My pleasure. From your remarks so far I look forward to your future posts.

I would also venture to say that I am no more of a happenstance conglomeration of chemicals that just happened to form "me" than the newest creation of an Ipad with WIFI capabilities that got its collective parts thrown out of an aircraft a kabillion times to form, by chance, Apple's newest creation.

I have rights because I, and Ayn Rand, are unique. There is no other snowflake like me, in spite of govt's attempt to make me a con formal citizen. I am my own man, created by the Father of the Son of Man, and until/unless I forget that, I am perfect in His eyes, my Creator.

My imperfections are caused by a lack of focus. That lack of focus, like me, are unique. But I constantly endeavour to correct my failures by using what my Creator gave me.

Namely, my right as a creation. Communicated to me by merely looking into a brilliant moonless sky, feeling deep inside that all those stars didn't just happen.

Who or what gave the "Creator" the rights to give to us?

The beings that wish to engage in slavery certainly do not recognize that one owns oneself. This is where the battle line is fundamentally drawn.

Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here. I expect to do a lot of learning and sharing. Thank you for your comments and your welcome.

Yes indeed. Constant vigilance is required.

It is far stronger than a "warning". It is a command. I love your point about the right to self-defense preexisting the 2nd amendment. And welcome to the Gulch!

IDK, out of context, and without the accompanying dialog, A=A is one of the weakest arguments in the Objectivist toolkit. It becomes a "throw-away" line that is used when the commenter doesn't really want to participate in the discussion, but for some reason feels compelled to write SOMETHING!. :-)

Peter, if you reread my original post, you will notice that I do not state that the Second Amendment "grants" anything. I am not sure where you got that from. To make it easier for you, I am copying the original post here:

"For reference, I am the founder and past President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS). I recently became the admin for the Facebook Group NJRKBA. Most people do not realize that there is *NO* ability to exercise the right to carry a firearm in NJ. Well... you CAN exercise your right, but the three branches of NJ government promise to incarcerate you for up to 10 years as a SECOND DEGREE FELON"!

Words *DO* have exact meanings. :-) The statement regarding the militia is indeed a prefatory clause. It introduces but does not DEFINE the operative clause. I am not sure why you think we are on opposite sides of this issue. I assure you we are not. The right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to carry a weapon and so forth preexist the Second Amendment and the Constitution. The rights exists by virtue of our being born HUMAN. The amendment exists as a warning *TO* the government NOT to infringe upon the right.

But in your final sentence YOU use the word "grant" which as you previously noted, is an entirely false concept.

It is hard for me to conceive of that. From where do Libertarians believe their rights emerge?

That sounds wonderful. I am sure my sister knows the area. Thank you for the nice welcome. I also don't understand why people have difficulty with this concept.

A is A.

In July 2010, I wrote: (I have an infrequently used blog) http://takeamericaforward.com/uncategori...

<<<The claim that the wording of the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms is actually quite true.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” does indeed not GRANT the right, it acknowledges It’s existence!

The amendment can therefore be seen as re-enforcing an existing right by stating the need for militia being a particular reason for not infringing upon it. Other potential infringements are not addressed but they would nevertheless be just that, infringements.

“Someday, my friend, you will learn that words have exact meanings.”

Francisco, in Atlas Shrugged.>>>>>

Sometime later I came across this opinion by the Supreme Court,

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Therefore, you could repeal the Amendment and that would only result in the need for a militia no longer being a reason not to infringe!

There are some who say that,” OK, you have the right to bear arms but at the time the amendment was written, there were only muskets etc. The Founding Fathers did not envision the modern weaponry of today and only were addressing the right to bear the arms that existed at that time.”

Well of course the weapons were what they were, but the Amendment was written in the context of the citizens being armed at the same level of weaponry as the Government. By that comparison, I see the Amendment as granting us the right to stockpile some tanks, a couple of F-111”s and a maybe a “Ship-of-the-Line.”

“All of a sudden?”
That’s a basic tenant of contemporary Liberalism

The statement is so self explanatory that I wonder why so many people fail to get it.
Welcome Frank. When you come to St. Pete, come up to Tarpon Springs the sponge fishing capitol and Greek enclave. Visit the sponge docks and the best Greek food outside of Athens.

Yes JC, that is what separates us from the other animals and is the basis of our rights and that which requires our freedom.

YES! Liberty and Responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

Ownership of self is the basis for responsibility.

Without acknowledging that, it is no surprise how responsibility is getting rarer and rarer.

Welcome Frankjack. I fully agree with you and also with db's statements. One's "own-self" is owning one's self... Is self ownership... What else could it be.

'I stand here on the summit of this mountain... I am the meaning...I need no warrant for being- I am the warrant... And the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect. ...
I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard and mine to use, and mine to knell before!...
And now I see the face of god... this god whom men have sought since men came into being ... This god, this one word: "I". ' -ANTHEM by Ayn Rand

This is a declaration of "self ownership".

Could it be stated any clearer than in Rand's Anthem? I don't think so.

True, but it is a slow change. Nonetheless, I trade value for value happily.

Our best hope seems to be education. We do not abide the use of force or fraud, so persuasion through education seems to be the most promising method of effecting positive change.

It is a lot of fun teaching the future rocket engineers. I teach a few scientists, too.

I have to say that I have never been there. I guess I am just going to have to come up with some MORE relatives. :-)

Is it merely semantics? If you are not in possession of a life (specifically you *OWN* life), than you cannot participate in the intellectual exchange. If your own life is not axiomatic, what else is there. Objective reality will still exist, but not for you - so of what consequence can it be? In fact, if you ARE in possession of a life, to whom does it belong, if not to your "self"?