• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who Owns You?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm.

Here’s the back story.
I recently encountered a young woman who was totally bent out of shape with a historic district regulatory agency inflicting demands on how she maintained her home.As a very freedom-minded fella, I saw my chance,and pointed out that it was really a question of ownership—who owns your home? You? The regulatory agency? Or, the tourists who would view your home in the historic district?

My point penetrated. She hadn’t thought about it before in those terms or from that angle. We had a great conversation; she was very receptive. But, it was on ownership, not OC.

Later,I realized that the self-ownership angle could really, really penetrate if I could just figure out how to apply it to OC.
I recalled a youtube anti-smoking ad where a young girl signs away her freedom on a narrow strip of paper that then rolls itself into a cigarette. Wow! That angle really strikes home.


So,I got to wondering how to apply self-ownership when asked by a stranger in public why I OC.
The self-defense answer does work—I used it a lot. But, it occurs to me that the self-ownership angle will likely strike home even better.


Just the other day, I was asked by a fella why I OC’d.
I almost forgot that I wanted to try the self-ownership angle. But, I did get it in.Man! You could see the wheels turning on his side. But, it was a little bumpy. Not very polished.


I want to make it even better.
Thus, this thread.

Lets say someone asks me about my OCd gun. If I want to promote the self-ownership point, what do I say next? I’m kinda partial to saying, “Well, its really about self-ownership." This will tend to prompt a question, “???”. Then, I would ask, “For example, who owns you?”

Take it from there fellas. Ideas?
 
Last edited:

FBrinson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
298
Location
Henrico, VA
The purpose of this thread is to request ideas on phrasing and conversational tactics when asked about my OC’d defensive sidearm.

Here’s the back story.
I recently encountered a young woman who was totally bent out of shape with a historic district regulatory agency inflicting demands on how she maintained her home.As a very freedom-minded fella, I saw my chance,and pointed out that it was really a question of ownership—who owns your home? You? The regulatory agency? Or, the tourists who would view your home in the historic district?

My point penetrated. She hadn’t thought about it before in those terms or from that angle. We had a great conversation; she was very receptive. But, it was on ownership, not OC.

Later,I realized that the self-ownership angle could really, really penetrate if I could just figure out how to apply it to OC.
I recalled a youtube anti-smoking ad where a young girl signs away her freedom on a narrow strip of paper that then rolls itself into a cigarette. Wow! That angle really strikes home.


So,I got to wondering how to apply self-ownership when asked by a stranger in public why I OC.
The self-defense answer does work—I used it a lot. But, it occurs to me that the self-ownership angle will likely strike home even better.


Just the other day, I was asked by a fella why I OC’d.
I almost forgot that I wanted to try the self-ownership angle. But, I did get it in.Man! You could see the wheels turning on his side. But, it was a little bumpy. Not very polished.


I want to make it even better.
Thus, this thread.

Lets say someone asks me about my OCd gun. If I want to promote the self-ownership point, what do I say next? I’m kinda partial to saying, “Well, its really about self-ownership." This will tend to prompt a question, “???”. Then, I would ask, “For example, who owns you?”

Take it from there fellas. Ideas?

What did you say?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm not sure I get your point. How do you connect ownership to OC?

That's kinda the core question of this thread.

Here's the awkward version.

I own my car. Therefore, if I get angry with it, I can bust up the mirrors, windshield, and tail-lights. Its my car. I can destroy it if I want.

But, a criminal confronts me, and threatens my body with harm. Now, the only way he can legitimately threaten me with grave bodily injury or death is if he has complete or partial ownership of me. Since I own me, he does not own me. Thus, I am justified in protecting myself by "busting a cap" in him until the threat is ended. Which is just another way of asserting my ownership of myself and exercising that ownership interest.

Part of what I am trying to do is figure out a very fast way of expressing all that as succinctly as possible to people who ask me about my OC'd gun. What I've definitely noticed is that asking the question, "Who owns you?" brings the recipient to a complete stop. It really, really penetrates.

I'm trying to figure out a way to capitalize on that.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I'm not sure that there is a connection. Maybe in some abstract way. Your question maybe just confuses them and they then don't want to look stupid.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm not sure that there is a connection. Maybe in some abstract way. Your question maybe just confuses them and they then don't want to look stupid.

Oh, there is a connection. I'm trying to figure out a fast, succinct way to present it.

If you don't own yourself, then you have no standing to defend yourself. If the state (legitimately) owns you, then the state can legitimately say you cannot defend yourself. You would be their property, not your own.

The same holds true for partial ownership of you. The only way "society" can compel you to turn over some of your produce in the form of taxes is if "society" owns you or owns a part of you. Otherwise, how could "society" demand you use your body to produce value for "society" instead of yourself?

Same for self-defense. The only way "society" could legitimately interfere with you protecting your body is if "society" was the actual owner of you, or at least partial owner of you. That is to say, if "society" owned enough of you that it could legitimately decide to sacrifice you in the interests of "society's" "greater good".
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Except for those who lived there before the historic district was created, everyone there signed an agreement to abide by certain covenants. Just like moving into a neighborhood controlled by a HOA. Those agreements to abide by the covenants are considered voluntary because the documents say you had a chance to read and review the covenants and ask clarifying questions before putting your signature at the bottom.

How many of you really read the legal small print before accepting a computer program? But it's the same thing - by accepting/installing the program you are agreeing to abide by all the mumbo-jumbo contained therein.

Perhaps a better way of looking at the ownership question s it relates to OC/CC/Self Defense is to look at what, if any covenants are involved.

CC is easy - read the laws about who can get a permission slip and where you can/cannot employ it.

OC and Self Defense are a bit more difficult because, as I see things, the covenants are not what you agreed to but what what TPTB have told you they will and will not do. The most often cited is the 5 (count them - five (5)) different SCOTUS rulings that the police have not duty or obligation to protect you except in certain vary narrow and precise circumstances. Having been left out on your own, what options are open to you and which ones do you want to exercise? (Even if I could carry a policeman on my back, he has no duty or obligation to protect me. Lemme see here - 185 pounds on my back or maybe a little over 2 pounds on my hip? And even if I carried a cop on my back and put him down when it came time to defend myself I cannot use him for either concealment or cover. Decisions, decisions.)

In short, the covenant is that you are on your own - how do you want to handle that?

stay safe.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Except for those who lived there before the historic district was created, everyone there signed an agreement to abide by certain covenants. Just like moving into a neighborhood controlled by a HOA. Those agreements to abide by the covenants are considered voluntary because the documents say you had a chance to read and review the covenants and ask clarifying questions before putting your signature at the bottom.

How many of you really read the legal small print before accepting a computer program? But it's the same thing - by accepting/installing the program you are agreeing to abide by all the mumbo-jumbo contained therein.

Perhaps a better way of looking at the ownership question s it relates to OC/CC/Self Defense is to look at what, if any covenants are involved.

CC is easy - read the laws about who can get a permission slip and where you can/cannot employ it.

OC and Self Defense are a bit more difficult because, as I see things, the covenants are not what you agreed to but what what TPTB have told you they will and will not do. The most often cited is the 5 (count them - five (5)) different SCOTUS rulings that the police have not duty or obligation to protect you except in certain vary narrow and precise circumstances. Having been left out on your own, what options are open to you and which ones do you want to exercise? (Even if I could carry a policeman on my back, he has no duty or obligation to protect me. Lemme see here - 185 pounds on my back or maybe a little over 2 pounds on my hip? And even if I carried a cop on my back and put him down when it came time to defend myself I cannot use him for either concealment or cover. Decisions, decisions.)

In short, the covenant is that you are on your own - how do you want to handle that?

stay safe.

Thats a convoluted way to try to meld in socialistic social contract theory into a discussion about rights.

The consitutions of the colonies never granted them the right of self rule.....the king wouldn't have let them form the colonies otherwise.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I'm not sure that there is a connection. Maybe in some abstract way. Your question maybe just confuses them and they then don't want to look stupid.

It is the connection for all rights. All rights are property rights, property rights originate within ownership of ourselves.

I used to say all the time when asked why I OC. Because I can. Why can I? Because I own myself.

The problem many have with pursuing this line of thought is they want to continue the is Nightmare mentioned, the is has become a sliding scale of slavery. The ought which is our goal and which our rights originate from is self ownership no one else owns you. The ought should be the is and the only way to get this to happen is discussion about it, otherwise the is will continue to ramp up the scale of slavery, were others tell us what to do with our property, for example you can't carry a gun or you need permission to do so.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I like the angle. Unfortunately the premise is flawed as no one owns themselves. We are the property of the Collective.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... The traditional argument has been that we are indeed all of our brother's keepers ("No man is an island."). ....
BS!! Not to you specifically, but to the notion that "no man is a island" generally.

https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html

I prefer to form the premise as "No man wants to be a island if he can avoid it."

Self reliance does not mandate solitude, but it does mandate a singular focus on self...and sometimes making the though choice to rely only on yourself.

I am owned by no one, I am controlled by those whom I grant control to, even if that control is to keep breathing cuz da man wants my property as tribute unto Caesar...or else.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Thats a convoluted way to try to meld in socialistic social contract theory into a discussion about rights.

The consitutions of the colonies never granted them the right of self rule.....the king wouldn't have let them form the colonies otherwise.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1600-1650/the-third-virginia-charter-1612.php

See where self rule fitted in there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_colony

New England colonies had ruleswithin their charters under which they were to be governed but the colonies still had "home rule".

http://www.landofthebrave.info/royal-colonies.htm

The royal colonies - although the administrative officers were appointed by the king they all had a representative assembly that was elected by the people. Check the pre-revolutionary histories for the times the royal governor and/or his minions were tossed out of office and the king replaced them as opposed to sending the military to reseat them.

http://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html

Do you read anything about any of the colonies having a "constitution"? Didn't think so.

stay safe.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I like the angle. Unfortunately the premise is flawed as no one owns themselves. We are the property of the Collective.

lol
---------------------------------
One of the most simple arguments establishing self-ownership was simple to deny self-ownership necessarily means that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you. While you might occasionally run into someone that might try to argue that, most people will readily accept (as common sense, or self-evident, or whatever) that no other person has a higher claim to their life than them.

I think self-defense is ultimately based on self-ownership. That might be one reason self-defense is so readily accepted as justification by reasonable people - they understand, even if they haven't articulated it, that people own themselves and so self-defense makes sense even if they can't explain why.

If you do not own yourself, you arguably may not have any right to defend yourself.

It is axiomatic that no one has a higher claim to your life than you. Additionally it is your personal responsibility to defend your life from aggression - you have no claim to demand of others that they provide you with that protection or defense. As long as you don't aggress on others in doing so, you most certainly have a right to acquire property, and seeing as defense of your own life is your own responsibility, it is wise to acquire property that might be used to defend yourself against aggression, or deter aggression from occurring in the first place.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Plymouth Plantation was not a colony within the meaning being used here. It was a bunch of lost upstarts who appropriated land belonging to the king who decided having them on this side of the pond was better than arresting them for trespass.

Connecticut's Fundamental Orders having features similar to a constitution does not make it a constitution.

"A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed." All well and good except the colonies were either owner by mercantile associations who received a grant from the king or by the crown outright.

I understand - I think - where you are trying to go. But you can't get there from this argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument .

stay safe.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1600-1650/the-third-virginia-charter-1612.php

See where self rule fitted in there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_colony

New England colonies had ruleswithin their charters under which they were to be governed but the colonies still had "home rule".

http://www.landofthebrave.info/royal-colonies.htm

The royal colonies - although the administrative officers were appointed by the king they all had a representative assembly that was elected by the people. Check the pre-revolutionary histories for the times the royal governor and/or his minions were tossed out of office and the king replaced them as opposed to sending the military to reseat them.

http://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html

Do you read anything about any of the colonies having a "constitution"? Didn't think so.

stay safe.

Sure if you want to narrowly define the word constitution.

They did indeed have a constitution, its one reason they rebelled.

It is interesting though that you rant on about semantics instead of countering or rebutting the actual post.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Plymouth Plantation was not a colony within the meaning being used here. It was a bunch of lost upstarts who appropriated land belonging to the king who decided having them on this side of the pond was better than arresting them for trespass.

Connecticut's Fundamental Orders having features similar to a constitution does not make it a constitution.

"A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed." All well and good except the colonies were either owner by mercantile associations who received a grant from the king or by the crown outright.

I understand - I think - where you are trying to go. But you can't get there from this argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument .

stay safe.

Actually you are the one who isn't following the logic of the argument by definition fallacy (which you show a definition here that fits the one used by others).

It matters not whether it was a constitution or a charter or a white rabbit with blood written on it. Did they have the prior agreement to self ownership from the king? Hence having true self rule? NO they did not. If their fellow british citizens followed the british constitution and rights of Englishmen a revolution probably never would have occurred.


It was also only as so many individuals, each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights, that they revolutionized the constitutional character of their local governments, (so as to exclude the idea of allegiance to Great Britain); changing their forms only as and when their convenience dictated.
The whole Revolution, therefore, as a Revolution, was declared and accomplished by the people, acting separately as individuals, and exercising each his natural rights, and not by their governments in the exercise of their constitutional powers.- Lysander Spooner

I was using it the same way Lysander Spooner was using it the same way the dictionary defines it..........
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
lol
---------------------------------
One of the most simple arguments establishing self-ownership was simple to deny self-ownership necessarily means that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you. While you might occasionally run into someone that might try to argue that, most people will readily accept (as common sense, or self-evident, or whatever) that no other person has a higher claim to their life than them.

I think self-defense is ultimately based on self-ownership. That might be one reason self-defense is so readily accepted as justification by reasonable people - they understand, even if they haven't articulated it, that people own themselves and so self-defense makes sense even if they can't explain why.

If you do not own yourself, you arguably may not have any right to defend yourself.

It is axiomatic that no one has a higher claim to your life than you. Additionally it is your personal responsibility to defend your life from aggression - you have no claim to demand of others that they provide you with that protection or defense. As long as you don't aggress on others in doing so, you most certainly have a right to acquire property, and seeing as defense of your own life is your own responsibility, it is wise to acquire property that might be used to defend yourself against aggression, or deter aggression from occurring in the first place.

The claim is unfortunately not very rare even though it is axiomatic. People are not making the connections and are falling for the "collective" philosophy.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I agree that many probably fail to consciously make the connection, which is one reason I like Citizen's idea. It is an opportunity to draw that connection and get them to think about self-ownership. Once they start thinking about self-ownership they will likely realize it serves as a foundation to countless other liberties, some that are regularly infringed and some they enjoy every day but never thought about.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
citizen, et al., if you have expended more than 30-60 seconds in this type of discussion you propose to have with JQPublic, they are over the conversation since you have exceeded their attention span.

this coupled with the fact your discussion is esoteric, the timeframe JQPublic will expend on said conversation, is at best < 30 sec since you have exceeded their capability to even begin to understand!

further conversation will make JQPublic angry as they sense you are showing them how stupid they are so JQPublic will get defensive and off we go into debate mode...

ipse

(nightmare ~ speaking from my metaphysically position, of course...)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top