Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Foundation aims to challenge gun ban proposal

April 1, 2009 by  

Foundation aims to challenge gun ban proposal The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has vowed to sue the mayor of Seattle if he goes ahead with his plan to ban legally-carried firearms from city property.

Seattle Weekly, a local newspaper, revealed the plan sponsored by Mayor Greg Nickels on March 24. The mayor’s office told SW the ban may be enacted as soon as May.

"Mayor Nickels thinks he can enact this ban merely by executive order," says SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "He’s not even thinking of putting this before the city council as a proposed ordinance, because he knows it would never pass."

He adds that that Nickels’ office has been warned by the state’s attorney general that neither he nor the city have the authority to enact such a ban under state preemption.

Gottlieb also revealed that at a public hearing late last year there was much interest in pursuing a lawsuit if the ban is enacted, and SAF expects to be joined in a legal action by other gun rights organizations.

Founded in 1974, SAF is the nation’s oldest and largest education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms. It has more than 600,000 members and conducts programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19103758-ADNFCR

Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Foundation aims to challenge gun ban proposal”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

    Why isn’t the Second Amendment Foundation calling for the full and immediate REPEAL of all existing gun laws, as well as the cessation of any new ones? THAT would be defending the Second Amendment. Doing anything less is allowing its infringement to continue unabated. For seventy-five years, the Second Amendment has been infringed and not one so-called “gun rights” organization, including SAF and the NRA, have demanded the repeal of the laws that stand in direct and blatant violation of the Second Amendment. The gun-owning public has been so brainwashed with propaganda from these organizations they actually believe that passing still more laws is somehow “protecting” the Second Amendment. You don’t protect it by ignoring its infringement and adding to that infringement by asking government permission to have a little bit of your freedom back.

    • Former_Democrat

      Gary, why haven’t you done the same thing you are demanding the SAF to do? Is it because, maybe, time, money and other resources? You are a typical whiner who expects people do things for them instead of standing up and doing it yourself. You are what is wrong with this nation. You complain about others not doing enough while you sit back and do nothing. You are a hypocrite of the largest kind. Shut off your computer and do something yourself, otherwise you are turning into something as bad as the liberal whiners.

      • fred

        Mr anonymous, you don’t even have the guts to give your name in
        replying to a very good post from one who has obviously done his
        homework. We simply do not need any laws except the Second Amendment.
        That amendment reflects the inalienable right we all have as members of
        society born with that right. No legislature can or should interfere with
        any of our rights unless they are used to injure others and that is what our
        courts are for. Perhaps what each legislature should do is to reaffirm by
        Resolution what I have just stated and at the same time acknowledge their
        previous errors in attempting to legislate anything on this subject.
        Any previous gun laws which in effect limit our right to use a gun as our right
        should be declared null and void by our courts recognising that you don’t
        mess with our rights, you enforce them.
        Fred

        • Lance

          Why do all the gun toting hicks believe we still “NEED” guns, and I capitalized that for a very specific reason. Your only justification is you need it for “defending myself”, but in all honesty you would be much safer if all guns were illegal. The United States is fourth in the WORLD in homicides and its only because we are one of two, non third world countries that allow its general citizenship to own an infinite supply of weapons with no restrictions and very little in the way registration to know who even has guns. Check the statistics and see for yourself gun homicides comprise more than 85% of all murders, and please keep the stupid “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” quotes to yourself. If you had to stab or beat someone to death with a knife or a bat, you would immediately cut the murder rates in this country by 80%. There would still be those few people who would kill someone but, for the most part, the world is comprised of soft cowardly people who kill with guns because its easy and requires no effort. Pull a trigger and bang its over. Oh there is one thing you need a gun for and that’s hunting, I have no desire to take away someone ability to feed themselves, but no high powered rifles, you can have muzzleloaders. If you want to shoot you have to load the powder, the wadding and the shot. Basically it eliminates the weapon from being used in mass murders like we saw today in binghamton ny, where some coward went in and killed 15 people with two handguns then killed himself. I would love to hear a coherent response from all the NRA wacks whose only argument is the 2nd Amendment says I have the right. Its an amendment, which by very definition is made to be amended itself.

        • Bill Nunnery

          All totalitarian governments since the beginning of recorded history have had one thing in common: the government first disarms their law abiding citizens before taking absolute power. Lance argues that the mass murder in Binghamton would not have occurred if guns had been outlawed. I argue that if those that were senselessly murdered had concealed carry permits the toll would have been much less. In fact if anything will deter a nut like that it would be the fear of an armed citizenry. It is obvious that law enforcement is powerless to stop these types of crimes. They only come in after disaster strikes. Lance, do you really believe that criminals will turn in their guns just because they are illegal. Until recently it was illegal to own a gun in Washington, DC, which has the highest gun related homicide rate in the US.

        • LAConfidential

          Lance -
          I apologize for your lack of confidence in your own ability to take charge of your destiny, because you are too ignorant to do it yourself.

          The first 10 amendments are more than just amendments. Patrick Henry’s buy-off for the constitution was to make these specific amendments special enough to be referred to as the BILL OF RIGHTS. There is no room for arguing the facts where the creation of this government was concerned. The centralized banks did NOT want an independent nation to become successful without having a central bank to charge interest (as a form of illegal taxation in addition to making millions for themselves – then billions – and now TRILLIONS)

          The second amendment goes hand in hand with the preamble to the declaration of independence. You should read these documents and actually put these words into the context they were meant to be rather than just reading the words and acting as though you are so totally removed from the possibility of your country’s leaders selling you out.

          It doesn’t take a hick to own and be confident in his/her ownership of a firearm. If you are too scared – then so be it. That does not allow you and your kind to create legislation that will enable ALL of us to become slaves of the new world order. If becoming a scared little slave is your thing, then go on about your business, quit complaining, and go get your RFID chip implanted so you can be a good little slave. You might want to brush up on your lines – repeat after me…”I love big brother. Big brother is my friend”

          Have a great day!

      • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

        I believe I just did “do something about it,” by posting my message here. My mission in doing so is to raise the level of awareness about this fact and to maybe wake up a few of you who continually go along with whatever you hear and read, like sheep. It is because of people blindly following the NRA and other such organizations that nothing is being done about the problem. I am attempting, in my own small way – because I am only one individual – to awaken gun owners to the facts, in hopes that, in time, there will be enough of us who know that a real gun rights organization might be formed to counteract the status quo. Now, what are you doing here, besides making personal attacks and not addressing what I said at all?

    • Steve

      You couldn’t have spoken more truth than what you have. All the gun laws and restrictions on the private ownership of firearms since our countries founding are unconstitutional. The United States Constitution isn’t a living, breathing, ever changing document. Unless you amend it, it should always remain as it was written. This is why our founders made it so difficult to amend it, requiring 2/3 of the states to ratify any amendment to the constitution. While the NRA and SAF have great intentions, they are fighting the wrong battle. They should be fighting to win the war, not to win another battle. It is amazing to me how so few U.S. citizens are aware of how many of their constitutional rights have been trampled on and taken from them. We have become the ignorant masses that want nothing but to survive, rather than live how God and our founders intended us to live. Good point that I have never heard anyone else bring up.

      • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

        But do the NRA and SAF and other such organization really have “great intentions,” or are they just Establishment coadjutors, there to misdirect the energies of those who sincerely care about our fundamental right to self-defense? You see, this is part of why and how the NRA gets away with what it has been doing for seventy-five years. By making the pretense of “defending” the Second Amendment, they derive huge support from a gullible public who don’t have enough discernment to look beyond the headlines and the sound bites. How many people, for example, are aware that Alabama’s H.B. 225 (now law), which was publicized as a bill that would protect Alabama gun owners from gun confiscations in an “emergency” actually facilitates the confiscation? If you were among the vast majority who didn’t bother to read beyond the hype – who didn’t bother to read the actual text of the law, you would have no idea that is says Alabama residents’ gun can be confiscated “if the officer reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.” In other words, if the cops come to your door (probably to seize weapons in the first place, if it’s an “emergency”), all they have to do is take your guns and then claim they did it because they “felt threatened” by the fact that you were armed. Mississippi has recently passed an almost identically worded bill, and there are other states passing similar laws – all of them at the same time.

        Tennessee has passed a recent law that would supposedly ban microstamping of guns and ammo in Tennessee. Sounds great, if that’s all you know about it, right? That’s exactly how it was publicized before being passed. This bill, along with the two mentioned above, had the full support of several “gun rights” organizations, including the NRA. But, if you examine the actual bill itself, you’ll find that it bans the sale of microstamped guns and ammo in Tennessee. Now, that might not sink in right away, unless you have enough discernment to consider that the gun grabbers’ long-term agenda is to have all new guns and ammo microstamped. If and when this happens, anyone who wants to buy a new gun or ammo in Tennessee won’t find any on the store shelves to buy, because they’ll all be banned. Pretty clever ploy, eh? Another thing most will not realize is that, while microstamping is being promoted by the NRA as an infringement of the Second Amendment (and, to be sure, it is), the fact remains that microstamped guns can still be fired and microstamped ammo can still be used to take out an attacker. The only people who have anything to fear from microstamping are the criminals, really. Yes, it’s possible someone could be framed for a crime via the use of evidence consisting of a microstamped bullet and/or gun, but how often would that occur? The point is, Tennessee’s legislature voted to effectively disarm its own citizens. Interestingly enough, like most of the states “declaring sovereignty” right now, Tennessee is among those doing so and, at the same time, passing laws that are in direct contradiction to a declaration of sovereignty.

        Then there is Montana, which recently passed H.B. 246, a bill that would “protect” gun Montana gun owners from any new Federal laws that infringe the Second Amendment. Sounds great, on the surface, doesn’t it? But, again, if you bother to read the actual law, it plainly states that only those who own guns and ammo made in Montana will be protected from these new federal laws. I did some research into how many gun and ammo manufacturers there are in Montana and found only two manufacturers of hunting rifles (not suited to use as self-defense or combat weapons, according to most military and police weapons experts) and the two or three ammo manufacturers in the state are only small volume reloaders. Besides this, the fact is, like everywhere else, most Montana gun owners have guns and ammunition made elsewhere, including foreign countries. So, who in Montana will really be “protected” by H.B. 246?

        These are but a few examples of what is going on behind our backs, folks. Wake up and take a very close look into what your state has been up to. You can find the full text of all federal laws going through the Congress at http://www.govtrack.us and each state has a website where you can find similar information about bills going through your state legislature.

        I’ve spent two years researching all this and much, much more about about what our government is up to. I’m a freelance investigative writer. It’s what I do. I also maintain a website of my own about various aspects of the New World Order (you may have heard about it, by now) and I do a weekly podcast on the same. So, Mr. Former Democrat might want to re-evaluate his response to my first post here.

        • Darryl

          Hi Gary,

          Good exchanges of your thoughts, which I am in agreement with. I just wanted to point out to you, though, that you ignored your own argument (pretense of defense – for confiscation purposes) in arguing that “the only people who are afraid of microstamping are the criminals”.

          “Microstamping” is a form of registration for confiscation. Criminals will always be able to secure “stamped” brass to point a finger at, perhaps, even you. Criminals will always be able to steal your microstamped weapon to commit their crime with. Again, both scenarios will lead the law to your door. You best fear that fact. By the way, once the law is at your door over a “weapon” they may feel it their duty to relieve your home of your other weapons till all is sorted out (refer to your article – HB 225 – Alabama). Please, do not believe government reasoning when they try to lure you into a lull over their tactics of incremental advances against your freedom and Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

          I’m in law enforcement and I have a real healthy fear of any type of recordkeeping as they all serve for purposes of confiscation. Cling to your freedom while you still have it. Resist any efforts that infringe upon it!

        • s c mailen, jr.

          Gary, you are right to have grave doubts about any behavior that would interfere with the Second Amendment. If there was any practical way we could get straight answers from Congress, Americans would understand WHY the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment and WHY it is so precious. Those in Congress who hate the Second Amendment should have been born about 235 years ago, when they would have met their fate as enemy soldiers or spies. These people hate freedom, and they have no use for anyone who wants to be free.

  • Charles R. Sharbel

    Gary is 100% correct! Research of all the legislation having to do with the Second Amendment will reveal the need to fight hard and long against the infringement of this important component of our Constitution. Just look at history. The first thing Lenin did in Russia was to disarm the general population…same in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 40s. So the solution is to take the fight right to those who would disarm us taking away our ability to take up arms against the tyranny that is building in Washington right now under our very noses.

    • Duane

      Gary and Charles are so right. If we fail to learn from history, we are deemed to repeat it. Study Germany, Italy, Russia, (also look at Cuba, Korea, China) they first thing an evil government does is take away our right to defend themselves. We must fight anyone that try to take away this right as outlined in the 2nd amendment.

  • Donna Bell

    You don’t sound like a “former democrat”. Just because Gary posts a comment doesn’t mean he isn’t doing other things. Are you the only one who can sit at your computer. Funny how the right can criticize when they don’t have all the facts.

    • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

      Thanks, Donna, but one should realize that this isn’t about “left” and “right,” which are phony labels used to distract us and keep us fighting against each other instead of going after the real perpetrators, who are the international banking cartel that effectively seized control of our nation in 1913, via the illegal establishment of the Federal Reserve – a private bank owned by the international banking cartel. Why do you think Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner constantly says “your government,” as opposed to “our government? His allegiance is not to the United States or the people of America, it is to the international bankers who are shareholders in Fed. To learn more, I recommend you watch The Money Masters, which can be found on Google Video or You Tube. It’s very long, but well worth seeing and when you’ve watched it, you’ll have the equivalent of a masters degree in the true history of the world.

      • gwinf

        Well said! It is about agreeing that we have moved away from the correct path and need to move back onto it. I do not currently own a gun, but I believe in the Constitution and will fight for your right to own one. I am becomeing more and more nervous about the current situation. As such, I have decided to join with others with whom I can, for the most part, agree with. We do not have to agree in all things, we only need to find a common ground. That is where the secret lies. I have decided that action must be taken and have joined the912project.com to increase the impact of my beliefs by helping to create a group that shares a majority of my beliefs. Join us, there is great strength in numbers! help us achieve a balance in government again.

        • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

          Thank you. Yes, and that common ground is that we are all Americans.

          I’ve heard of the 912 Project. I tend to not be a group joiner, by nature, and I have found that some of the groups and individuals who appear to be “leading” the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Patriot Movement are, at best, questionable, while others are establishment coadjutors. But, I will look into it. Thanks. Meanwhile, have you heard of Warn the People? http://www.warnthepeople.org

  • Tom Fee

    I’ve always been amazed at how our legislators totally ignore the increase in crime that countries suffer when they ban guns. It’s as though those other countries don’t exist! Our right to bear arms is specifically to prevent the corruption that’s going on now in our government. How can a president become a dictator if we’re all armed? When they disarm us, we become slaves, NOT citizens.

    • rpm2hi

      You’re right on target Tom. Interesting how the politicians who wish to have more gun control are the same ones that want higher taxes and a huge, monolithic government controlling us? Could this be just a coincidence?

      The one item I disagree on is the president wanting to be a dictator. I believe it’s more like congress and the president merging into a Politburo…

    • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

      You’ve got it, Tom. To that, I would add that it is our Federalist Constitution of 1787 that laid the groundwork for what is happening now. The original constitution was the Articles of Confederation (which most Americans today know little about, if they’ve even heard of it at all), which was the basis for our constitutional republic, in the first place, for a scant decade before it was replaced by the Constitution we know today. The Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others) were proponents of the Constitution, as well as its principle authors. Unfortunately, they were also agents of the Rothschilds of London, who had an agenda to subvert the young United States of America and to bring it under their own domination via the control of its currency. The Articles of Confederation would have prevented this because, among its several superior aspects, it provided that all executive power was in the congress; there was no President of the United States. The Congress was, in turn, directly elected by and answerable to the people. Secondly, and most importantly, the Articles provided that the thirteen original states shall each coin their own money, thus deliberately avoiding the possibility of a central bank being formed (which would issue a single currency. Sound familiar?). The Anti-Federalists, who opposed the eradication of the Articles and their replacement by the Constitution, fought vigorously against the Federalists and, although the Federalists won their way in the end, the Anti-Federalists managed to get the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments tacked on to protect their descendants from tyranny. We have them to thank for our rights, but, unfortunately, since history has been written by the victors, we unknowingly celebrate the Federalists as our “founders” and the Constitution is worshipped, even though it has been the basis for the tyranny that has evolved since its ratification in 1787.

  • Joe Hooker

    Just so you’ll understand. I can hardly wait until the govt. does outlaw firearms completely!!
    Why?
    Because guns are old technology. While we Americans have always been so incredibly inventive, I’m SURE that within 1 week, we’d have something much better & far more advanced!!!!!
    Joe

    • Sicktoad

      Proven technology, let me ask you this Joe, how old is the revolver? I’m CCW qualified and have several automatic pistols, however my .357 pistol which is a revolver is the most reliable and accurate weapon that I own. Unless they come out with a light saber in the near future I don’t see weapons likes these going away soon.

      • Joe Hooker

        Right now, I much prefer my .45 Colt, SAA Colt revolver to any other firearm at all. Still, if Archemedis could build a laser that burned up ships in the water way back in the B.C. days. Just think what we modern day Americans could come up with if all our other means of self defense were taken away!!
        Joe

  • James

    One of the biggest problems I see is that people look at the second amendment as giving us the right to bear arms. It does no such thing. The constitution merely articulates that which is already ours and FORBIDS the government from taking it away. What I mean by that which is already ours is that we have these rights by the mere fact that we exist. Our rights are not given to us by the constitution or government we are born with them. The minute you think from the point of view that the constitution or government give us these rights, you then give them the power to take them away! Every law passed infringing our birthright of owning firearms is unconstitutional and illegal. If you sit down and really read the constitution it is crystal clear how our forefathers meant this country to be. Sadly we have drifted far from our original path.

    Just my 2 cents worth……………

    • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

      Exactly, James. The Second Amendment acknowledges an existing, inalienable right and is there to guarantee it that it will not be usurped by clearly stating that

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      I’m 56 and, by the time I was ten I understood this. I am amazed and disgusted that most Americans don’t. But then, most can’t even read anymore, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

  • http://www.engineeredcontrol.com Harald

    Hello Americans
    The first thing I did when I came to the United States – still the best country on GODs earth, besides all the BS the government has done to screw it – I bought a book with the constitution of the United States. The second was joining the NRA. Because I knew since many years living under communistic dictatorship and later under soft washed socialism, you need both to keep the PEOPLE on power. Your constitution is a unique document, written by your founding fathers with the experience that PEOPLE can’t stand up against a bone crushing government without being armed. The only fear the Transnationals really have – who would rather today than tomorrow put America under the suzerainty of a global government – is that we the PEOPLE armed and well-fortified would chase them out of the country. In the same way the forefathers did with the English.

    • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

      Hi, Harald. With all due respect, I would urge you to read America’s original constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which is by far superior to the document we’ve lived under since 1787. The Articles were the basis for the constitutional republic, not the Constitution you know.

      http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

  • Bob Livingston

    I think that the Second Amendment Foundation has a constitutional right to challenge the Mayor of Seattle to ban guns on city property.

    At any rate Mayor Nickels should not be able to ban guns by executive order. Broader authority is needed via the City Council.

    It is high time that the right to own guns via the Second Amendment to the Constitution become a publicly debated issue.

    • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

      Bob, according to the Second Amendment, NO ONE has any such “authority.” Period. It’s quite clear:

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    • fred

      With all due respect Bob a city counsel has no constitutional authority
      either as A LEGAL AUTHORITY, to ban handguns. If any unit of government
      anywhere in any way attempts to impair or denigrate this inalienable right
      such law, ordinance, or any executive order must be challenged in court
      and set aside. That is what the Judicial branch of government was established
      for, to void unconstitutional laws or decrees.

      WE EITHER HAVE RIGHTS ENDOWED TO US BY OUR CREATOR OR
      WE DON’T. THE SECOND AMENDMENT MERELY STATES A PREEXISTING
      RIGHT. THE MESSAGE TO GOVERNMENT IS DON’T MESS WITH OUR RIGHTS. If the courts will not protect our rights then our system of judicial
      review has failed and I am here to tell you now that for the most part, it has
      AND THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW HANGING BY A THREAD.
      The question is WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, AND HOW?
      Fred

  • lee

    Hello BOB,
    I am writing you to let you know as long as there is a liberal with whacked out thoughts we will have these4 stupid attacks on the 2nd amendment rights. Sadly they just will not wise up and read the bill of rights and stop putting crap into it than what there is. Join the tea party and join the 912 project help out OK?

  • Dave Stiles

    As a Benefactor member of the NRA, I know that they are fully aware of the proposed Seattle ban. I’m absolutely sure that the NRA-ILA will step up with the SAF on this issue. I don’t see Nickels prevailing in light of DC vs Heller, but with the current government, who knows.

    A couple of quotes:

    This one’s by an Italian philosopher in the mid 1700′s:

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make
    things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” –Cesare Beccaria

    And this one:

    “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787

    There has never been a more critical time in our history as a country. Now, more than ever before, is the time to stand up for our rights and freedoms and remind the government that it is the servant of the people. The people are NOT the servants of the government.

    Be vigilant. Be informed. Be active in defense of your freedom.

  • MIKE

    TO ALL OF YOU! DID YOU NOT HEAR THE REAL THOUGHT, ALL OF THE CONSITUTION EVERY THING IN THE CONSITUTION IS OUR BIRTH RIGHT
    AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED WHY DO YOU THINK WE HAVE THE
    SECOND AMENDMENT IT SO THE REST ARE UP HELD AND NOT INFRINGED

    PLEASE GOD HELP US ALL WE DON’T KNOW THE REAL TRUTH HERE!
    THEY ARE SPENDING OUR GREAT GREAT GREAT GRAND CHILDRENS MONEY!!

  • Cathy

    Oh geez…I just heard goofball Biden say that there has to be a way to end this kind of stuff (or something to that effect). Now they’ll start using this incident as a reason for gun control. Oh yeah, they’d LOVE to take the guns away from us. That way they would be able to totally control all of us.

    This is the reason for the 2nd Amendment…to protect us from a tyrannical government, which we already have.

    I’m going to purchase a rifle and a shotgun to add to my small collection of a .22 Beretta and a .380 (both loaded with stingers and hollow points respectively). I also NEVER leave home without the .22, even when I walk my dogs. I want to be able to shoot back at some nut that’s shooting at ME.

    What part of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t our government understand, including this idiot mayor in Seattle? Sure, like the criminals are going to pay attention to the law.

    Australian politicians are “scratching their heads,” wondering why the crime rate has risen sharply since they took away guns in that country. So, I guess we’re not the only ones who have stupid politicians. :)

  • http://www.thefreezone.garyrea.com Gary

    To Darryl:

    Actually, my exact words were:

    “The only people who have anything to fear from microstamping are the criminals, really.”

    This was intended to mean that law abiding people not intent upon committing crimes with guns would have no reason to fear microstamped guns and ammo, which, as I also pointed out, are still perfectly useful in stopping an intruder – or a fascistic government.

    However, I did preface my remark by stating that, yes, microstamping is an infringement. Thus, it is the law requiring microstamping that must be prevented, in the first place. We are in agreement on this, I believe. My argument about not having anything to fear from it was simply illustrative of the point I was trying to make, which is that, even microstamped guns and ammunition will suffice if there is nothing else to use for our protection and, this Tennessee law prevents that use by Tennessee’s citizens.

  • milehighguy

    Why is it all these political cowards use “executive order” to decide the will of the people based on thier beliefs. We are a country with a rule of law. If you want to change something, put it in an election and let the people decide. “By the people, for the people” is our hallmark, not “By the government, for the government”. IF the people decide to change the constitution and other laws, then that is the will of the people.

    Time and time and time again, it has been shown that law abiding citizens are not the cause for gun related violence. Our problem is lack of punishment, including the death penalty” for people that commit violent crimes. If it were up to me, Joe Arpio would be in charge of USA prisions and people that commit violent crimes would be punished or killed depending on the severity of thier crime. Don’t use gun control as a means to control lack of punishment for other crimes.

    I do not have and do not currently need a gun, but that will change in the future. We have the right to bear arms and that cannot be taken away by wossy mayors or govenors. Gun sales have sky rocketed since Obama came into power and do not see his administration having the courage to do the right thing and this issue is going to explode across the nation.

  • http://??? Don Peckat

    Just a note on micro-stamping. “IF” that were ever to become law; . . . lets say I’m at
    the range with my .223. After firing about 200 rounds, I leave. What is stopping some-
    one from picking up my brass, taking it home, and re-loading it. To stop that from happening, they would have to make the casing’s as such that they could NOT be re-
    loaded; . . . making this whole idea of micro-stamping very expensive for the average gun owner, which is probably their intent in the first place!

  • Trey Norton

    LANCE …(since you left no reply to rebute your ignorant response.) But for your information the 2nd amendment has got nothing to do with defending ourselves against crime or hunting or shooting sports for that matter. Get some history pall.
    The 2nd amendment has but one function, and that is to act as the insurance policy to the Constitution.

    (quote) “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson

    And another
    (quote)”This year will go down in history, for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.” – Adolph Hitler on his 1938 gun control

    So your anti gun retoric is old and tired been there and does not hold water. The best thing for you to do is buy a good rifle and some ammo and learn to shoot well.

    And the “hick” thing pissed me off. But not the gun toteing part that was good.

  • Krystina

    This is the appearance of a “gun toting hick” : I am 20 years old, blonde hair, 5’4″, 103 lbs- SEE WHY I WANT A CONCEALED WEAPON!? So that if a perv comes along I will put a bullet in their head. Anyone tries to rape me and they WILL be dead. So some of you liberals ask WHY we still NEED guns? We still need guns for protection, because without them we are sitting ducks ready to be robbed by the criminals who would get the guns “illegally”. Not only would there be more crime, there would be chaos. The government doesn’t want us to have guns so we are easier to take down when the new world order begins. You libs make me sick, you want petite vulneralbe women who are not strong enough to defend themselves totally defenceless so those damn rapists can go around taking virginity and mans wives’ as much as they damn want. You discust me. Classic case of caring for the criminal over the victim. Typical lib.

  • Agnes

    Each of us has the power to pick up the phone and call our senators to protest.
    If you do not speak up, don’t whine about what happens next.
    I can tell you that women in this country are not “Armed and dangerous” but armed and trained. Gun control will only take guns from law biding citizens. Criminals will always have access to guns. Crime is so bad here that someone stole the gun out of the police chief’s car in the driveway of a gated community.
    By the way, those hicks know guns are for shooting dinner, not people, unless they trespass.

  • PATRICK

    WAKE UP AMERICA! OBAMA AND THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE TAKING YOUR RIGHTS AWAY EVERY DAY!! IT’S SO SAD, I CANT BELIVE I VOTED FOR OBAMA THIS IS NOT THE CHANGE I WANTED.

  • Karl John Schubert

    Gun control doesn’t help anybody except criminals who much prefer victims that can’t shoot back. Cities like DC decades ago passed their handgun ban and required that all long guns be inoperable, yet they ended up with the highest crime rate in the entire nation despite having the strictest gun control. Is this an example of how well gun control works? This took over 30 years to change with DC v Heller last year.

    Make another gun control law and it’s just another law that criminals will ignore. Felons aren’t supposed to have guns at all. Well, here’s a shock: they do. Here in my state of Wisconsin concealed weapons are not allowed, but apparently they forgot to tell that to the criminals who carry concealed weapons. It’s illegal to steal guns or buy stolen property, yet criminals use stolen guns. Do you seriously think a felon who isn’t supposed to have any gun and is hiding a stolen gun in his waistband in violation of our state law against concealed weapons is going to be deterred by another law? Especially when he has that gun for the purpose of committing yet other crimes such as armed robbery, rape, murder and the like?

  • Cher

    Join the NRA…more the better. Without guns …we end up like every other country who had their guns removed and before you know it the citizens of those countries were “mass killed”. So many lost their lives….dictators took control. From what I can see concerning Obama and his administration is pure lunatics that have taken over our government through fraud voting and deceit along with big man’s money. Obama is walking the walk of a dictator.

  • Nick

    If one person had a gun in each of the cases. Columbine where the police were scared to act because some laywer would say excessive force more of the students would be alive today. the mental cases that shoot innocent bystanders like sitting ducks would of gotten maybe two shots off. If you want to ban guns go to Switzerland, they are netural cowards. This country is letting in people that are not checked out we have an inept FBI, CIA and politicians that only think of themselfs. I can not believe my sons and nephews want to go to Italy and bring up their families, good people, good food, good weather. Do you think this country will last 800 years the Romans had it right. But they became ruthless with the Christians so GOD put an end to them. I have faith in the young people they will fix it, just get the old bastards out of Gov. Pass term limitts.

  • ralph douglas

    Jesus Ordered his “Apostles” to sell their cloaks and buys a sword…..this was in direct violation of Roman Law….in fact….the Roman law has “SWORD CONTRL”…how do you think they kept everyone in slavery?……………don’t believe me……I hate to suggest this….but read the BIBLE……LUKE CHAPTER 22…..but then you who want to worship government and its Rock stars…..don’t read it anyway….or…..as our President said in his campaign……..”small town people who hold onto their bibles and guns”……….yes we do…..and they go together………God said …”they thought themselves wise and they became as fools”………..He has the last word….sorry you unbelievers and elitists

  • ralph douglas

    Jesus Ordered his “Apostles” to sell their cloaks and buys a sword…..this was in direct violation of Roman Law….in fact….the Roman law has “SWORD CONTRL”…how do you think they kept everyone in slavery?……………don’t believe me……I hate to suggest this….but read the BIBLE……LUKE CHAPTER 22…..but then you who want to worship government and its Rock stars…..don’t read it anyway….or…..as our President said in his campaign……..”small town people who hold onto their bibles and guns”……….yes we do…..and they go together………God said …”they thought themselves wise and they became as fools”………..He has the last word….sorry you unbelievers and elitists

  • Paul

    I am 70 years old, and was taught all my formative years that guns are a tool (which deserve proper handling and care training, and require the respect of any dangerous tool). And, yes, I was trained in a sanctioned gun club, and by my grandfather(s) on the ranches in the Pacific Northwest.

    If guns are outlawed/banned from the citizens, then only criminals AND politicians will have guns —- to continued to wreck havoc on the citizens of our ONCE safe streets.

    In my 20 years of growing up until I left home to work in Seattle, we NEVER once locked our doors in house or car — never knew what a hidden key outside was. Opps, there I go showing I’m just some old fuddy-duddy, senile and unaware of current local and national problems that have been allowed to get out of control.

    I am not talking about illegal immigration right now – that is a slightly different subject. But, look at the current Mexican (parts of Canadian border included) border problem of gun running, and an almost open border for illegal gun runners to murder on both sides of the border, and bring into the USA countless guns for criminals to criminally fight the legal citizens of this once self sustaining and self reliant country where everyone watched out FOR each other NOT fearing each other. The government prefers to jail our border guards, and have them say, ‘please sir, please sir, don’t disobey my order to stop or “I” will go to jail’, rather than establish an effective border to reduce criminal’s unabated access to the ‘lawabiding free citizens’ of this (supposedly, once was, sovereign) country. Oh, again my senility and living in the ancient past, I mean the ‘our now global country’ which is AFRAID of it’s responsibility to set an example of a free citizenry of a Republic under the rule of LAW. Why are we condoning, by inaction, street lawlessness and Congressional lawlessness in Washington D.C.? The politicians are condoning these existing and importers of lawlessness by soft pedaling and wringing of hands without ANY actual action implementing LAWs that protect US, the lawabiding citizens. We are becoming only foder for prey. Of course, someone as OLD as I am has lived their useful life (useful TAX life), and doesn’t deserve laws with teeth in them against the lawless. I am just a drag on the government run NON-existant, no money social secerity system. Thank God I can now look forward to and turn to the government take over and run socialized medicine for my medical needs as I become even more frail and dependent upon the politicians for my ‘welfare’. Over and over again, the politician REFUSE to live under the SAME laws they impose on the citizens, and use an armed police force against the citizens, but give themselves a DIFFERENT set of social security laws and benefits.

    Term limits please! ! ! ! !, on those self serving, fat chinned and lying to us Senators, like that will happen. They think we are so stupid —– because we ACT like we are stupid through NON-action, continuing in our ignorance and not applying due diligence of WATCHING the DETAILS of what they are actually DOING rather than simple believing their “words, just words” rhetoric. They say, but don’t really care what happens to our children and grandchildren. They will be long dead, and unaccountable for their actions by then. Throw the bums OUT at the next election. MAKE them accountable NOW. Could that damage our world image, or damage our citizens any MORE than having this ‘refuse to listen’ and ‘unresponsive’ congress-persons we have now? We need to PROFILE our enemies wherever they are, and take ACTION at the ballot box as soon as each election comes up. If you don’t think someone like me, that thinks independently like me (and us that do) is not considered an ENEMY of these liberals who are hell bent upon DESTROYING all individual free thinking and self reliant freedom loving individuals, you are very mistaken. You are a slave to whomever you owe money to, or to whomever owns a gun. Especially if you don’t have one or the other. Quit letting them hide behind teleprompters or prepared speeches. DEMAND accountablilty or get them OUT.

  • GUY

    To the comments to all above..Hello my fellow Americans and that means to the politcal LW correct anti American and ACLU argumentors and too those who oopppose the NRA GOA and the SAF etc, Yes there are plenty of scare mongers out there who want Anarchy I like alex jones but get real man look at his web site mediadriven $$ but to those who do investigate I honor you and i belive if you want to debate the NRA then I can help you as I am a Member and support CCW and open carry in Rural Towns. ……….IF and I Mean IF all states have Mandatory Gun Saftey and Instructor Shooting Courses Certs period ..Then recoprocity all the way. I belive any Law Abiding Citizen has the GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP and BARE ARMS at The Ready! in your home and in your Town etc. but we have an Imperfect World and God in Heaven has Given us Laws even if man and the devil de partes the truth , has given us this nation to defend Human rights and free man and to take the sword to evil..”For evil will prevail if goodmen stand by and do nothing” I can tell you from law enforcement and task force criminal Recovery work US MARSHAL Retired and AWLDC(Gov Hunter) DOI BLM,Retired Ranger Patrols for Poaching and PLand Misuse with out Permits, we would live in Anarchy’ Period ! if I did not carry a Hg and SG and A Rifle of High Calaber then I would not be here sharing my Opinion with you go down to the boarder US MX and come back and tell me I will show you the way i am a MM Member and worked with C&BP ,TX Rangers etc… I am retired air force MP and my carreer in LE and DOI and my experiance as to protect and serve the week and defensless.. I am a sheepdog I invite conflict to those i challenge the fight.come to me !and leave the children alone!! and all those who do not understand guns or our NRA History, ‘I will still defend your right even if you are an ACLU Loving Socialist(commie) look at what happened when the cowards in DC The demoncats pulled out of Veitnam. I belive Sadamm had to be taken out period… now i say to live by the sword then we may die by the sword !’but i am a sinner and i am not perfect.. I am’ glad i have retired in time from the hell thats comeing for The laws that are comeing are injust.. have faith Mutiney is comeing in the military not against the Country or the Law but to Uphold the Constitution and to defend and get rid of the gang in WA !now you heard BHO the Arrab so called turned Christian new world order Anouncement No Guts to say it in America.. He is not my President and Bush was the last man standing but he turned out to be a neocon as i did vote for him because we are a republic and democracy is realy MOB Rule!! I Hope you seen the Us Marine on Y Tube and the Q was a Treasonist or a Pateriot? The roman and Greek Empires fell to this Phylosephy and H omo Sexuality !!.Barney Frank(D) any one??

    Hey Go to Info wars.com good for the Country.com not spaming here bob just passing along Oh go to Steve Quyale.com and look in the Archives OVER THROWN-THE DEATH TO AMERICA a Fictional Story BUT ??? a goos ending.

    I listen and read and I have faith in my Fellow Americans by Liberty and Justice we wil not be overthrown we will not be the great eagle that the great whore in babaloyn cries after for the world as we no it will end and god(jesus christ) will sit on the throne of david and the america that was supposed to be will be the new begining on a new planet and all the worlds to come forever >> I will not worry and buy gold i will have what I kneed to live off the land if there is no Holocost then i will prevail unto the end in the mean time. I will live my life and carry a gun and protect my town and love my wife..I am a Retire citizen now and until then I am a NRA Member and belive all Lws can be changed by the will of the people unite and have fellowship and come togeather in smal and big town America and they will fall The sleeping giant of conservitives 47% who did not want BHO as our President…

  • Margaret

    I must start by responding to Lance and protest his tone. We can’t have a useful discourse if you hurl personal invective. I am not a “gun toting hick”, but a legal gun owner responsible enough for a concealed carry permit, which I have. NRA members (not one myself, but married to a life member) are not “wacks”. This tendency to respond to arguments by using personal attacks is the fallback too often used when facts to support an argument are lacking. I want to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand, but you lose my attention and my respect when you call me a name. Sort of counterproductive for you.

    Now, ignoring the name calling, let me respond to the substance of Lance’s argument. Making all guns illegal is more than unconstitutional. It doesn’t work. By definition, criminals ignore the law and will obtain the firearms, leaving us law abiding folks without effective defense. Your chances of defending yourself with a knife or club against a firearm is slim to none. And unless you can magically eliminate all guns from the earth, banning them in the US will not achieve your goal. Criminals will still have plenty of guns. For examples, look at England and Australia. Both countries had enormous increases in crimes after guns were banned. The criminals knew the people were defenseless. As far as crooks are concerned, gun free zones are target rich environments.

    Also have a thought to offer Lance on using a muzzle loader for hunting. If you miss your shot and the wounded animal is still charging, you will be in deep caca without a quick second shot available to you.

    We have plenty of regulations on guns and gun owners. Nearly all of the additional ones proposed simply place an additional burden on the law abiding, frequently to the point of harrassment. And, as I have already stated, creating “gun free” zones is tantamount to announcing to would-be criminals that he/she can assault, rob, maim and kill at will, since no one will be able to fight back. This is not acceptable to responsible, law abiding, American citizens and I do count myself in their number!

  • Paul

    PS – please ignore my above typos, some sentence structure, misused apostrophe and spelling. I am very upset, and didn’t do an adequate job of proofreading. My apologies to those who noticed — being literate and well spoken is important in getting our concerns and solid ideas across to the 52% who don’t seem to get it when it comes to demonstrating their personal responsibility in a representative Republic style of government.

    We have ASSUMED to our hurt, the persons we ‘send’ to Washington D.C. are/were honorable, and would do their best to look out for the normal citizen’s welfare. This assumption comes from a normal conservative mindset of “live and let live” even if we don’t agree with their ‘I know better how to RULE OVER you’ point of view. Instead, voters continue to send those who look down their fat noses upon “the great unwashed”, us who (supposedly) don’t have a clue of or a care about righteous (i.e. for the good of the citizens and strength of country) governing. They so quickly (if ever) forgot WE the PEOPLE own the USA government. NOT them owning us. That’s exactly WHY we took up arms against the King of England (for not allowing personal representation in the King’s government). In this country, we are supposed to be empowering the politicians to govern in OUR name, NOT them empowering themselves for re-election decade after decade with “words, just words”. By their FRUITS, you shall know them, not by their “words, just words”. Watch in their details, watch for what is hidden and not openly debated or discussed, watch the written words that are actually proposed to be written into law, and protest loudly that their days are numbered at the next election for anyone, Republican or Democrat, or ANY so called conservative or liberal. I don’t give a crap about across the aisle ‘hand-holding’, I only give a big hug to and hand hold the foundational human rights reaffirmed in the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights. How many former soldiers and those who received the Metal of Honor are turning over in their graves crying their tears again for hard fought battles during war, and now see them in allowed silent on our part to take over of OUR government. Our Constitutional government does not belong to politicians who want to ooze year after year like a snotty nose their’ slimy’ and ‘failed in the past’ ideas.

  • http://caninecoachmvp.com Alice

    I agree that gun control laws infringe on our constitutional rights. I also agree that doing something about it will require many individuals standing together on common grounds, putting aside differences to make a difference. I believe that Congress must know that they are out of line, and we should vote them all out next election.

    I also think our federal system is “broken” and our best chance at fixing it is to work through a system that may be “less broken”.

    Article 5 of the Constitution provides state legislatures the power to amend the US Constitution without federal Congressional approval. It takes fewer voters to influence state representatives, many of whom still have a reputation for responding according to their constituents’ strongest support on any given issue. I believe we can force some immediate federal change in several areas in this manner.

    (Repealing the 16th and 17th amendment and passing term limits are three of my favorite suggestions.)

    As to the “gun-control”, consider pressuring your state legislature to pass a resolution to hear in “open legislative session any debate regarding any legal act, ordinance, or code which may or may not infringe upon the 2nd amendment right, for the purpose of bypassing the expense of a lawsuit to remand the matter to a court which will render a determination of constitutionality of proposed legal” action.

    Most cities and counties fear such oversight, and would rather not attempt to pass laws that will be subject to State scrutiny before passage. This measure allows interested citizens across the state to override the special interests in a particular locality.

  • Marven

    Most of you are saying I have a concealed weapon permitt!!!! Why do you need one???? Mr Gov. already got his hand on you!!! Doa

  • Craig

    LANCE
    The first thing I thought of when I read your reply was Lance must be from Seattle. Because if you look at a map of the USA, Seattle is on the far left. But if enough people in the state you reside in believe in and are as misinformed as you, watch that state be the first to become the USSA, Union of Socialist states of America. Does the name Paul Revere strike a note with you?

  • Randy

    James….that is too true. Everyone needs to read your post; it cuts right to the heart of the whole situation today, not just regarding the 2nd Amendment. Our individual sovereignty is the starting point of our country, the Constitution is the written expression of that understanding and an agreement that has been transgressed way more times than all the Indian Treaties that were ever broken. I do believe that this one amendment is crucial since all our other rights turn on the defense of this one. That is, to the extent that our 2nd Amendment rights have been and continue to be violated by our own government with the unwitting and ignorant consent of too many citizens, we are right at this moment seeing the rise of our first Socialist POTUS and possibly dictator if we do not stop this onslaught NOW. At the very least he was the most liberal-progressive senator we have had in many years, and the whole M.O. of B.O. seems to be putting out a blizzard of ultra-liberal proposals and taking unprecedented actions (power grab) to overwhelm and fatigue his opposition so that many of his proposals sneak through the process. That means we will be stuck with the wreckage of what this imperial president is doing. Make no mistake, we are all under attack and this is no time for fence sitters and hand wringers. Unite!

    teacherdoc

    • James

      What scares me even more Randy is that everyone forgets history. What is the first thing EVERY despot in history does????? Disarm the people! So when I see people in power trying to pass laws banning firearms, I see them retroactively getting firearms banned. For example, it is like what the Movie and Record industry did, to this day it is completely legal to make one backup copy of any dvd or cd you own. But they circumnavigated this by getting congress to very hush hush pass a law that makes it illegal to break the encryption on dvd’s and cd’s thus making it illegal to make a legal backup because you HAVE to break the encryption to make the backup. Back room deals and down right sneaky!

      This is no new concept, much smarter and more articulate people than me in the past made statements pertaining to this:

      “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

      “To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

      “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

      “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.: -Patrick Henry.

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

      “Government begins at the end of the gun barrel.” – Chaiman Mao
      “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.” –V.I. Lenin.
      “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” –Joseph Stalin.
      “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.” – Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times
      “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …” Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

      Need I say more?

  • duke

    For thirty years hand guns were forbidden in Washington DC. For the population not the police or criminals. Finally a crack in the “law” when the Supreme court tossed the law.
    Now new regulations require approval of each and every weapon by the city. Even a different color treatment of the same basic frame requires new and expensive amendments to the basic law.

    In the interim years only criminals had guns and they preyed on the citizens. Often killed first so there would be no possible witness of a robbery.

    That those who live around the city and legally own weapons are forbidden to drive inside the sacred ground with them. We are the victims.

  • Dan

    A leader must have certain characteristics to be successful. First, he must have a set of principles—things he believes are absolutely true. He must possess a moral compass-understanding what is absolutely “right” or “wrong”. It is important for him to have a vision—what is to be accomplished. He also needs the skill to develop a consensus, that his plan is appropriate, among a group of individuals who will carry out the many tasks needed to effectively complete the project.

    In addition he must have courage to act on his convictions and take full responsibility for his actions. He must have a sense of justice—such as, “do unto others as you would have others do onto you”. A sense of moderation is also needed, which is an understanding not to “act out” with outrageous arrogance. Equally important, he must have the wisdom of how to apply all the above.

  • Dan

    In Plato’s book “The Republic,” he constructs a “just city.” He says that if a city has been correctly constructed, it should be perfectly good. If it is perfectly good, then it should be wise, courageous, moderate and just. These are the cardinal virtues of ancient Greece. The city is wise because it is ruled by the skill of its guardians (leaders). It is courageous because the soldiers endure any danger in order to follow the orders of their leaders. It is moderate because all citizens restrain their desires in order to follow the orders of their leaders. It is just because each of the citizens is “minding his own business.”

    Plato goes on to explain that the perfectly good individual, like the perfectly good city, is wise, courageous, moderate and just. He is wise, because his reason rules him. He is courageous because his spirit is the loyal ally of his reason. He is moderate because his desires obey the dictates of reason. He is just because each part of his soul “minds its own business.” The just man “arranges himself, becomes his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts, (reason, spirit, and desire) exactly like three notes in a harmonic scale.”

  • Dan

    You say “that universal truth is a myth. The truth is in the eyes of the beholder.”

    Thank you for challenging me to defend my ideas.

    Law is the set of enforced rules under which a society is governed. Law is one of the most basic social institutions—and one of the most necessary. No society could exist if all people did just as they pleased, without regard for the rights of others. Nor could a society exist if its members did not recognize that they also have certain obligations toward one another. The law thus establishes the rules that define a person’s rights and obligations. The law also sets penalties for people, who violate these rules, and it states how government shall enforce the rules, and it states how government shall enforce the rules and penalties. However, the laws enforced by government can be changed. In fact, laws frequently are changed to reflect changes in a society’s needs and attitudes.

    First, we need to explore the idea of “Natural Law”. Natural law is the idea that people have certain rights that cannot be taken away. It probably began thousands of years ago. This theory states that a natural order exists in the universe because all things are created by nature, or God. (To appreciate this idea you first have to accept that there is a God) Everything has its own qualities and is subject to the rules of nature to achieve its full potential. According to this theory, anything that detracts from a persons human qualities, or prevents their full achievement, violates the laws of nature.

    The ancient Greek philosophers and the writers of the Old Testament stressed that there is a higher law than human law. In the first century B.C., the Roman philosopher Cicero insisted that this higher natural law is universal and can be discovered through human reasoning. (It is God’s law, which he reveals to all people through their reasoning. It is not learned. It is divinely given) This led to the idea that government power has limits, and that people and governments everywhere are bound by natural law.

    Some of the most historic English legal documents are based on the principles of natural law. The earliest and most famous was the Magna Carta, which the king approved against his will in 1215. The document placed the king himself under the law. In 1628, the English Parliament drew up a Petition of Right. The petition claimed that certain actions of the king, such as levying taxes without the consent of Parliament is unconstitutional.

    Natural Rights—Natural law has always stressed the duties, more than the rights, of governments and individuals. But during the late 1600’s, the natural law tradition began to emphasis natural right. The change was brought about largely through the writings of the English philosopher John Locke.

    Locke argued that governmental authority depends on the people’s consent. According to Locke people originally lived in a state of nature with no restrictions on their freedom. Then they came to realize that confusion would result if each person enforced his or her own rights. (“The truth is in the eyes of the beholder”, your statement.) People agreed to live under a common government, but not to surrender their “rights of nature” (my universal rights) to the government. Instead they expected the government to respect these rights, especially the rights of life, liberty and property. (Note: this is stated as unalienable rights by our founding fathers, our esteemed leaders, in the Declaration of Independence.) (“Unalienable” means it cannot be separated from the individual, because it was divinely given by God in the Natural Laws, which he revealed to all people through divine revelation, through their power of reason.) Locke’s idea of limited government and natural rights became part of the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration of Rights of Man (1789), and the U.S. Bill of Rights (1781).

    Today many scholars reject the natural law and natural rights theories. These scholars believe that all laws—including those guaranteeing civil rights—are simply devices that people find convenient or useful at a particular time. Nevertheless, nearly all civil right laws have resulted from the theories of natural law and natural rights.

  • Dan

    In an effort to establish the idea that there are universal concepts let us explore Plato’s philosophy. Many of Plato’s dialogues try to identify the nature or essence of some philosophically important notion be defining it. The “Euthyphro” revolves around a discussion of the question, “What is piety?” The central question of “The Republic” is, “What is justice?” The “Theaetetus” tries to define knowledge. The “Charmides” is concerned with moderation, and the “Laches” discusses valor. Plato denied that a notion, such a piety (reverence), could be defined simply by offering examples of it. Plato required a definition of a notion to express what is true of, and common to, all instances of that notion.

    Plato was interested in how we could apply a single word or concept to many different things. For example, how can the word “table” be used for all the individual objects that are tables? Plato answered that various things can be called by the same name because they have something in common. He called this common factor the thing’s “form” or “idea”

    According to Plato, the real name of any individual thing depends on the form in which it “participates.” For example, a certain object is a triangle because it participates in the form of triangularity. A particular table is what it is because it participates in the form (idea) of the table. Plato insisted that the forms differ greatly from the ordinary things which are around us. Ordinary things change but their forms do not. A particular triangle may be altered in size or shape, but the form of the triangle can never change (it is absolute). In addition, individual things only imperfectly approximate their forms, which remain unattainable models of perfection. Circular objects or beautiful objects are never perfectly circular or perfectly beautiful. The only perfectly circular thing is the form of circularity itself, (its form is absolute) and the only perfectly beautiful thing is the form of beauty.

    Plato concluded that these unchanging and perfect forms cannot be part of the everyday world, which is changing and imperfect. Forms exist neither in space nor time. They can be known only by the intellect, not by the senses. Because of their stability and perfection, the forms have greater reality than ordinary objects observed by the senses. Thus, true knowledge is the knowledge of forms. These central doctrines of Plato’s philosophy are called his “theory of forms” or “theory of ideas.

    This is another attempt to support my argument that there are universal ideas that are true for everyone, everywhere and at all times.

  • Dan

    The Christian definition of the Four Virtues, by St. Augustine is as follows:
    According to St. Augustine, virtue leads to a happy life. Virtue is perfect love of God. The four virtues, for St. Augustine, are taken from four forms of love. The four virtues are the following:
    Temperance is love giving itself entirely to that which is loved (God). Temperance is love keeping itself entire and incorrupt for God. Let us consider temperance, which promises us a kind of integrity and incorruption in the love by which we are united to God. The office of temperance is in restraining and quieting the passions which make us pant for those things which turn us away from the laws of God and from the enjoyment of His goodness, that is, in a word, from the happy life.
    Fortitude is love readily bearing all things for the sake of the loved object. Fortitude is love bearing everything for the sake of God. Scriptures present to us a woman of amazing fortitude, and I must at once go on to her case. This woman, along with seven children, allowed the tyrant and executioner to extract her vitals from her body rather than a profane word from her mouth. What patience could be greater than this? And yet why should we be astonished that the love of God, implanted in her inmost heart, bore up against the tyrant, and executioner, and pain, and sex, and natural affection? Had she not heard, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints?” It is because she heard, “A patient man is better than the mightiest?” Proverbs 16:32. She heard, “All that is appointed you receive; and in pain bear it; and in abasement keep your patience: for in fire are gold and silver tried?” Sirach 2:4-5. She heard, “The fire tries the vessels of the potter, and for just men is the trial of tribulation?” Sirach 27:6. These verses she knew, and many other precepts of fortitude written in these books, which alone existed at that time, by the same divine Spirit who writes those precepts in the New Testament.
    Justice, according to St. Augustine is another virtue. Justice is love serving only the loved object (which is God) and therefore rules rightly. Justice is love serving God only, and therefore ruling all things well. The lover, then, whom we are describing, will get from justice this rule of life, that he must with perfect readiness serve the God whom he loves, who is the highest good, the highest wisdom, and the highest peace. This rule of life, is, as we have shown, confirmed by the authority of both Testaments.
    It may be thought that there is nothing here about man himself, the lover, but it is impossible for one who loves God not to love himself. For he alone has a proper love for himself, when he demonstrates that he aims diligently to please God, who is the chief and true good; what is to prevent one who loves God from loving himself? And then, among men should there be no bond of mutual love? We can think of no surer step towards the love of God than the love of man to man.
    Prudence, another virtue according to St. Augustine, is love distinguishing with sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it. The object of the highest love is only God. Prudence is love making a right distinction between what helps love towards God and what might hinder it. Prudence determines what is to be desired and what to be shunned. It is part of prudence (good judgment) to keep an active vigilance against any evil influence, which may creep up on us.
    To seek the good means to live well. Living well is loving God with all your heart, soul and mind. This love must be incorrupt, which is accomplished through moderation. This love must not give way to opposition, which is accomplished through fortitude; this love must serve no other, which is justice and the love must be watchful or evil things will creep in, which is a part of prudence. These things lead to the perfection of man by which he can succeed in attaining purity of truth.
    It may be thought that there is nothing here about man himself, the lover. It is impossible for one who loves God not to love himself. He who seeks the true good must love himself as well. What is to prevent one who loves God from loving himself? And then, among men should there be no bond of mutual love? Yes, we can think of no surer step towards the love of God than the love of man to man. The first thing to aim at is that we should be benevolent. We should not bear malice or evil against another person. For man is the nearest neighbor of man.
    Hear also what Paul says: “The love of our neighbor,” he says, “works no ill.” Romans 13:10 A man may sin against another in two ways, either by injuring him or by not helping him when it is in his power. It is for these things, which no loving man would do, that men are called wicked. “The love of our neighbor works no ill.” We cannot attain the good unless we first desist from working evil. Our love of our neighbor is a sort of cradle of our love to God. As it is said, “the love of our neighbor works no ill,” we may rise from this to these other words, “We know that all things issue in good to them that love God.” Romans 8:28

  • Dan

    Confucius was born in 552 B.C. in the principality of Lu in China. He came from a distinguished family.

    Civilization, which is characterized by writing, the use of metal, the building of monumental structures, and complex government organizations— did not develop in China until around 1700 B.C. During the time of Confucius, which was the 6th century B.C., the emperor was a puppet. China was divided into states that owed loyalty to the emperor, but were actually governed by aristocrats. At first, Confucius was a civil servant and chief of police in Lu. He was either dismissed from the civil service or went into voluntary exile. His regard for formalities and rituals was fundamental to his teachings. He spent years traveling from one principality to another, giving advice and being honored for his wisdom. His advice was seldom taken, and he was not given another position of authority. In his last years, he retired to the principality of Lu, where he died in 479 B.C., leaving his mark as a teacher.

    As a teacher, Confucius has had tremendous influence. He shaped the civilization of China from his time until the 20th century. His sayings, teachings and the works that he believed should be studied were fundamental to the educational system and the entire governmental structure. Civil servants at all levels studied his sayings and had to pass an examination that was based on his teachings. For any great teacher, however, life is not about a series of events that happen outside, but about the teacher’s intellectual and spiritual development. At one time, Confucius had 3,000 students. His inner circle of disciples has passed on what we now know about him. Like Socrates and Jesus he never wrote a book. His students gathered his wisdom into a collection of sayings. Confucius taught the importance of study and the way of moral instruction; He also taught his followers to be steadfast and to tell the truth.

    Confucius believed that morality had to be founded in works of antiquity. For Confucius cutting oneself off from the past was leaving oneself without roots. Like a tree, a person without roots will topple over. Confucius studied history and played a role in putting together and editing a historical chronicle.

    Confucius culled the poetry of China for 300 odes that he believed were crucial. These odes were always sung. Confucius believed that music and the words of poetry put to music were essential to creating harmony in the soul. Confucius shared with Socrates the belief that the soul must be in harmony and that music was the outward expression of that harmony. At first the odes might seem unrelated to moral instruction, however, when properly interpreted, these seemingly meaningless messages told the truth. For a whole Chinese civilization, these odes offered a means of speaking the truth. Odes were often used to convey a political or individual message. No person could begin on the path to wisdom without knowing the odes, poetry that speaks to the soul. The message of the odes is rooted in concrete knowledge of the past.

    Confucius believed in the importance of carrying out ancient rituals, for example, offering sacrifices and wearing certain kinds of clothes on specific occasions. He also believed that rituals must change to accommodate to new circumstances. Confucius saw such civility as being important, but harmony was far more important. Carrying out certain formalities is a way to preserve the harmony around us. Harmony derives from everyone knowing his or her place and knowing what is expected of him or her. When asked why he did not return to government service. Confucius replied that by being a good father or a good son, he was doing the most he could do for his government.

    The followers of Confucius were expected to follow the Dao--the way that is the truth. Confucius spent his life in pursuit of the truth. Confucius divided his life into a series of stages. At the age of 15, he began his studies. At the age of 30, he took his stand. By this he meant that he decided to devote his life to the search for truth. At the age of 40, all his doubts were put aside, that is, he began to understand the way and knew that he must follow it. At 50, Confucius understood what heaven had decreed for him. Heaven had decreed that his proper place and destiny was to teach. It is noteworthy that according to his students. Confucius never talked about the gods. The divine plays almost no role in his teachings; He believed that people can find their way without invoking the gods. At 60, his “ears were properly attuned.” At this age, he knew what he would be doing. At 70, he was conscious that he was treading the path of truth.

    The way of truth is the way of benevolence. For Confucius, the Golden Rule is the path of benevolence, the way of truth and harmony in the world. The path of good is marked in our character by wisdom, courage, and justice. Justice is doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. Courage is steadfastness in truth and doing what needs to be done, unafraid of any consequences. Wisdom—the ultimate goal of the teacher and seeker of truth—is knowing what needs to be done. Moderation joins justice, courage, and wisdom together to ensure that they work in harmony.

    It is possible to compare Confucius, Socrates and Jesus. The virtues encouraged by Confucius are those that Socrates also extolled. Both men devoted their live to teaching others the path of virtue. Both Confucius and Socrates were philosophers who labeled themselves as searchers after truth. They both saw the search for wisdom as the way to truth. Jesus, who was recognized in his own day as a teacher, also engaged in this search for wisdom as the way to truth. The word “education” comes from a Latin root meaning “to lead out from.” Jesus, Socrates, and Confucius wanted to bring out from their students, or disciples, the truth that was already there but had been hidden by the falsity of the world. They sought to reroute the individual from wandering aimlessly through life to following the true path. None of the three great teachers wrote a book because each was a true searcher after truth and knew that the search is a lifelong pursuit.

  • Dan

    Cicero, On Moral Duties (De Officils)–Our theme is the path we can take to foster what is best for ourselves and others.

    In 44 B.C., on the Ides of March, Julius Caesar was assassinated. His assassins, Brutus and Cassius, as well as most of the conspirators, fled Rome. Rome was in the hands of Marc Antony, who was underestimated. Many considered him to be a drunkard and gambler, (lacking the four virtues) but he had gathered all Caesar’s power. One elderly man, who could have enjoyed a quiet retirement, spoke out for the free republic and for liberty, knowing that doing so might cost him his life. (Fortitude) That man was Marcus Tullius Cicero.

    In a series of ringing orations, Cicero attacked the character, policy, and intentions of Marc Antony. These powerful orations are called the “Philippics.” Cicero’s attempt failed. Antony joined forces with Caesar’s nephew, who was later known as Augustus, and together, they eliminated all opposition. Cicero was included on the list of those proscribed and was struck dead in 43 B.C. (This act shows a lack of moderation—an act of outrageous arrogance)

    In the last part of his life, beginning in 46 B.C., Cicero refused the high government position that Caesar offered him, opting for retirement. During his retirement, he embarked on a search for truth so that he could base his polities on what was morally good in his effort to preserve freedom in Rome.

    In searching for truth, Cicero wrote “De Officilis” to educate his son, who was spending his “junior year abroad,” studying philosophy in Athens. At the time, philosophy was not an arid academic discipline. It was the crowning accomplishment of a general education. Students who could afford the expense went to Athens to study under one of the great philosophers. Cicero wrote “De Officilis” in the form of a letter to his son to enable the young man to learn from Cicero’s experience.

    During Cicero’s career as an attorney, he demonstrated that a person could be successful and wealthy, as well as a man of integrity. He took difficult and dangerous cases, defending the poor and those in political trouble. Cicero realized the highest calling was public service. He set out to prove that he could be an honest and successful politician. He held political office and was consul of Rome. In 63 B.C., a faction, led by Catiline, sought to destroy the constitution. Cicero took a firm stand, although others warned him that he was following a dangerous course. Cicero put the salvation of his country, its constitution, and its liberty before his own needs. He broke up the conspiracy and took responsibility for having the conspirators put to death. For a while Cicero was exiled, but he was brought back. When Cicero triumphed, Cicero took a stand against Caesar. Cicero believed that Caesar had enormous ability but that he sought to destroy the liberty of Rome for the sake of his own ambition. (An act lacking moderation—outrageous arrogance)

    Cicero tried all his life to follow the moral course. He believed that all morality was founded on the idea of Natural Law. Natural Law is the belief that God exists and is revealed in the reason of nature. The entire universe is a place of reason, and the entire universe reveals the hand of God. Like Plato, Cicero believed that God had established a set of absolute values, including wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. These values exist even if they are denied in everyday life. An individual can be good as well as successful. No dichotomy exists between morality and expediency. An immoral act, such as lying or cheating, can never be helpful. No separation exists between the private and public selves. The highest possible calling for an individual is public duty.

    Wisdom is found in knowing the truth, understanding absolute values, and knowing how to apply these values to one’s life. At the beginning, the individual needs facts and information, but later in life, he can weave these facts into a broader set of knowledge. Knowledge is worthless unless it is used to find and apply in life what is good. In the search for wisdom, the individual must avoid becoming a pedant, studying the insignificant, or retiring from the world to become a scholar. Wisdom consists of knowing how to apply the good to life.

    Justice is the single most important quality that a person can possess. Each individual’s life should be guided by justice. Justice consists of never doing harm to anyone else—either to another’s person or property. The essence of justice is founded in the respect of private property. One great fault is passive injustice, which is to stand by and allow another person to be wronged. Passive injustice occurs when we chose to remain silent because of our own needs or through preoccupation. Justice can even be extended to those who have wronged someone else by avoiding excessive retribution. Except for those who have committed the most heinous crimes, such as parricide, even the guilty deserve an attorney’s best effort. Part of justice is generosity, but an individual should never give more than he or she can afford. We should not ruin ourselves by giving, and we should give with a sense that our generosity will truly help. Morality is built on keeping one’s word, or “fides.” The Romans believed that the empire was built on integrity. However, the individual must be practical. At times, keeping one’s word is wrong.

    Courage is essential to living a life of justice. An individual must have the courage to stand up for what is right. Wisdom is essential to courage. The individual must have the wisdom to know what he should defend. Bravery in the service of evil is savagery.

    Moderation is the fourth quality of goodness. Nothing should be pushed so far that it becomes a wrong. Moderation is a guide for living life and letting the individual know what is right. In selecting a career, an individual must know, in terms of moderation, his or her capabilities. Sometimes people enter an occupation because they inherit it, because of connections, or on a whim. Each person should step back and ask what career he or she is best suited for before making a decision. The highest calling is public service. Those who would pursue a career in public service must be certain they possess the qualities for leadership of the nation. A good leader is not vindictive and does not enter public service for self-interest, self-aggrandizement, or partisanship. Public serve should be a noble and pure undertaking. The public servant must always act with moderation.

    How do we put these theoretical underpinnings into practice? We must recognize that immoral acts are never expedient. The essence of justice is keeping one’s word. The advice in “De Officilis” did not work for Cicero’s son, who was a drunkard, sold his services to Augustus, and lent his name to the new order of Augustus. Although Cicero’s son did not follow the advice given in “De Officilis,” Cicero left future generations this enduring statement of moral justice.

  • Dan

    To many, including Winston Churchill, the British Empire was a great force for good. To an unprepossessing Indian lawyer, the British Empire, which saw itself at the bastion of liberty, was evil, for it rested on a lie. It denied to many of its subjects the very equality that was the essence of freedom. But no less evil for Mohandas Gandhi would be the use of force to overthrow it and gain independence for India. Drawing on the traditions of Indian thought and reading the “Bhagavad Gita” daily, Gandhi made his own path. Strong in the truth, he used moral power to bring a great power to its knees. His autobiography eschews many of the traditional elements in a life story. Gandhi focuses on his entire life as a search for truth, teaching us that there are many roads to wisdom and many ways to fight the battles of life. He teaches us to be true to ourselves, do what you know to be right, and never give up.

    In 1893, a 24-year-old barrister, Gandhi, was representing an Indian company in South Africa. Although he had a first-class train ticket, he was not allowed to remain in the first-class seating compartment and was thrown off the train. A stagecoach driver also refused to let him sit with the other passengers. This was Gandhi’s introduction to the morality of the British Empire and its legal system.

    The British raj was theoretically based on liberty and equality for all subjects. In reality, one standard of liberty and equality existed for white subjects and another standard existed for those of color. Even science, as taught in many universities, proclaimed the superiority of the white race.

    Gandhi decided to take on the scientific establishment, the legal system, and the power of the British Empire. Armed only with his belief in the truth and his concept of satyagraha--steadfastness in truth, Gandhi took on the empire and led his nation to independence. Gandhi’s life is an example of what one individual can achieve if he or she believes in the truth.

    The story of Gandhi’s life is captured in “An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with the Truth. Gandhi’s autobiography was published in two installments, in 1925 and 1927. It is written in Gujarati, and Indian language, because Gandhi believed that the culture of India was his culture. The subtitle of Gandhi’s autobiography conveys his understanding that we are always making our way toward the truth. Gandhi had a profound belief in God. He was greatly affected by the “Bahavad Gita” and believed that God is truth, but more important, he believed that truth is God and should be worshipped. Truth is in God, and God will progressively reveal wisdom to the searcher for truth. In his “Autobiography” Gandhi does not hesitate to point out his mistakes.

    Gandhi was born in 1869. He begins his autobiography by describing his family and the caste to which they belonged. Gandhi later struggled against the caste system of India. Gandhi’s formal schooling had little impact on him. He believed that the teacher should be the textbook, and the teacher and the teacher’s moral qualities should be what the student retains. At the age of 13, Gandhi was married to a younger girl. At age 35, Gandhi took a vow of celibacy and saw his wife as a creature of pure love.

    After finishing high school and passing his examinations, it was decided that he should become an attorney. In England, Gandhi gradually began to understand how unique his native country was. He met English people who were interested in mystical religions and encourage him to read the “Bhagavad Gita” in English, and it became a part of him. The “Bhagavad Gita” celebrates God as truth and teaches us to follow the path that God has laid out for us. It also says that doing the work of someone else is slavery, but doing the work of God is true liberation. The philosophy of the “Bhagavad Gita” began to shape Gandhi’s thinking. Gandhi passed his examinations at the age of 21. He found that becoming a barrister was easy. He had to attend 12 dinners, study outline notes, and pass the examinations.

    Gandhi returned to India, obtained a job, and left his wife at home while he went to South Africa. In South Africa, Gandhi realized that God was telling him not to be afraid, (have courage) to stand up and recognize the injustice around him as injustice to God, and to put an end to injustice. Gandhi began to teach his fellow Indians that they should not let anyone treat them unjustly, (justice) that they should not harm anyone, that they should stand fast in the truth, (have courage) and that they should struggle for their rights. Gandhi came to the idea of “ahimsa”, which means “nonviolence” (an act of moderation). Gandhi began working with Indians in South Africa. He not only fought for their legal rights but also began a movement for education.

    First in South Africa, then in India, Gandhi opened commune schools and began to educate his students in “ ahimsa–nonviolence” (moderation) and satyagraha. The teachers in Gandhi’s schools were parents. Gandhi believed that parents should be the source of education for their children. At one point, and untouchable (lowest caste in India) family came to the commune. The members of Gandhi’s ashram believed that the untouchables would pollute the commune’s well. Gandhi asked the meaning of his teachings, because he taught that all people were equal in the sight of God. Other commune members said that they believed in equality but did not want the untouchable family there. When Gandhi threatened to leave and return to practicing law, the members of the commune agreed to let the untouchables stay.

    Gandhi then moved to an even larger sphere—he stood up to the British Empire itself. Gandhi had begun to understand that his God-given mission was to help establish an independent India in which Muslims, Hindus, and Christians could live together in unity. This nation would be an India for all Indians.

    Gandhi abandoned European clothes and wore simple Indian dress. He took up spinning. Indians had been required to buy cloth made in Britain. The cotton was grown in India but it was shipped to England and made into cloth, then shipped back to India. Gandhi held mass demonstrations in which European-style clothes and cloth brought from England were burned. The spinning wheel became a symbol of liberation—the wheel of life and a sign of God, with no beginning and no end.

    The British had a monopoly on salt. Gandhi believed that the tax on salt was unjust; it supported oppression. Gandhi said that Indians should not pay the tax on salt: they could obtain salt by marching to the sea. The English could beat the Indians but could not stop them. Gandhi, also called the “Mahatma,” or “great-souled one,” taught his followers to do nothing violent (remain moderate and just) but to keep coming back. (Show fortitude)

    World opinion began to focus on Gandhi. Indians—Muslim as well as Hindu—saw in the figure of Gandhi the symbol of their struggle for liberation and enlightenment. They began to recognize that England and Europe were not the only sources of culture and that India had its own set of ideas that were foreign to the West. Gandhi believed that the culture of England was based on war, struggle, and violence and that capitalism is a form of violence, because it steals from the poor to benefit the rich. Capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. For Gandhi, the Indian way was the way of God, truth, and nonviolence.

    Gandhi was imprisoned many times. He found in prison new sources of strength. He read “Unto This Last,” by John Ruskin, which taught him three crucial lessons. First, the good of all is encompassed in the good of one individual. Harm to one individual is harm to everyone. Second, every form of work has its own dignity. A barber is as worthy of respect as an attorney. Third, the noblest form of work is to farm and make something with your own hands. Tolstoy’s “Kingdom of God Is Within You” opened a new world to Gandhi. According to Tolstoy, Jesus was not God but taught that everyone has a God within himself. A similar teaching also appears in the “Bhagavad Gita.” Gandhi’s readings showed that unfamiliar books, in addition to great books, can touch the soul.

    Gandhi used self-imposed hunger strikes to protest British actions or the actions of his followers when they refused to follow his path of truth and nonviolence. When Gandhi went on a hunger strike, the British raj feared that he might die and would give in. Gandhi thus harmed no one in his fight for the truth. (Moderation and justice)

    Gandhi’s moral authority played a decisive role in Britain’s decision to give India its freedom and in the decision of many Indians to form political parties that could achieve freedom under a constitutional government. Gandhi was bitterly disappointed in 1947 when India gained its independence but allowed itself to be divided into a largely Muslim Pakistan and a largely Hindu India. Gandhi believed that this partition contradicted his teaching that God had fashioned many roads to truth and that all religions teach the same fundamental values.

    When civil war broke out over disputed territory and thousands were killed, the elderly Gandhi walked from village to village (Fortitude) trying to bring people together. The moral authority of Gandhi had become a threat. Radical who wanted a truly separate Hindu India set out to assassinate Gandhi, and he was shot. With his last word, “Ram,” Gandhi invoked the name of God. The “Bhagavad Gita” says, “He who dies with my name upon his lips is freed forever from the cycle of life and joins me in bliss.”

    Think about this: People record and study history so that they can learn lessons from the past. Ideas are not physical, but they are very powerful. A man, who truly believes in these ideals, can create historical events.

  • Dan

    The art of leadership as it should be was discussed in the works of Socrates and Confucius, as I described in my email to you. However, Machiavelli presented in his book “The Prince”, written in 1513, how leadership is in fact. It is as applicable today as it was during the Renaissance. It is useful to CEOs and politicians. Machiavelli is concerned with power. He teaches how to get power and how to keep it. Machiavelli believes that power is everything. What matters is the sheer possession of power. He is not concerned with using power for any good purpose. The leader leads for his benefit. His subjects are sheep to be sheared or threatened with elimination. He believes, contrary to Socrates and Confucius, in one maxim: “Do others in before they do you in.” Machiavelli came to this conclusion by studying the lessons of history. History shows that tyrants are frequently men of mediocre ability, who focus on power and are utterly ruthless in its pursuit. Machiavelli described people as they were. The lessons of Machiavelli are written throughout history, especially the histories of Greece and Rome.

    Machiavelli believed that power is the only thing that people want and that people will do anything to attain it. He believed that the teaching of Socrates, Confucius and Jesus were fine intellectually, but people do not actually behave that way.

    Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469 and died in 1527. He came from a family of distinction. He had a good education in Latin classics. He learned that history could be used to understand the present. Machiavelli entered bureaucratic service, became a diplomat and traveled widely.

    Machiavelli taught that a person must first decide if he wants power, because a person who does not want power should not seek a role in leadership. Those who seek power must be willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain it.

    The leader must possess several characteristics. He must be cunning, not wise philosophically. He must understand people. The leader is not seeking ultimate truth, he is searching for what works. The leader must be stingy. It is not good to give gifts to people or the leader will be ruined financially. Money is one of the means to procure power. Power is about force, and money is needed to buy that force and sustain it. The leader must be cruel. Being hated and feared is better than being loved. People will not aid a loved leader unless it is convenient for them. However, they will aid a cruel leader in fear of being punished if they do not give him aid when he needs it. The ability to lie is key to his success. The leader should never keep a promise unless it is convenient. He should say whatever is expedient at the moment, than do what he pleases.

    He must appoint his immediate supporters. They must be capable, loyal and under the leader’s control. The followers must be flatterers, but the leader must know when they are flattering him. Anyone who contradicts the leader in public or gives a frank opinion in public must be removed.

    The lessons of Machiavelli were not lost on Hitler and Stalin, who used cruelty and shrewdness. Trotsky, an opponent of Stalin, said, “Joseph Stalin is a mediocrity, but he is not a nonentity.

  • Mr. Right

    GARY has more common sense then our supreme court of kangeroos. Our inalienable rights are SOVEREIGN AND SUPREME, which by definition means they are not subject to the political perversions of deconstructive dialectical praxis for convoluted consensus and constitutional compromise. NO INFRINGEMENT means no infringement. Our rights are not to be weakened by regulation, licensing, and taxing. “The power to tax is the power to destroy” — John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1801-35. Get it? A right that becomes taxed, licensed, or regulated is effectively destroyed. It’s only a privilege, at best.

    Tyrannical trickery twists the truth to trespass individual authority and power. Wake up people, and spread the spirit of liberty! Protect the freedom of you and your property if you want to be free.

    “No man is free who is not a master of himself.” — Epictatus

    “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” – Thomas Jefferson

    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” –Daniel Webster

  • Flu-Bird

    Its just typical of these liberal eletists like MAYOR NICKLES of SEATTLE to demand gun bans while he can afford his own armed bodyguards I mean he must think he is living in a monarcy where persons of wealth and privlage can do what they want WERE LIVING IN A REPUBLIC SO MR NICKLE HAD BETTER REMEMBER THAT

  • patti

    I recently attended a political convention for the district in which I live.
    One of the issues we brought to the attention of our US Congressman was the right to bear arms and what was happening in Congress.
    He answered our questions what he and other gun owning members in Congress were trying to do. It is our right as citizens of this country to be able to own a gun and rifle.
    Not all of us are “hicks” or “rednecks”, most of us own a weapon for hunting and yes for protection of our life limb and property. I don’t feel you have the right to come onto my property and rob me, steal from me. It’s against the law to do that as far as I know.
    Now you may argue that a $500 TV set is not worth killing someone over BUT I disagree. You have come onto my property for sole purpose of taking something that you don’t own and didn’t work for. If state law permits me to shoot you because I’m in fear of my life, I will shoot you..center mass.
    And what you want to do is take away guns from the average citizen who obeys the law and has his gun registered….what about criminals….they will always be able to get a gun.
    One of the other delegates to this convention was the owner of a gun store and he said he can’t keep up with the sales. And that now the majority of people he is selling guns to are WOMEN. Now what does that tell you ?????
    I’m a woman and guess what for the first time in my life I’ve got a gun….for self protection. My husband is a former criminal investigator and I was always hesitant about a gun in the house but no longer.
    It’s going to get bad out there and I just want to be prepared.
    I’ll give you my gun when you pry out of my cold dead fingers.
    It’s my right and no one is going to take that away from me.
    You bleeding hearts out there will be the first ones to call 911 when someone has shot and killed someone, you’ll be the first one to yell that they didn’t get there fast enough to protect you. Get real.
    What kind of American are you that you would even consider stripping away at one of the fundamental rights we are given under The US Constitution abd The Bill of Rights?
    Have you ever read it??? If not I suggest you.

  • patti

    Our Founding Fathers were men of great wisdom. Some were well educated, learned men who read the very writers you speak of here. Socrates, Plato , the Romans and it from these philosophers and writers that they were about to formulate the documents that have sustained this country for over two hundred years. The foresight these men had at forming our US Constitution, The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of independence is inspiring.
    To see day after day the assault these founding documents undergo everyday is at best sickening. These are NOT living documents you should be allowed to change on a whim. They are the foundation this country is built on. By starting to strip away our basic fundamental rights, you start to break down what holds this nation together.
    And if it is allowed to crumble ….their is NO America.
    How sad to even imagine that all our Founding Fathers fought, sacrificed and died for after two hundred years is all for naught??? I don’t think so. And I for one will continue to fight any way I can to preserve and protect it. Too bad TPOTUS has other plans.
    I didn’t think I’d live to see the day that SOCIALISM, FASCISM or A COLLECTIVE for of Communism would land on these very shores.
    I pray for divine intervention. Our forefathers did beleive in a divine power GOD.

  • Frank

    Re: Gary

    Thanks for mentioning Warnthepeople.org. It sure shed some light on things I had know idea about. It makes sense that something is going on beyond what we are being told. Just wanted to say thanks

  • winperk

    Gun control is people control! An unconstitutional law is not lawfull and need not be adhered to. Gun owners in the United States outnumber the Police and Military!
    It is constitutionally unlawful to pass laws that discriminate against a specific group of people. Gun control laws are not lawful and the recent cigaret law is not lawful.

  • don’t worry be happy

    Lance,

    Did you ever consider it might be yourself who is believing propaganda? I live in Canada and the ownership of guns has become heavily regulated where before all you had to to to buy a gun was to be 16 years old and 14 for ammo.

    Home invasions and drive by shooting were totaly unheard of 25 years ago. Now they are a weekly event in most cities. If you defend yourself or your “property” you will feel the heavy hand of the courts quite rapidly along with sanctimonious articles in the media attacking vigillante action.

    Bike gangs and crack dealers pretty much do what they want, when they want. In rural areas there is very little law enforcement can do until after the crime has been commited.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.