The right to bear arms

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

The right to bear arms

Postby holy vehm » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:41 am

The right to bear arms
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries natural law was accepted in men's heads and in courts of law, as it always has been accepted in men's hearts. The advocates of absolutism were defeated, first intellectually, then politically, and then by force of arms. Kings who claimed to rule by divine right were killed or forced to flee.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 guaranteed an Englishman's right to bear arms (a right now lost), and more importantly, prohibited the state from using what we would now call a police force. The people were armed, state was unarmed. Individuals, not the state or the mob, applied lawful force when needed. This worked well, disproving the doctrine of monopoly of force, which derives from the absolutists, notably Hobbes.

In the medieval period the state had never had a large role in maintaining order. Often it was a source of disorder. The Glorious Revolution eliminated its role in enforcement for about two hundred years, while legitimizing its role in judgment.

In a society where there is pluralistic use of force, there needs to be respect for natural law, and natural rights, in order to avoid strife and civil war. Similarly a belief in natural rights tends to result in pluralistic use of force, because people obviously have the right to defend their rights, whereas disbelief in natural rights tends to lead to an absolute monopoly of force to ensure that the state will have the necessary power to crush peoples rights and to sacrifice individuals, groups, and categories of people for the greater good. Conversely a monopoly of force leads to the denial of natural rights (by making it safe and profitable to disregard natural rights) and the disregard of natural rights necessitates a monopoly of force to avoid frequent violent conflict.

For a society where there is plurality of force to work peaceably and well, there needs to be both respect for natural rights and also a substantial number of people with a strong vested interest in the rule of law.

A yeoman was the lowest rank of landowner, one who worked his own land or his families land, in modern terminology a peasant farmer. A villain was a sharecropper, a farmer with no land of his own, semi free, more free than a serf, though not directly equivalent to the modern free laborer. Naturally yeomen had a strong vested interest in the rule of law, for they had much to lose and little to gain from the breakdown in the rule of law. Villains had little to gain, but less to lose. People acted in accordance with their interests, and so the word yeoman came to mean a man who uses force in a brave and honorable manner, in accordance with his duty and the law, and villain came to mean a man who uses force lawlessly, to rob and destroy.

In practice free societies only arose where there was no monopoly of force, the most notable and important examples being seventeenth century England and eighteenth century North America. England, in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, exemplified the medieval ideal of liberty under law, and Kingly rule under law. In the English speaking world, government started to display disregard for natural rights about fifty years after they introduced a police force, about the time that people took power who had grown up in a state where police enforced the law

The best present day example of a society with strong social controls and weak government controls, a society with plurality of force, is Switzerland. (Kopel, p278- 302) In peacetime the Swiss army has no generals, no central command. Everyone is his own policeman. By no coincidence Switzerland is also the best modern example of the right to bear arms. Almost every house in Switzerland contains one or more automatic weapons, the kind of guns that the American federal government calls “assault rifles with cop killer bullets”. Switzerland has strict gun controls to keep guns out of the hands of children, lunatics and criminals, but every law abiding adult can buy any kind of weapon. Almost every adult male owns at least one gun, and most have more than one, because of social pressures and the expectation that a respectable middle class male citizen should be well armed and skillful in the use of arms. It is also no coincidence that respect for property rights in Switzerland is amongst the highest in the world, possibly the highest in the world. Switzerland also has lower tax levels than any other industrialized country.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: The right to bear arms

Postby holy vehm » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:19 am

There was a time (not that long ago) when our natural right under natural law to bear arms was recognised by all yet a subtle and slow de-arming of the populace by the state has stripped us of that right under law while arming itself and using that to instill fear with which to rule, oppress and enslave which is against the law.

I ask myself, would things be as bad as they are if we, the people, were still armed, i think not.

In battle, when a force is met by an equal and opposing force it cancels itself out, it cannot move forward. We do not need to go to war with the state but merely meet it with an equal and opposing force. We can not match them for weapons but we can more than match them for numbers.
When the state is faced with a man who will die for his freedom and will be replaced by double that then the state cannot move forward, it cannot kill us all, the ying and yang effect will not allow that to happen, they may kill many of us but not all for there are many more of us than them and eventually we will get to them (those that make the orders) and remove them from postion (stand trial for crimes against humanity in a common law court with the ability to issue the death sentence or full life term imprisonment)

We will prevail.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: The right to bear arms

Postby newmannewy » Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:19 pm

holy vehm wrote:I ask myself, would things be as bad as they are if we, the people, were still armed, i think not..


im not so sure, just look at America..
http://www.thebigwakeup.co.uk - My own personal site dedicated to helping newbies wake up and see the bigger picture.
Feel free to pass comment, point out my failings & or generally critisice - (It's a working progress)
newmannewy
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: The right to bear arms

Postby holy vehm » Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:37 pm

newmannewy wrote:
holy vehm wrote:I ask myself, would things be as bad as they are if we, the people, were still armed, i think not..


im not so sure, just look at America..


There is a big differance between the american and swiss models of gun control and also its people. America is currently being disarmed, its a drip drip effect but it is happening as are many other countries, the people are being disarmed while the state is equiping itself with all sorts of weapons.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: The right to bear arms

Postby enegiss » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:18 pm

i absolutely agree, in self preservation against government tyranny, the Law states it is a duty to rebel :grin:
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: The right to bear arms

Postby holy vehm » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:24 pm

enegiss wrote:i absolutely agree, in self preservation against government tyranny, the Law states it is a duty to rebel :grin:


:yes:

It would be treason not to.

I have a natural right to survive under the laws of nature. If i walk through africa and a big lion jumps out and eats me, thats law of the jungle but if i walk through the streets of manchester and am forcibly arrested, beaten and place in a cell where upon i die, that aint no natural law thats murder and as said, in the interests of self preservation i have a right to defend myself against my life being ended un-naturally or contary to natural law.

We were not de-armed because people went around killing (murder) each other (which i am sure happneded from time to time) but because we as a collective had the ability to present an equal and opposite force to the states/crowns force preventing them from moving forward.

In a well educated society (swiss) gun control is less because that society is well educated.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests