The Right To Defend

There are several reasons one may have for owning firearms... sport, hunting, collecting, but the two most critical are defense against personal injury, and defense against tyranny. A firearm is the best tool available to protect one's own, and/or the lives of family members. Even though a civilized society has laws against the use of physical force between members of its constituency, law enforcement officials are not capable of protecting you from criminals. The police collect evidence pertaining to a crime and arrest and formally accuse people who are suspected of committing an offense. However, if someone wants to kill or steal from you, then you must protect yourself since the police are not available for prevention.

Of course the hope is that we never have to use deadly force to defend ourselves. But that hope should not foolishly include being unprepared to do so. Fortunately for citizens of the United States, the authors of the constitution and Bill of Rights knew that; "An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny." The second amendment also states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately there is currently a growing constituency in favor of dissolving the right to own firearms. Revocation of the right would disarm law abiding citizens leaving weapons in the hands of law enforcement officials, the military, and criminals.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... 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." — Thomas Jefferson

As Mr. Jefferson points out, gun control laws make it harder for law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves. Criminals already obtain weapons through illegal channels consequently they are unaffected by current, or additional gun control laws. Gun control is not the solution to ending random killing.

As it is, government already holds a monopoly of sorts on the legal use of physical force. From the government position, it must hold such a monopoly as the restraining element of the use of force by its constituency against each other, and against the government itself.  For that reason alone, government must be rigidly defined and controlled by the people.

According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.[1]

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
 --Thomas Jefferson

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
 -- Thomas Jefferson

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
 -- Thomas Paine

"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its
 rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"
 -- Thomas Jefferson

1. G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.

~

Agnostic Atheist

No, agnosticism is not atheism lite. Like theism, atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a logical proposition. To expedite discourse on these concepts I first offer these generally agreed upon definitions:

Theism: 1. Belief in the existence of a God or gods, especially belief in a personified God entity as creator. 

Atheism: 1. Belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. 

Agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that certainty about truth is unattainable without proof, and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. A doctrine affirming that there can be no proof either that god exists or that god does not exist.

The most notable and relevant difference between these definitions is that two of them (theism and atheism) describe suppositions based on an unknown, both of which represent a departure from critical thinking and enter the realm of believing in something based on feeling, whereas agnosticism describes a neutral conclusion about knowledge based on a lack of evidence. Knowledge (information gained by proof) is a separate issue from a belief in something for the want of it.

The term 'agnosticism' is predominately used to claim abstinence from siding with the belief or non-belief in the existence of a God or gods. But by definition, agnosticism enjoys a broader meaning. Agnosticism is rooted in logic; a position that does not permit a claim of something unknowable or predicated by negative proof. Both theism and atheism claim to have knowledge based on a negative proof (also known as a faulty inference), which constitutes a logical absurdity. To the agnostic, all such proposals, are equally untenable. Consequently, agnosticism is not a withdrawal from participation, but rather a position of non-participation because there is nothing to contend.

True agnosticism includes no opinion about the existence, or non-existence of God or gods. As an adjective, 'agnostic' can be used with theism or atheism. One might believe in gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their existence, a position which could be described as agnostic theism. Conversely one might disbelieve in gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their non-existence, which could be described as agnostic atheism.

For years I called myself a true agnostic with no emotional investment in the belief or disbelief in the existence of God - most likely my religiously fraught childhood instilled in me at least some modicum of belief that there may be a god  presiding over my possible continuance beyond the duration of my biological form; a god that may very well deny extended existence to non-believers, yet show leniency toward those who simply claimed not to know what cannot be known. However, brainwashing in youth dissipates with intellectual maturation, and the notion that persistence after death might be presided over by some deity, is recognized for the fairy tale that it is. This concession is an implicit acceptance of atheism - a disbelief derived from nothing more substantial than the same disbelief I have in the existence of Santa Claus - it seems unreasonable. Nevertheless, holding that something is unreasonable without proven data to support the conclusion still constitutes a belief not held in evidence, and consequently represents a departure from pure logic of which, I confess my guilt. However, I qualify my departure from pure logic to an atheistic belief with the 'agnostic' adjective. I don't believe there is or ever was a god (atheist), but withhold judgment about proving this belief (agnostic) since such a thing cannot be verified. My use of the agnostic adjective with my atheist belief does not redeem my departure from pure logic on this matter, but it does qualify and explain my refusal to engage in a discussion about the consequences and/or rewards of being naughty or nice.

~

Ego

The abundance and proliferation of "ego" nay-sayers has always surprised and caused me to shake my head in disbelief. First: it should be clear that I reject the commonly accepted misunderstanding of ‘ego’ that is ubiquitous in our society – that promoting one’s ego is somehow pathological, or the contention "having an ego" represents some kind of spiritual malady. I have never understood, and completely reject this little piece of stupidity, obviously not founded on any system of reason or rational thinking.  Second: there is no source within us, which is without ego since the self is the ego.  Borrowing from Merriam-Webster's definition:

Ego -- 1: the self, especially as contrasted with another self or the world

So basically your ego is who you are. And personally, I am not interested in depreciating who I am.
Do the anti-egoist support their absurd contention because the ego by nature is NOT self-sacrificing or self-immolating (which for some insane reason are considered virtuous behaviors in our society)? People denounce ego and wonder about the amoral condition of society at large – what a pity. What else could there be in a society that promotes self-loathing – and make no mistake about it, denouncing the ego is an unequivocal promotion of self-loathing by simple virtue of the meaning of the word ego.

The natural condition of ego is not self-sacrificing, self-immolating or any other such form of self-depreciation. The ego by nature is self-promoting, not self-depreciating. The natural inclination of ego is toward self-esteem and pride, not shame. The ego and its natural extension – pride is about believing in yourself and your abilities. Feeling pride in your abilities and accomplishments is the recognition of your own self-worth.  Pride and ego are all about recognizing self-worth through the realization that you are capable of producing value and consequently capable of sustaining your own life. How can this be considered bad in any way? The amoral faction who consider pride to be a sin are the proponents of fear, hate, and discrimination that plague society.

Rewire America.

~