High School Boys Stage Pro-2nd Amendment Walkout

Aguyandamoose · 2018-04-01T03:09:48+00:00

For those of you wondering what this has to do with MGTOW, consider this:

Gun rights are representative of one of the key aspects of our philosophy. A friend of mine put it this way when somebody asked him about why Americans seem to be so much more obsessed with guns:

"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 really owns 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?

But notice that ruler is not just asserting a right to defend me. He is asserting that he has the exclusive right to defend me (should he be around and so inclined), and specifically, that he does not grant me the right to defend me. Under what conditions would this ruler think that he has any right to prohibit me from defending my own body?

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?

The answer is that Person A has to be assuming that he has ownership over me.

Hiring Someone to Help Defend What You Own

Now, at this point many of our foreign cousins will be trying to escape the horrifying implications, “No! No! Your ruler is only acting as your agent to help you to defend yourself.”

Yes, if I own something, I not only 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.

But notice this important distinction: 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 nightmarish experiences with barbarous rulers, we’re a little bewildered by your willingness to trust your rulers yet again with absolute life-and-death power over you and you having no way to protect yourself from them should they restart their democidal behavior, (which, yes, I know, they assure that they won’t — this time))

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’ whim.

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."

Hypogamy · 2018-04-01T01:09:49+00:00

Every one of these kids will get doxxed the anti-gun crowd is at full tilt.

CapnPoot · 2018-04-01T01:25:53+00:00

Thank god someone is standing up for our rights

lacxeht · 2018-04-01T01:54:24+00:00

[deleted]

MagnusVeritas · 2018-04-01T01:25:55+00:00

this shit is crazy

high school kids dont know shit about shit either way, and their liberal teachers cherry picking acceptable causes for them is fucking atrocious.

shut the fuck up and do your math so you are at least mildly functional when you get into the real world

Aguyandamoose · 2018-04-01T11:02:48+00:00

When America, voluntarily, gives up its guns, then the world will be fucked in the anus forever.

Belrick_NZ · 2018-04-01T07:42:52+00:00

For 1000 years working class europeans were owned with no freedoms or rights?

Why?

Because self defense required huge time commitments to train in martial arts. Bandits could steal then train meanwhile farmers had to spend 18hours a day in the feild. No time to train.

Every time there was a peasant revolt thet were slaughtered by knights with their life time of training.

What liberated humanity? The crossbow and later the firearm. A few minutes made anyone deadly.

Fuck these ignorant cunts who would surrender everyone's right to be able to defend themselves from tyranny.

pnwhomebrewer · 2018-04-01T02:37:57+00:00

[deleted]

2018-04-01T05:27:37+00:00

This feels like political infiltration. This is not a sub that takes a side on this. This sub is global.

antaasantoos · 2018-04-01T07:41:21+00:00

I'll never understand this gun debate. It doesn't matter what your stance is, it's too late to change anything. This debate would have made since before the bill of rights, now it's worthless. There are already millions of guns in circulation, what is a ban on guns going to achieve? Does anyone think that all citizens will turn in their guns? Are we going to search every inch of every house and confiscate any guns found?.

What is the fucking point?

Section-20 · 2018-04-01T11:35:39+00:00

[deleted]

RighteousSouljah · 2018-04-01T02:00:09+00:00

Yes!!

mgtow_guy · 2018-04-01T04:33:00+00:00

Meanwhile in Londonistan where stab happy 3rd world savages run wild and every day sees a new acid attack you'll to go jail for even defending yourself with a knife.

This means the only option is to slave harder and buy yourself into an expensive condo with underground parking and a comfy car that gets you from your home to your place of work as a means of protecting yourself from said savages.

You'll never be in a situation where the police is just within shouting distance ready to shoot down people hostile towards you.

2018-04-01T17:48:08+00:00

FINALLY an answer to these pathetic little feminized Generation Snowflake parasites.

Mr_M0t0m0 · 2018-04-01T17:23:03+00:00

Someone give those boys in Florida medals!

OldTimeyENT · 2018-04-01T20:01:32+00:00

If this is legit then I stand with those kickass kids.

ShrunkenHed · 2018-04-01T04:02:03+00:00

That's it, boys. Doing it right.

Not expressing faux outrage at a boogeyman cause just for some attention. It's relevant and important.

RadicalAsceticMonk · 2018-04-01T07:22:59+00:00

To be fair, I bet that more than one of these boys heard "walk out class" and went with it. I know that I would, I hated high school.

2018-04-01T15:05:49+00:00

Did the students stage the walkout or did their 95% leftist female faculty stage it? I'm guessing on the latter, also, what kid doesn't want to skip class? These kids are being used as pawns and they're too young to know it.

Title	High School Boys Stage Pro-2nd Amendment Walkout
Author	ravenswin
Upvotes	322
Comments	102
Date	April 1, 2018 1:08 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/88n7uw/high_school_boys_stage_pro2nd_amendment_walkout/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/high-school-boys-stage-pro-2nd-amendment-walkout.574933 https://theredarchive.com/post/574933

Comments