QRZ.COM
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-rfparts
N9DCW USA flag USA

alias for: KB9QFH


Login is required for additional detail.

Email: Login required to view

Ham Member Lookups: 240

 

Dion Wood (N9DCW),

Sent from my iPhone 5c which can be called directly at +1 307-352-9940 Rock Springs WYOMING.

 

(1). About me and more information about LIBERTY & FREEDOM:

 

https://NewZealandAmerican.wordpress.com

 

"ALL human RIGHTS & FREEDOM come from SELF OWNERSHIP also known as PROPERTY. The greatest gift of GOD!" image2.JPG

 

And for all of you that say you love and support LIBERTY & FREEDOM then please burn all 3 of these SECTIONS thoroughly, very deeply and indelibly into your brains, your minds, your hearts, your souls and your psyches and share this! It's long but worth it. Just do it!

 

“IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)image1.JPG

 

   THE FUNDAMENTAL BASICS OF WHAT FREEDOM IS:

 

Zero Protection by dear friend and Patriot Michael Badnarik 

 

http://www.ConstitutionPreservation.org

 

I'm very grateful to Republic Magazine for giving me this opportunity to share what I've learned about the Constitution over the last twenty-five years. I hope this column will help restore the principles that led to the Constitution, a document which has been ignored, abandoned, and violated for too long.

 

You may be shocked to discover that I absolutely hate the phrase "Constitutional rights". That's because neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights has anything at all to do with your RIGHTS. If they burn the First Amendment, are you going to give up your freedom of religion? I don't think so. If they shred the Second Amendment, are you going to voluntarily turn in your guns, and risk being slaughtered en masse like the victims of the Holocaust? I certainly hope not. Please disabuse yourself of the habit of using that nasty, misleading phrase.

 

While I'm at it, I want you to stop pretending that the Constitution even protects your RIGHTS. It does no such thing! Imagine standing on a railroad track in the path of an oncoming locomotive, holding up a copy of the Constitution for "protection". That's how much protection the Constitution gives you. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

You think I'm kidding?! I am not using hyperbole to emphasize a point. How much protection did the Constitution give us against FDR's socialist New Deal? None. How much protection has it given you against the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or the Real ID Act? Zero. What will the Second Amendment do to prevent ATF agents from kicking down your door to confiscate your firearms? Zip. Nada. Nothing at all.

 

Do I have your attention, yet?

 

The reason we are standing chest deep in the septic tank of today's political process is because we've lost sight of the fact that "We the People" are supposed to be protecting the Constitution, not the other way around. We complain about the problems in Washington D.C. without facing up to the fact that Congress is only the symptom. We the People are the source of the problem. That is going to change. Right here. Right now.

 

All of our political problems can be traced back to a single, simple, misunderstanding. Americans have forgotten (or never knew) the difference between RIGHTS and privileges 

 

(See: http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf

 

from the book Good To Be King by Michael Badnarik, a worthwhile and necessary read if you care about FREEDOM.

 

A RIGHT is something that you can do without asking for permission, such as walking back and forth on your property. A privilege is something you require permission to do, such as walking back and forth across my property. I may grant you the privilege of walking across my property - BUT - I can revoke that privilege any time I wish. RIGHTS and privileges are opposites! Either you need permission - or you don't. You can't lose "some" of your virginity, or be "a little bit" pregnant. You either are or you're not. There's no middle ground.

 

The Constitution in 7 words. "Don't hurt me, don't take my stuff!"   

 

(2). SELF OWNERSHIP, Not Gun Ownership

 

By Dennis Pratt

 

So, here’s my take on the reason. It may not convince our non-American friends, but I hope it clarifies what, to most of the world, is a curious and confusing position ...

The Fundamental RIGHT is SELF OWNERSHIP Not Gun Ownership. So, I want to admit upfront that gun ownership can not be a universal human ethic. A universal human ethic is true for all time in all cultures in all situations for all humans. And guns have been around only for 650 years or so. So, by definition, there can be no universal human ethic to “own guns”. Stating it as though there is (which unfortunately is done by both sides of the debate) is a straw-man, making the American position even harder for other cultures to understand.

Gun ownership is not a fundamental human ethic, but a derived right from a universal human ethic — the right of self-ownership.

To Own Something Means that I Can Defend It from Theft and Abuse. Ownership of something brings with it a whole bunch of ancillary rights (right to control, to use, to dispose, to exclude, to gift, to sell, to rent, to defend …). So if I own something, I have the right to defend it from being stolen or abused.

Defense is Necessary for Self-Ownership. In fact, if I do not have the right to defend what I own, I do not actually own it! Let’s say that someone “gifts” me a diamond ring, and they tell me that I may not defend it from them taking it back from me. Who reallyowns it? I or the person who may take it from me at any time of their choosing? The answer is clear: I don’t own it. I’m only holding it for the owner.

Let’s say that I live in a community. The ruler gives me a shovel. He tells me that this is “mine”, but that anyone may come and take it from me at any time. I have no right to defend my ownership of it. However, if the ruler so decides, he may intercede “on my behalf”, and return the shovel to me. Do I in fact own the shovel, or is the ruler the real owner?

But Doesn’t Government Defend Us, So We Do Not Need to Defend Ourselves? Now, most of our friends from other countries will say that their government is there to defend them, so they need not worry about defending themselves, and thus they have no need of guns. Let’s ignore whether it is empirically true that one may wholly rely on The Government to well protect our bodies, and stay (at least for this answer) on ethics and rights…

How would a ruler gain the exclusive right to defend us? A ruler is just a person, like you or me. While he clearly owns himself (and may thus defend his own body), he does not, at least when we start out, own me. How does he derive the right to defend me?

To put it more generally, how does Person A —without ownership of Object X — obtain the right to defend Object X, while prohibiting Person B — with the actual ownership to Object X — from being able to himself defend Object X?

Hiring Someone to Help Defend What You Own. Now, if I own something, I have the right to defend it from theft and abuse, but I need not do that alone. For example, I may hire someone to help me with my defense. An agent is thusly simply contracted by the actual owner to help protect what the owner owns.

Hiring an agent does not mean a) that I lose my ownership of the object, b) that I lose my right to defend it myself, and c) that, if the agent does a poor job, I may not fire the agent and do it myself or hire someone more competent. The agent is just some muscle I’m employing to help me protect my property better.

Rulers Act Like Owners, not Like Agents. But rulers often act quite a bit differently than agents would. They act as though they have the right to defend us (if they are around and not busy), and we are not allowed to defend ourselves, unless they give us their permission.

They are in effect acting as though they own us and we are at best their agent, sometimes authorized to protect their property rights in us.

This perspective of a citizen’s relationship to her ruler violates the universal human ethic of self-ownership.

It is this violation of self-ownership that Americans reject, and we do so by retaining our right and ability to protect our own bodies, even when our rulers provide, what they insist (but can be debated[1]), is excellent, first-rate, can’t-be-beat, no-need-for-a-backup-plan protection service.

And we retain our right and ability to protect our own bodies … even from our rulers, even as they insist (but can be debated[2]), that they would never ever in a million billion years think of treating us like their owned property.

(And given your countries’ more recent nightmares with barbarous rulers, we’re a little bewildered by your willingness to believe them yet again.)

 

But the Whole World Disagrees! Now, the OP points out that there are many people in many countries who disagree that we humans have the right to effectively defend our own bodies from anyone, let alone from our rulers! The implication is that, because so many people disagree with us, we must therefore follow their lead and turn over our right to defend ourselves wholly to our rulers.

The thing about universal human rights is that they are true no matter how many people violate them. There was a time when people ignored self-ownship so much that in almost every single country in the world, almost everyone supported chattel slavery. That self-ownship was so commonly violated however did not mean that self-ownership was not still a fundamental, universal human ethic — even in those days.

We libertarian Americans would have said (and did say), “I don’t care how many of you are violating fundamental human ethics. You are still wrong. We each own ourself no matter how many of you think we don’t.”

Even if everyone in the world succumbed to government indoctrination and sophistry to believe that we do not own ourselves, but that our rulers do, it would still not change fundamental, universal human ethics.

But that’s not the case right now. And we’re just happy that one small part of the world still grudgingly recognizes our human right to defend the most important thing that we own — ourselves.

And we are not particularly interested in giving that up.

 

 

 

image2.JPG(3). (WHAT FOLLOWS from here onwards is my own penmanship by Dion Wood).

8379544 Last modified: 2017-10-09 23:21:12, 32053 bytes

Login Required

Login is required for additional detail.


Apply for a new Vanity callsign...

You must be logged in to file a report on this page

Please login now...

Public Logbook data is temporarily not available for this user
ad: giga-db
Copyright © 2017 by QRZ.COM
Tue Nov 21 14:05:08 2017 UTC
CPU: 0.073 sec 84096 bytes mp