers as if they are the bad guys whenever someone goes on a rampage with a gun, but in reality those psychos would of got a gun black market regardless (or found another way to hurt people like poison, germs, bombs). Those who promote guns aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t promoting killing, but promote individual liberty along with the responsibilities that come with it. Those who are armed with guns are often times more responsible in keeping themselves safe and others around them, than had they not had a gun. If you have a gun and you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re in a hostage situation, you would have a responsibility to prevents death or stop the enemy if you get the chance. if you were unarmed you have less responsibility. You are helpless and the one who is armed decides who lives or dies. If you have a gun you have a responsibility to protect those you care about and put a stop to those committing evil within your power. If you shoot him, it could result in you getting shot as well.

So when you think of an arms dealer, you think of a villain selling people tools meant for killing with or do you see them as people who do their best to supply their customers with the means to defend themselves? Do you see moral dilemmas for people who sell medicine or other products which could be misused or is the moral dilemma purely one the person using the product knowing full well what it is?

The more the democrats go on about gun control, the more they turn off their individual liberty portion of their members and make themselves seem like fools who want to take away the individual\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s freedom to defend themselves. They are in essence saying citizens aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t responsible enough to have the means to protect themselves and should be fully reliant on the government to do that. This goes against everything america was based on. Do you see giving more US citizens access to gun to be fulfilling a patriot duty to make sure the citizens can actually protect their freedom and that of others if need be, or do you have a negative view of them for selling items which could potentially be used to harm others?

Whether you like guns or hate guns, nothing represents self reliance like a gun. Even with a government collapse, revolution or gun ban, guns will retain or increase in value. In that sense guns make sense not only for security, but investing money into something which retains its value as well. Much like gold, but more useful. There has been at least 2 gun scares with Obama as president with everyone buying up guns just in case he tries to ban them, I happened to get my .45 XD a few years ago even though I used all my expendable funds at the time because I didn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t want to risk not having one in case of a ban or further restrictions. Since then Obama caused another gun control scare when he said he wanted to limit clip sizes on guns to being really small (which would mean guns like my XD wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be able to be sold anymore due to having to much capacity), this lead another person I know to buy the same type of 45 XD as me, guaranteeing he has a high clip capacity guns with power behind it regardless of any future regulations. All my other friends either want a plan, are planning to get one, or have one. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve had my gun several years and I haven\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t even fired it once. Same with my friend who got the same gun a year later, as we just haven\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t had the chance to go the shooting range. Just having the gun though bring security, both in peace of mind knowing I can defend myself if need be and no longer needing to worry about future bans hampering my ability to defend myself.

Why do the democrats keep pushing the gun issue even though they know it is very unpopular of them? It doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t represent any value other than thinking people don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t have a right to gain the ability to defend themselves against physically stronger opponents. Many in hollywood are against guns because the idea of someone possibly getting by all their security and shooting them frightens them. However the much more realistic threat everyday people face is bullies forcing people to do what they don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t want because they lack the physical strength or power to beat them. Or the old lady getting robbed. Most criminals pick on opponents they perceive to be weaker than them and its these people who are most at risk. If no matter how weak or bad at fighting someone with, if they were able to take down 5 guys stronger than them if need, that removes physical condition and skill from the ability to destroy enemies.

The big decentive to shooting people who don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t deserve it is prison or other kinds of problems, so for most it is like the nuclear deterrent. However if they pull the gun and someone comes at them or someone else, then shooting is justified and can save those who might not be strong enough to defend themselves from serious harm at the hands of rageaholic strangers.

Sometimes I want to believe the democrats are alright and their heart is in the right place. They want more government spending to help with welfare and those made dependents on the government, but as far as advancing civil liberties go they are more open than the republicans about it usually. Then whenever there is a school shooting or anything else the media can focus on to bring gun regulations in the spotlight, you see democrats rush to make statements which show they have no regard for the first amendment and don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t believe people should even be capable of defending themselves if need be. Only criminals or law enforcement should have guns in the democrat vision, but that makes people less safe when police aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t around and creates a need for much more law enforcement despite still not being enough to stop crimes from happening,

Are they trying to keep their membership ratio of freedom loving members down or do you they really think it is an ideal goal to disarm all americans and make them completely helpless?

While the republicans are bad, the democrats seem to have a just as chilling and unamerican goal guiding their policies towards disarming the populace and a more globalized government where citizens have even less say in their government which has an effect on them. Not only do they want to disarm everyone so they are helpless and reliant on the government, the democrats want to do that in direct conflict with the constitution. If not even people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s constitutional rights are safe, how can they know the government will care about the others after people can no longer defend them and already started giving up??

Once democrats realize their party isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t for freedom, they will either try changing minds within the party or they could join the libertarian party, where they will notice people agreeing with him much more stuff shouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be so regulated or banned, as well as hearing convincing arguments most bans violating human freedom just end up causing more problems than there would be without a ban.

With Libertarianism someone doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t need to be support guns, like them or even care about them to think they should be legal. They should be legal because people have a right to their own business as long as they aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t harming others. Also any help after you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve been a victim of a crime isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t nearly as useful as being able to prevent becoming a victim since you are legally able to protect yourself.

With Libertarianism someone doesn\'t need to support abortion to think they should be legal. It isn\\\'t your business or my business if the lady living down the street goes through with her pregnancy. Some might think less of her if she does have one, but there could be good reasons and without legal abortions those desperate enough will find harmful ways to do it to themselves. Libertarian think there could be some contractual about requiring approval from both parents to have the abortion, but a women pregnant out of wedlock and with no agreement to carry the baby doesn\'t have an obligation to carry a baby they don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t want until birth.

With Libertarianism someone doesn\'t need to support using drugs to believe they should be legal, they just believe its nobody else\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s business how other people choose to medicate themselves or treat their bodies. Some who are pro-legalizing drugs will rarely ever do any, maybe some medicinal herbs if urgents, but many who take tons of synthetic uppers/downers to treat dozens of made up \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"conditions\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" they have will rant and rave about how illegal drug use is bad and those who break the law should be put in the prison

With Libertarianism someone doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t need to support gay marriage to believe it should be legal. Since when should the government be in the business of defining marriage for organizations and individuals who hold very different meanings for it? Marriage has had a specific meaning for many religions for a long time, so telling them they need to change how they use it would violate religious freedom. However if you want to allow different people to use it with a slightly altered meaning, then it shouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t matter. However libertarians just oppose the government deciding whose definition is correct, instead rather allowing individuals and society to decide which terms are used and stand the test of time.

Its this lack of the republicans and democrats appealing for freedom in all areas and not just their special interest groups which gives the Libertarian Party such cross party appeal. The Libertarian Party isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t just taking votes from democrats or republicans, its a serious threat to both as members of both parties learn the Libertarians support them having their freedom, and all they need to do realize is allowing others to have the freedom to do as they please as they long they aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t bothering others makes it possible for all.

Recently the republicans have turned out bad candidate after bad candidate, like they were hoping to lose to Obama almost. However the republicans gained record membership and a lot of grassroots movements. Despite mainstream media ignoring him blatantly, Ron Paul had a huge following and even had a bunch of delegates for the RNC. Rather than the republicans embracing their new small government members, they instead considered their party growing to be bad. They stripped many delegates of their status and made those who weren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t sign a pledge saying they would vote for Romney. They also didn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t even let Ron Paul speak at the convention despite having the among the top 2 or 3 delegates. Chris Christie has recently said he think libertarians like Rand Paul are dangerous and bad for the bad.

So the republicans aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t going to be a beacon of freedom, unless Rand Paul can pull a surprise after he has secured the presidency. Regardless of how humanitarian the democrats claim to be and what they offer to have the government to for you, they also would like to strip you of your ability to defend yourself, resist the government or not needing the government.

Can the democratic party ever purge themselves of their stances on issues like gun rights, which are in clear contradiction with the constitution and basic human rights? Until Ron Paul, most would of considered the democrats the freedom leaning party, as the republicans had seemingly been taken over fully by neocon war mongers and big business interests. However Ron Paul was deeply popular among democrats and republicans, but due to efforts on the part of the republican party instead they prevented him from a having a chance in the general election and instead pushed through some media pick even most non-Ron Paul supporting republicans could agree was unelectable.

How many presidential elections do you think it will take for the democratic and republican parties to bleed enough freedom party searching members before we start seeing close races between more than just republicans and democrats to win?

Whats good about libertarianism is its like math in its absolute nature. There is a certain way to maximize everyone\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s individual happiness, in order for this to happen people don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t infringe on each other\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s freedom unless invited to do so. When you consider aggression unprovoked to be wrong, then every situation can be analyzed from the Libertarian perspective and the correct conclusion can be found. So someone who has never even heard the term libertarianism could live his life like a libertarian and convince others to follow his lead while thinking of it as something else. Libertarianism wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t a thing back in the times of Jesus, but many think of him as either the first or one of the first libertarians in written history. He lived his live doing good and not infringing upon other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights.

That libertarianism is a philosophy which has such a clear belief system, where a libertarian can know if someone else is as well just by hearing their views on some issues, is which gives libertarianism that incorruptible truth to it. Even if you believe someone should be different, if you deeply understand libertarian you realize why liberty must prevail for even those you don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t agree with to make it a political philosophy open to all in favor of giving maximum freedom to others as well. There will be many parties or organizations who might try using libertarian in their name while promoting their own ideas, but the fakes can easily be filtered out when looking at their beliefs and the role government should play. Libertarian stances on one issue from the next aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t random or based on influence from special interest groups. A minarchist and an anarchist can have a very in depth argument on where action by the government or individual would be justified using the non-aggression principle as the basis for. Even going back the Bible, the Golden Rule was the main basis for how Christians should treat others as well.

Those who desire freedom and are willing to fight for it can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be stomped out, as well as made to forget what freedom is. Freedom is can be discovered under many different names and many different systems have tried to suppress it with harsh methods. However no matter how many are crucified, impaled, hung, beheaded, electrocuted to death, received lethal injection, sentence to life in prison, or tortured; someone eventually will always wonder why and discover they are missing something they desire known as freedom. When you take away someone\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s means to defend their own freedom if need be, you make it easy for anyone to come along and violate their body, items and rest of their freedoms.

It is for this reason I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m glad I didn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t register republican in time to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary, the party showed its corruptions are ever so ingrained in the party with how they rejected Ron Paul and his supporters.

Despite seeing some democrats saying stuff I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve been arguing in favor of for a long time, like legalizing marijuana; suddenly when they talk about banning guns they remind me why its usually such a close race between republicans and democrats. The democrats literally shoot themselves in the foot with that one and show blatant disregard for even pretending to care about the bill of rights.

There has been research published arguing that some \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'sense\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' of fair play and the Golden Rule may be stated and rooted in terms of neuroscientific and neuroethical principles.


Submitter's Comment
Nobody has a right to violate any of our rights, given we haven\\\'t violated the non-aggression principle. The only rights anybody has are freedoms. People can have are freedoms, Rights exist to protect our freedom. You have a right to do anything you want, as long as you aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t hurting other people by doing so.

If someone tries to take away you or someone else\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s freedom who has done nothing wrong, don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t treat them as an Officier of the Law, treat him as the criminal who just exposed himself. Those who work for our real government are there to help people and protect humans rights as much as they can. So its easy to spot a traitor when you see those claiming to work for the government taking away the freedom of people in violation of the non-aggression pact. Look at the records which show how many people they have arrested, then find out how many they\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve really arrested without proper cause. You then make sure that individual is never in a position to force their will upon anyone else.

Keywords: libertarian

Most Recent User Comments
There are no comments for this exhibition yet.

Leave a comment
Please log in or create an account to post a comment.
Related sponsor

Related Literature

Other related exhibitions

Related links