3 Boxes of B.S.

Sorry I'm not here to greet you but don't you know I moved my blog over to WordPress?

My new site is :

Http://www.3boxesofbs.com

Please visit me there

Over on my new site ---http://3boxesofbs.com, I have a follow up to the scriptural basis for self defense.


Thanks for checking in here and if you haven't, please update your bookmarks or blog roll.

That is the title of my new post at Wordpress -- Tell me again.

If you haven't updated your blogroll or bookmarks, please do so and then come read.

It's time for the move....please check out the new digs.

I've tried to start off right, we will continue the discussion of Freedom from Fear

And first thing Monday morning, I'll have a post up about "The Bible and Self Defense"

Please update your blogrolls and bookmarks to the new site : http://3boxesofbs.com

This is a new Wordpress Blog created by my son as a late father's day present. He also created and paid for my own domain name.

Thanks TR, it is a great gift for a son to give to a father.

I would like to talk about an absolutely ludicrous notion that I've heard several times at different places, mostly in discussion with pro-ignorance, anti-freedom people about firearms.

The concept is they have a RIGHT to be free of fear.

Let's get some definitions established

Right - Freedom, immunity, power, or privilege, due to one by agreement, birth, claim, guaranty, or by the application of legal, moral, or natural principles.
(as a side note, just trying to define a "right" is worthy of it's own post)

Fear -

Do people have a right to be free of fear, the answer may surprise you, but I say YES.

Now it is not a Constitutionally protected right, like the Right to Free Speech or to Keep and bear arms.
Nor is it an unlimited right, this right is definitely limited. First it is limited by the nature of the problem. It is not practical to remove all the things people fear from the world, it simply can not be done. Some people fear the dark, yet under no technology can we banish the dark. Nor would it be wise since the natural cycle of life requires dark.
Those who suffer from one fear probably suffer from others -- explains much about those who fear inanimate objects...wonder if they also have Ablutophobia : Fear of washing or bathing. How do we determine who fears what, where they live in relation to those things they fear. The logistical nightmare of trying to implement this concept of freedom of fear would require massive government intervention and bureaucracy -- which should tell you why the United Nations includes it as one of their human rights. According to research, at some time in their life 11% of the world's populatoin will suffer from phobias....not just fear -- most extensive list I could find has 417 listed, the world would be paralyzed if we tried to get rid of things people fear.

If the practical and logistical challenges are so daunting, why shouldn't I end the conversation here? Well, there are some other issues to consider. Let's look at the first part of the phrase - a right to be free of fear.

Do people really have a right to be free of fear, is this an actual right? That depends on how you define rights. I was intrigued to see so many definitions of the word. The most common definitions in dictionaries do not even include the meaning as I show it above.

I say that the only portion of that definition that applies in this case is due to birth. Just being alive gives a person the right to be free of fear....but it is an oh so limited right. If someone is afraid of beards (I happen to have one-full disclosure), they have no authority or power to require me to remove mine. The person who fears beards can not grow one or request their spouse not to grow one. But nothing in the legal, moral or ethical code in the world grants that person the authority to enforce their wishes on a single other person.

A person's right to be free of fear was not listed in the Constitution as a right as the right to keep and bear arms was thus the government has no power, no authority to take actions for the benefit of individuals. Now as a nation as a whole, there are things we fear - war, famine, pestilence, etc and the government is required to take action. I'm not sure how to fully explain the difference other except this way -- the government can and should act only on those issues that the vast overwhelming majority of the people properly are concerned about.

Actions needed to remove the fears and phobias individuals have do not trump my constitutionally protected liberties. PERIOD.

My wife is afraid of snakes but that fear gives her no authority do demand that anyone else does not keep a snake in their house or apartment. What it does give her the authority to do is take reasonable and legal precautions to avoid what she fears. We've put out snake away products, we remove from OUR property places where snakes may want to inhabit, we plant flowers & plants that are known to help repel snakes.

Let's go back to the definition of fear -A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.


The mere presence of a firearm does not endanger an imminence of danger either, the firearm is an inanimate object. It by itself can perform no action. This view that firearms by themselves do not create a public disturbance or danger has been confirmed by court cases.

This is why the people who fear firearms or the people who carry them do not have the authority to limit my carrying them....I do nothing to endanger an imminence of danger. NOTHING.

And that should be the end of the story....but it won't stop the attacks on our right to keep and bear arms.

(by the way, this will probably be the last new post at Blogger. I'm going to try to port everything over to the WordPress site and domain my son has provided for me today.)

Please join the discussion

Okay, time again for me to admit how I'm doing -- better but still not a sharpshooter

First off, lessons learned from today -- DON'T go to the range in the Texas Summer without a taking water with you. I might have burnt up more .22 if I hadn't been completely parched.

Ok, that's out of the way. Let's see how I did. I started with my Teas Father In Law's Buckmark 22. If I haven't mentioned how great my in laws are, let me do so now. TX FIL has allowed his Buckmark to reside over here for several months and is willing to let me keep it for a while longer.... I have great in laws.

I was single for a very long time (until I was 39) so I'm very aware how the media portrays men.

Here is an example of the bias in today's media.

Idaho Babysitter Accused of Having Sex With 14-Year-Old

KXLY-TV reported Tuesday that 28-year-old Summer Nelson, of Post Falls, was charged Monday with four counts of lewd conduct with a child.

Court records say Nelson was a friend of the boy's mother. Police say the abuse was reported in December 2008, after the boy's mother grew suspicious of Nelson's attention toward the boy.

Investigators say Nelson told the boy's siblings that she was in love with their brother. Detectives say Nelson and the boy had at least four sexual encounters.

Now, imagine if the sexes had been reversed, what do you think the headlines would have been?

What charges would a man be brought up on if 4 times he had sex with a 14 year old female? Do you really think it would have been "lewd conduct"?

Go back and review all the publicity surrounding the female teachers having sex with their male students...then look at male teachers. See the difference?

What do you think? Is there a bias in the media, in the general population?

Please join the discussion