Firearms in the United States Of America
*Accentuate the war against martial sensibility*
The part of being a human that is, necessarily, outside of the consideration of these constructs. If you are completely defined and define your values by ONLY the consideration of how they are validated by law, by governmental approval, by approval of the majority, by religion, by how your colleagues view things inside of liberal academic circles, etc. then you miss the entire point of The Bill Of Rights, and most definitely of Liberalism, Independent thought, Libertarianism, and human freedom. Our community, in many ways, represents a reawakening of individual, martial sensibility inside of a subculture that seemingly has had no real cultural need for firearms. If anything, the fact that we now have African Americans, and LGBTQ people coming to us, in the consideration of firearms ownership; the fact that we have women coming into our fold seeking guidance on self-defense; the fact that we have anyone coming into our fold because the Trump era is evidence of an eruption of a collective martial alarm inside of a culture where that visceral reality had remained dormant. The desire for firearms is the desire for weaponry. The desire for weaponry is a pre-modern phenomenon. It is not given life or legitimacy by intellectual culture. It doesn't require validation by law or the intelligentsia. It is a pre-political relationship. Progressive culture's view on the matter is more indicative of it's ignorance and cultural arrogance than it is indicative of scientific or sociological expertise.
Martial awareness has basic mathematical rules for people, that operate on a visceral level. Rule #1 is that you do not, ever, give individuals, outside of your own self, the opportunity of a monopoly of force - in any scenario. This is not something that was made-up by white, gung-ho, tactical addicts. This is a pre-modern, non-Anglocentric, human visceral protocol. It's not awake inside of everyone and not everyone will awaken to it. but, it does not require the validation of lawyers, and cops, and politicians, and your friends, and progressives in order to live and breathe. It does not require the validation of technology or modern society. It is not, in and of itsef, deviant or primitive in the negative sense. It is just as much of an anthropological, indigenous, pre-modern artform as anything the progressive intelligentsia would worship or fight for. While they might consistently rail against the decimation of the indigenous and colonization, they, at the same time, will vilify the very, pre-modern, martial capacity that would be necessary to ward off such abuses. When progressives see firearms as deviant, and attack the right, politically, they are attacking the right to martial awareness and they are attacking the best, contemporary implement to successfully engage in self-preservation. They are not merely attacking the implement. They are attacking the notion that self-defense is both legitimate and a historical, invaluable art form - with a weapon or without one. Attacking the right to defend oneself with a weapon, is analogous to the same abusive forces involved in the decimation of the indigenous peoples of the earth and the same force as colonization. It is just on the flip-side of that coin. If you remove the individual right to self-defend, you are accomplishing the same result of subjugation as the abuse of the indigenous people of the world. It is a force of subjugation, achieved by intellectual arrogance.
Before there is any information given here about Positive Law, Natural Law, or The Bill Of Rights, our sincere recommendation is that you seek to understand that it is not, merely, the Second Amendment that needs to be treated with inflexible belief. It is your right to self-preserve, via using directed interpersonal violence towards a committed assailant. nothing on this earth has the legitimate right to impede in that process. The challenge that we face as gun owners and upholders of this martial relationship is that our implements of choice are lethal and have serious impacts on public safety. We cannot be a part of the greater society and be dishonest or flippant about this fact. We must also work, diligently, to deal with the impacts related to the presence of firearms in society and MITIGATE their negatives Where general gun culture fails, and in our opinon, where it fails to support the presence of firearms in society, is in its insensitivity to this reality. We feel gun ownership will not survive the 21st century with isolationism and cultural coldness being the way that gun ownership is projected. The 21st century and the survival of the second amendment will be dependent upon gun culture embracing the inflexible aspect of self-preservation while SIMULTANEOUSLY, doing more to mitigate the effects of guns in society.
You don't need society's approval to engage in martial awareness and self-preservation. Whereas, the progressive intelligentsia would have you believe that the social agreement negates such a relationship with individuality, the reality is that the social agreement is built upon the foundation of the individual having room to self-preserve FIRST. Many are not aware of nor would they necessarily choose weaponry inside of their self-preservation protocols. And that is all fine and good. But this reality does not negate the actually reality of preservation for MILLIONS of gun owners. It should be of not surprise that the following two societal realities are easily observed:
1. Most progressives that are against firearms, or who want them extraordinarily legislated against are people who enjoy a lifestyle where the level of economics allow for a more insulated, less challenged experience.
2. That it usually takes some form of crisis or assault on this bubble before a person inside of this bubble will be challenged at the level of their own martial awareness. Many who have finally become challenged inside of their own bubble find their way to pursuing self-defense in some manner.
GO PAST THE CURRENT PARADIGM AND UNDERSTAND THE DEEPER HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUALLY OWNED WEAPONRY
It is your right to possess and operate a firearm that is analogous to the other firearms available in society. It is your right to use this level of firearm in the proper defense of your own life or someone else's life. The Second Amendment, The Government Of The United States, the state in which you reside, the system of the laws that participate in, and the social contract are not the grantors of this right.
It is your right, as a reasonable, competent human on planet Earth to chose to engage in this relationship with individual weaponry. You should not feel confused by this. It should not be a moral quandary for you. You can, easily, partake in this relationship AND be a person who strives diligently to make the world a better place. Do not EVER allow another human to attempt to make you feel that this is not so. It is your right, your desires are not deviant. They are natural. They are also, as of the writing of this report, 100% legal.
The current paradigm for explaining and understanding the existence of firearms in American society is full of overused terms and references. It is extraordinarily uninspiring, flat, cold, and predictable. The efforts are overwhelmingly filled with political and cultural propaganda. Starting the discussion of the human relationship with individually owned weaponry at The Bill of Rights is extraordinarily Anglo-centric and underserves the understanding of the pure reality. We certainly will cover the realities associated with The Bill Of Rights, The Second Amendment, and Positive Law. However, in our view, these lenses are not the most vital when it comes to understanding the most important ground beneath gun ownership. We would like to make our viewpoint clear in the following statement. Anyone who is seeking to understand LGO's organizational viewpoint and mission and should seek to understand our unflinching view:
The foundation of individual gun ownership is the evolutionary result of weapons usage by human beings, over time. In the primary sense, it is in no way an intellectual issue. Our cultural overuse of intellect has a well-worn habit of presuming that intellectual effort decides value for all things under the sun. In the case of modernity and guns, the non-gun owning left loves to overlay its worship of the intellect onto something that pre-dates the modern intellect by an eon. The desire for weaponry, by the individual, is not a phenomenon whose base is created by intellectual desire and processes. At its root, the desire is a visceral, genetic, anthropological phenomenon. At its root, it is a pre-political phenomenon that has been carried forward over a dramatic expanse of history. It is the function of Homo Sapien recognizing a distinct advantage in nature when specific, portable, engineered individual weapons are possessed or employed. While the entire list of advantages have not maintained usefulness in the modern era, the most essential advantage of this relationship remains: the use of a weapon, by the individual, in the pursuit of preservation of self and others. This is commonly referred to as self-defense. Of all of the possible reasons and explanations for the presence of firearms in modern society, the unassailable, eternal justification is for their use in self-preservation. Liberal Gun Owners views all claims against the right to the practices and implements of self defense as claims against one of the most essential relationships between humans and life on Earth. We give no credibility to any view that makes this brand of martial awareness and practice analogous to paranoia. We give no credibility to any view that assigns the awareness, perspectives, practices, responsibility and implements related to proper self-defense solely to the state. While it is a legitimate claim that not all people are suited for this brand of self-reliance, and it is legitimate to claim that the majority of people do not want to engage in this brand of self-reliance, it is NOT legitimate, at all, to make claims that people with a relationship to the self-defense tradition are somehow inferior or deviant.
We appreciate and fully support all of the manifested relationships of gun ownership and enthusiasm: hobby, collection, sport, marksmanship etc. We consider these aspects to be largely important. We realize that many gun owners are a mixed bag of aspects. However, in terms of understanding the justification for firearms in society, we consider these second tier aspects of gun ownership, more associated with enjoyment and intellectual pursuits. The tier 1, essential basis for firearms in society is self-defense. Philosophical positions against the phenomenon are completely illegitimate in our view. We will not now, or ever, heed to tier 2 gun owners, or non-gun owners, that are trying to steer society to push humans against the right and tradition of using weaponry for self-preservation.
The Bill of Rights, The Second Amendment, and cases like Heller are overlays to this pre-political phenomenon. We cannot stress the following points enough:
1. The pure justification for firearms in society is as implements which give a person a distinct advantage in the pursuit of self-preservation.
2. The Bill Of Rights and Positive Law do not have the power grant this justification. Law does not give the desire for firearms its legitimacy - human history does. The presence of law does not remove some inherent, associated deviance, because the phenomenon is not inherently deviant.
3. If you take away the overlay of the Second Amendment and Positive Law, this phenomenon, in and of itself, is not deviant and is fully justified.
4. Any effort by society to delegitimize the human pursuit of individual self-defense is completely working against an essential and necessary human tradition. As such, gun owners should not tolerate any such effort, by the state or by other citizens. If a gun owner is serious about there right to self-defense, they should position themselves away from any entity that threatens the right.
This being our view, LGO must also state that we believe that the best course to support firearms in society is to work within the world that we actually live in. What will make LGO different from other organizations is that we recognize the rock solid relationship between firearms and self-preservation, but we take that view and immediately validate the greater social fabric that we live in. It would be immature, ineffective and irresponsible to merely leave our bedrock belief with , "From my cold dead hands..." There's no need for that. We live in a society with a tradition that has roots in European law. We are a country that uses a system of law, and to be responsible, we must work with that system for as long as it allows us to do so, viably. When it comes to firearms, and our relationship to the world around us, the law counts. It doesn't give life to the right, but it counts. So does our responsibility to the social contract. So does our responsibility to public safety and the world around us.
We would like to make the point that firearms are not a truly Anglo-centric phenomenon, because weaponry, by far, is not an Anglo-centric phenomenon. Seeing firearms as a standalone entity from the history of weaponry is a mistake. It's an inaccuracy. From the Liberal perspective, it is one of the many arrogances involved in conservative ethnocentricity. It is part and parcel to keeping other creeds and races in a position of subjugation through self-reinforcing propaganda. White, Southern, Rural Americans may dominate the current firearms market and culture, but they are not responsible for the creation of the roots and history of weaponry. Despite claims and efforts to project the contrary, they do not hold a monopoly on the spirit of the American gun owner. When a Gun Owner starts their entire gun support paradigm from the second amendment and the American experience, they are reinforcing the propaganda that American gun ownership is an Anglo-centric, cultural monopoly. Our system of laws is based upon the Anglo-centric, European system of law. The creation of America was largely an Anglo-centric endeavor.
Firearms cannot be disconnected as the progeny of general weaponry, and the reality is this:
The roots of advanced projectile weaponry, their advantages, and their usages lay in pre-Anglo South Africa.
One of the concepts that we hope that our community will start to look beyond the concept that the core of gun ownership in America is owned by the rural white. Gun ownership in America is anchored to the ethnocentricity, and anglo-centric, cultural firearms identification of the rural white. In actual reality, the rural white is not responsible for the spirit associated with individual weaponry ownership. The Founding Fathers of America have done an indispensible thing in creating the Bill Of Rights. We honor that. But The United States Of America is only 242 years old. The contemporary, American firearms market is 75 years old. These elements have not carried the lion's share of effort, in human history - in terms of carrying the spirit and importance of the individual's relationship with weaponry. In terms of years of service and sacrifice, early Homo Sapien, and early Africans are the ones who carried that information and burden forward. They are the Prometheus of the spirit of individual weaponry, and that spirit is the father of the spirit of the American gun owner. Caucasions, by far, are not the sole owners of the spirit of individual weaponry.
Thomas Moore, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, Madison
Limitations on the overlay. The overlay is secondary.
The Declaration of Independence is a statute, enacted by the congress. If you go to the first book of the U.S. code, and you go to the first page, you will see there The Declaration of Independence - probably the most violated statute, by the government, that we have. It articulates that our rights come from our humanity." -Andrew Napolitano-
"The right to shoot at your government when it becomes tyrannical. The essential American right."
The presumption of liberty. We make our own choices.
The natural rights, that we did NOT surrender to our government, we retained for ourself, and they cannot be taken away from us by popular vote, or majority in the legislature, or a command by a governer or a president. A.N.
The Abolition Of Man - C.S. Lewis.