# I'm as pro-gun as anyone.



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I keep hearing people say it's a God Given Constitutional Right to own and possess a gun. 

Obviously, I understand the constitution part, but where does the God given part come into play? :watching:

Are there "other rights" that God has given us that I'm not aware of?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

paratrooper:
We are endowed by our "creator" with certain unalienable rights. Whom might our creator be? I don't think that the founders were referring to our mothers or fathers. Otherwise they would have stated we are endowed by our mothers and fathers with certain unalienable rights. At least that's the way I understand it as to the origin of the "Bill of Rights". Whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

It is important to realize that we are born with certain rights. They are not granted to us by the government. If that were the case, then what the government grants us the government can take away. Since these rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator (and YES that would be GOD we're talking about) then the government has no authority to take those rights away from us.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The B.O.R. Is to stop the gov't from trying to stop us from exercising out "natural" rights as Dr. Larry Arnn would say.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

paratrooper said:


> I keep hearing people say it's a God Given Constitutional Right to own and possess a gun.
> 
> Obviously, I understand the constitution part, but where does the God given part come into play? :watching:
> 
> Are there "other rights" that God has given us that I'm not aware of?


I believe that God Given Constitutional is an oxymoron. God Given stands alone without any further embellishment. My right to breath and be is God Given. My right to protect my breathing and being is God Given. The Constitution recognizes that some things are outside it's purview and are off limits. Only a meddlesome government idiot would believe that the Constitutional moniker would add anything to that which is already sovereign.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't believe we HAVE any "Rights" except those granted by the society we live in. There is on such thing as a Right unless it is recognised by others - therefore we have no individual rights, merely conventions tenuously guaranteed by the law-abiding members of our society. The non-law-abiding ones couldn't give a flying monkey about them. 

What may be a right in the US may not be in China. Different society, different rights. I don't have a right to own a gun, except as it is defined in the laws and ethics of the US. Most other countries do not share that in the same form. Hence, not a Right - certainly not God-Given.

Of course, I'm a Leftie, so Rights are a bit strange over here anyway.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> I don't believe we HAVE any "Rights" except those granted by the society we live in. There is on such thing as a Right unless it is recognised by others - therefore we have no individual rights, merely conventions tenuously guaranteed by the law-abiding members of our society. The non-law-abiding ones couldn't give a flying monkey about them.
> 
> What may be a right in the US may not be in China. Different society, different rights. I don't have a right to own a gun, except as it is defined in the laws and ethics of the US. Most other countries do not share that in the same form. Hence, not a Right - certainly not God-Given.
> 
> Of course, I'm a Leftie, so Rights are a bit strange over here anyway.


Wow! If you're even remotely serious, you are a caricature of everything I've ever feared, despised, and fought against. :smt1099


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

This is always an interesting conversation. It kind of depends on where you thing rights come from. I would contend that most conservatives believe that certain rights are based on natural law. I believe that belief in natural law must lead to belief in a deity. God, Allah, Kali... This natural law needs to come from somewhere. As someone who believes there is a god, but couldn't completely define god well enough to pick the right church, synagog, mosque each weekend, I am not sure what the natural laws are.

What we see through history, is that societies were we have religious and personal freedom, including possession of weapons by the general population, are better for the citizens of those societies and for their neighbors.

I think that rights are something we establish societies to protect. If the society starts to infringe on those rights, it's time to change the society. I am a big fan of the Article 5 process to put the Federal government back in their box.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

If anyone has a list of those God given rights ensured to us, I'd like to see it.

And, if for some reason we have a complaint, who do we speak to?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> Wow! If you're even remotely serious, you are a caricature of everything I've ever feared, despised, and fought against. :smt1099


And if YOU'RE even remotely serious, I take that as high praise. 

Where do you think "rights" originate from, if not the society they define?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> I don't believe we HAVE any "Rights" except those granted by the society we live in. There is on such thing as a Right unless it is recognised by others - therefore we have no individual rights, merely conventions tenuously guaranteed by the law-abiding members of our society. The non-law-abiding ones couldn't give a flying monkey about them.
> 
> What may be a right in the US may not be in China. Different society, different rights. I don't have a right to own a gun, except as it is defined in the laws and ethics of the US. Most other countries do not share that in the same form. Hence, not a Right - certainly not God-Given.
> 
> Of course, I'm a Leftie, so Rights are a bit strange over here anyway.


At the risk of being flamed by others, I do tend to see the angle which you are attempting to present.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
The United States of America was established as a "Constitutional Republic" not a "Democracy". While establishing the foundation of a new fledgling nation. The founders of this country determined that there was no higher authority other than our "creator". They established that it was our "creator" who granted us those rights, not by mortal man. Only our "creator" can revoke those rights, not any elected government, government officials or society as you say. They had to set up a body of laws "The Bill of Rights" to prevent the government from enslaving its people. Regardless of which political party is in power. That is why they fought and won a revolution from your home country. All government officials take an oath and are sworn to uphold those laws "so help them God". Whether you believe it was God given or Martian given is irrelevant as are the laws in China or any other country for that matter. As an American citizen you do indeed have those rights as specified in our "Constitution" under the "Bill of Rights". Whether you personally believe it is a right or not, God given or otherwise. It really doesn't matter whether they are recognized by others. If that were the case we would have nothing but chaos, anarchy and an out of control government that could do whatever it wishes without any repercussions. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's Communist China etc. are only a few examples of what can happen when "others" do not recognize or accept our "God given rights". Who is to determine who or what is law abiding? The followers of Hitler were considered "law abiding" as they were carrying out the laws and wishes of their established government. I'm hoping that even a "Leftie" could understand this.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

TurboHonda:


> Wow! If you're even remotely serious, you are a caricature of everything I've ever feared, despised, and fought against.


You and me both brother!


----------



## Tip (Aug 22, 2012)

TurboHonda said:


> I believe that God Given Constitutional is an oxymoron. God Given stands alone without any further embellishment. My right to breath and be is God Given. My right to protect my breathing and being is God Given. The Constitution recognizes that some things are outside it's purview and are off limits. Only a meddlesome government idiot would believe that the Constitutional moniker would add anything to that which is already sovereign.


Question: do you believe in corporal punishment?

So if one sufficiently violates society's morals and laws does God take back the God Given right to breath? 
Or does He somehow abdicate and surrender his powers to someone/something else?
Or would you assert that one surrenders that God Given right to breath - but would not that make man more powerful than God since he has the power to go against what God has given?

A difficult conundrum is it not?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Tip:
There's a big difference between the laws that were established to constrain governments "Bill of Rights" and the laws that are designed to punish criminal behavior. Every civilized society has to have laws to protect the innocent while punishing the guilty. Those laws have varying degrees of punishment depending on the types of crimes committed. Nothing is ever mentioned in the "Bill of Rights" or in the preamble of the "Declaration of Independence" that we are endowed by our "creator" to commit crimes against innocent people. We as a people have to abide by the laws that were put forth by the founders of this nation. It is why we are still the greatest country in the world. God or no God.


----------



## Tip (Aug 22, 2012)

So then, in a nutshell, the inalienable rights to life and liberty, granted by our "creator", are able to be overridden by society's "laws to protect the innocent"?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> The United States of America was established as a "Constitutional Republic" not a "Democracy". While establishing the foundation of a new fledgling nation. The founders of this country determined that there was no higher authority other than our "creator". They established that it was our "creator" who granted us those rights, not by mortal man. Only our "creator" can revoke those rights, not any elected government, government officials or society as you say. They had to set up a body of laws "The Bill of Rights" to prevent the government from enslaving its people. Regardless of which political party is in power. That is why they fought and won a revolution from your home country. All government officials take an oath and are sworn to uphold those laws "so help them God". Whether you believe it was God given or Martian given is irrelevant as are the laws in China or any other country for that matter. As an American citizen you do indeed have those rights as specified in our "Constitution" under the "Bill of Rights". Whether you personally believe it is a right or not, God given or otherwise. It really doesn't matter whether they are recognized by others. If that were the case we would have nothing but chaos, anarchy and an out of control government that could do whatever it wishes without any repercussions. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's Communist China etc. are only a few examples of what can happen when "others" do not recognize or accept our "God given rights". Who is to determine who or what is law abiding? The followers of Hitler were considered "law abiding" as they were carrying out the laws and wishes of their established government. I'm hoping that even a "Leftie" could understand this.


If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you will see that you just proved my point. Rights are defined by the society that makes them, not anyone else. You have right to own a gun - the Brits don't. On the other hand, they have a right to start drinking at 18. You don't.

This is not rocket science.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> I don't believe we HAVE any "Rights" except those granted by the society we live in. There is on such thing as a Right unless it is recognised by others - therefore we have no individual rights, merely conventions tenuously guaranteed by the law-abiding members of our society. The non-law-abiding ones couldn't give a flying monkey about them.
> 
> What may be a right in the US may not be in China. Different society, different rights. I don't have a right to own a gun, except as it is defined in the laws and ethics of the US. Most other countries do not share that in the same form. Hence, not a Right - certainly not God-Given.
> 
> Of course, I'm a Leftie, so Rights are a bit strange over here anyway.


What you are calling rights as granted by a society in which one lives are not rights at all. They are privileges, authority, or power or any combination thereof. Natural rights are those one is born with. The example in question in this thread is the right to keep and bear arms but what that right springs from is our natural right of self-defense. To be sure, we have other rights as well. Speech, freedom, the harvesting of food, and so on. Once again, think natural rights with this.

The Bill of Rights merely recognizes specific rights which the Founders considered to be fundamental to individual liberty and a free people. But it doesn't end there (see amendment #10).

Another way of looking at this is human instinct which we all have from birth. As we develop so does our ability to satisfy these instincts (I'm not talking about procreation with this as I am hoping to stay on topic).

The only thing societies do is diminish rights; they rarely fully protection them. And they do this because their natural instinct is to grow and to eventually swallow up the governed.

We can say our fundamental rights come from God or nature or simply part of the human condition. The Founders preferred referencing God in all of this as their writings show. So as this applies to arms, those are extensions of our defensive abilities much like the teeth and claws of a lion or a wolf. Since we lack the strength of these animals, we are left with our brains and our ability to fashion arms to serve as our teeth and claws.

Governments, societies if you prefer, cannot grant rights as I previously mentioned. They can only infringe upon them. Best we all know these things lest we lose that which was purchased with the blood and treasure of men greater than ourselves 233 years ago.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
I don't think you understand the context of what I wrote. Please read it again. Society's attitudes and governments can change, sometimes not for the better. That's why we have unalienable rights that have been endowed by our "creator". So that our government or any future governments could not supersede those rights. You are correct in a sense that they were designed by the society that made them back then. Like it or not they are the foundation of our Republic. However they are still unalienable rights that have been endowed by our "creator" for both society back then, society today and any future society. If the United States is to remain a free country as it is today. The rights of the Brits and the rights of Americans are two different things that have no bearing on one another. We are two separate countries. You are also correct, "this is not rocket science".


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy:


> Governments, societies if you prefer, cannot grant rights as I previously mentioned. They can only infringe upon them. Best we all know these things lest we lose that which was purchased with the blood and treasure of men greater than ourselves 233 years ago.





> What you are calling rights as granted by a society in which one lives are not rights at all. They are privileges, authority, or power or any combination thereof.


You couldn't have said it any better!


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Question......

If God is our father, where is our mother???


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Tip:


> So then, in a nutshell, the inalienable rights to life and liberty, granted by our "creator", are able to be overridden by society's "laws to protect the innocent"?


The "Bill of Rights" are there to constrain governments and prevent this country from becoming a democracy where the majority rules regardless of "Constitutional Law" of which this country was founded. We are a "Constitutional Republic" and for good reason. The Nazi's were passing laws to protect the Germans from the Jews things like that are what happens in a democracy. Criminals, by committing crimes against the innocent have forfeited many of those rights in the "Bill of Rights" but still retain some. At any rate criminal laws and the "Bill of Rights" are two separate things for entirely different purposes. Why is that so difficult to understand? Did you even read my post? See below.



> There's a big difference between the laws that were established to constrain governments "Bill of Rights" and the laws that are designed to punish criminal behavior. Every civilized society has to have laws to protect the innocent while punishing the guilty. Those laws have varying degrees of punishment depending on the types of crimes committed. Nothing is ever mentioned in the "Bill of Rights" or in the preamble of the "Declaration of Independence" that we are endowed by our "creator" to commit crimes against innocent people. We as a people have to abide by the laws that were put forth by the founders of this nation. It is why we are still the greatest country in the world. God or no God.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Our Founders seem to have used "creator" fairly loosely, since there were several different religions among them, including at least one atheist.

From my readings, I suspect that the "creator" to whom they referred wasn't so much seen by them as a "person," or even a "super-person," so much as rather a concept, used to make the idea of naturally-endowed rights, native to every person at birth, seem to have an origin.
Humans are really quite involved in the concept of "origin," and have always had problems with things like the universe, which seems to have no comprehensible or perceptible origin.

I strongly disagree with SailDesign, that our rights are somehow conferred upon us by the society in which we live. I strongly believe that there are "natural" rights which are conferred upon each of us, not by society, not by a "creator," but merely by the occasion of our birth. (Previous to birth, I strongly believe that one's rights belong solely to the mother who carries one. But that's a slightly different subject.)

While we have certain "natural" rights which transcend society, for instance self-protection and life, it is possible that each of us can be gulled into relinquishing one or more of them.
This abdication of rights may be the result of force, of religion, of cowardice, of credulity, or one or another of a large number of apparent (but not necessarily real) societal forces.
The slavery of Black Africans, here and elsewhere—including in Africa itself, was one of those force-related abdications. (Don't believe me? Read-up on the slave trade at the African end.)

If we permit our society to somehow force us to abdicate our inborn, natural right to, well, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," or armed self-protection for that matter, then it is we who are the fools for having bowed to that really quite ephemeral societal "force."

"Rage, rage, against the dying of the light!" —Dylan Thomas


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

You talk about a "creator" that gave us rights. Even if I DID believe (I don't) I can find nothing in the Bible that says this. Please elaborate.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Question......
> 
> If God is our father, where is our mother???


You walk upon her, the Earth is our Mother.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Our Founders seem to have used "creator" fairly loosely, since there were several different religions among them, including at least one atheist.
> 
> From my readings, I suspect that the "creator" to whom they referred wasn't so much seen by them as a "person," or even a "super-person," so much as rather a concept, used to make the idea of naturally-endowed rights, native to every person at birth, seem to have an origin.
> Humans are really quite involved in the concept of "origin," and have always had problems with things like the universe, which seems to have no comprehensible or perceptible origin.
> ...


Agree totally on the first part re the "creator" used in the founding documents. Also with Humans having problems with things like the Universe. 

Disagree totally on "rights" to life and self-protection. We are but thinking animals. and animals can and do kill each other for food all the time. In the Good Old Days we were in all respects a part of the food chain - and not at the top until we used our heads. Self-protection is an imperative, not a right.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> I strongly disagree with SailDesign, that our rights are somehow conferred upon us by the society in which we live.


Outstanding! Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your entire post. It scares the hell out of me to think that so many would be willing to relinquish their "rights" to any type of government. These same people have a complete lack of understanding of the principles that this nation was founded upon. It bears repeating again that this country is a "Constitutional Republic" and not a "Democracy". This is not some sort of theory or opinion this is a hard cold fact.



> A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, *and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.* In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches *and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. *The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican. *Most notable example of a constitutional republic: The United States of America.*--www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_constitutional_republic


Whether anyone believes in God or not is totally irrelevant. We can not risk losing our "Republic".


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> Self-protection is an imperative, not a right.


It is indeed a "right" it is spelled out in our "Constitution" under the "Bill of Rights". The "*right*" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can dis-agree until the cows come home it is what it is. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable *rights*". There is no mention of certain unalienable imperatives. You can not change our history or founding principles to be what you want it to be.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> It is indeed a "right" it is spelled out in our "Constitution" under the "Bill of Rights". The "*right*" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can dis-agree until the cows come home it is what it is. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable *rights*". There is no mention of certain unalienable imperatives. You can not change our history or founding principles to be what you want it to be.


Ummm.... I thought you disagreed with Gov'ment giving us our rights - and here you are claiming the constitution does just that. :so fcuking confused by the logic:

Self-defence is a zoological imperative - someone attacks, you either fight of flee. THAT is self-preservation. The "right" to keep and bear arms is a societal feature, and is denied to most of the world who do not live in the Good Ol' US of A. Not in our society? Then you don't get our rights.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

An "imperative," translated into practical use, equals a "right." We are born with natural needs, each of which is an "imperative," and each of which is satisfied only if we take the drive toward such satisfaction as a "natural right."

Since I am one of those atheist creatures, I can't discuss the existence—or non-existence—of a "creator," something in which I do not believe.
However, as I wrote previously, I believe that our Founders used the term "creator" very loosely, so as not to seem to "establish" any particular religious philosophy. The word "creator" was included in our founding documents because humans seem to need antecedents, by which to establish the validity of any historical, philosophical, or religious concept.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> It is indeed a "right" it is spelled out in our "Constitution" under the "Bill of Rights". The "*right*" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can dis-agree until the cows come home it is what it is. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable *rights*". There is no mention of certain unalienable imperatives. You can not change our history or founding principles to be what you want it to be.


Desertman: You're wasting time and energy trying to argue semantics with this tool. He is obviously just trying to prolong an indefensible position for his own amusement. He has a history of doing this. Ignore him.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> Desertman: You're wasting time and energy trying to argue semantics with this tool. He is obviously just trying to prolong an indefensible position for his own amusement. He has a history of doing this. Ignore him.


Been a while since I've been called a "Tool" thanks for the memories. Not trying to prolong anything, just arguing the case as I see it. YMMV, and obviously does.

Since my opinion apparently is contrary to the prevailing thought-pool, I'll back out and let you guys get into the inevitable circle-jerk of same-thinking. Enjoy!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

TurboHonda:


> Desertman: You're wasting time and energy trying to argue semantics with this tool. He is obviously just trying to prolong an indefensible position for his own amusement. He has a history of doing this. Ignore him.


Agreed! I give up. He's better off returning to Great Britain and live under the government and system he so adores instead of trying to change ours. Or maybe he's still bitter over the American revolution. I don't know. Such utter nonsense!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> Since I am one of those atheist creatures, I can't discuss the existence-or non-existence-of a "creator," something in which I do not believe.
> However, as I wrote previously, I believe that our Founders used the term "creator" very loosely, so as not to seem to "establish" any particular religious philosophy. The word "creator" was included in our founding documents because humans seem to need antecedents, by which to establish the validity of any historical, philosophical, or religious concept.


I'm neither an atheist or religious I couldn't be bothered with either. Thanks again for another great analogy!


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Um, the firearm was created and developed by um (whoever it was ) to kill from a distance. 
What role does God play ? 
The initial question of the thread is about gun ( firearms )


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

pic said:


> Um, the firearm was created and developed by um (whoever it was ) to kill from a distance.
> What role does God play ?
> The initial question of the thread is about gun ( firearms )


We all have the right to LIFE. It's one of the inalienable rights endowed upon us by our creator (GOD) and recognized in the Constitution. In order for us to protect that right we have by extension the right to self defense. That right is supported by the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (It would not make sense to acknowledge the right to self defense then strip us of the tools to accomplish that) Guns are tools that have been created to make a person capable of self defense against a force which they might not otherwise be physically capable of overcoming.


----------



## CeltKnight (Oct 5, 2014)

Our Founding Fathers used the words "our Creator," apparently avoiding saying "God", "Allah", "Yahweh", "Jehova", "The Goddess", "Bacchus", etc., etc. I always maintained that this could mean the Universe as a whole if one is not religious (I AM religious, but I don't feel the need to ram it down anyone's throat ... neither has anyone else, so bravo there thus far!  ). 

The Constitution of the United Stated does not grant us these rights. The very power of the opening of the Declaration of Independence only states that we, by virtue of being born have "certain inalienable rights" or rights that cannot be taken away or surrendered, and that governments are established by the people for the protection of these rights and that governments have only the powers granted them by their populous (but, again, inalienable rights means no gov't can take them nor can they ever be surrendered). 

Fast forward to the Bill of Rights. In the lead-in to the actual bill, I offer the following quote:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Put in more modern and simpler terms, folks said, "Hey, wait a minute. We tried this limited government thing once before, back in 1066 after that little dustup in Hastings. We found that even with the Magna Carta governments still tend to overreach, for such is their nature that, like fire, they seek to grow ever greater unless strictly contained." Or, you know, words like that. "Further," they said, more-or-less, "people are generally rather like, you know, sheep. We are used to being RULED, not governed. In these new United States, The People ARE the government. We're all riding high and mighty on that, but folks are by and large lazy and want others to make their decisions for them. So, we need to not only protect ourselves and our republic from the possible future over-extensions of a government, but we need to put into place safeguards to protect the people from their own often short-sighed if not, forgive me, lazy natures." Hey, don't blame me, THEY said it! 

So, at the insistence of The People (or you know, the REAL power of this nation) a set of amendments were drafted to our new Constitution to further limit Government and to recognize our rights, those rights endowed to us by virtue of being born, and making them, in the language and intent of the day (language has changed ... unfortunately, though intent has not) firmly inalienable. You'll notice the first two in the order ... 'nuff said there, I reckon. 

So, whether you believe in God, or G*d, or another deity, or a duality of deities, or a whole plethora of deistic beings, OR if you simply believe that we are just a random assemblage of natural stuff and darn lucky to have ever coalesced out of the cosmic dust from which we were born, that's fine and, pardon me, irrelevant. If rather than seizing on a word out of context, you read the documents in their entirety, if you understand the times in which they were written, if you have read the notes and writings of the authors and signers thereof, you will understand they meant, as I've now said probably ad nauseum, you have these rights because you are here, on this world, at this time, in this reality. You have these rights wherever you are, in whatever country you live, and if a government body seeks to override or limit those rights, then they have by definition of their actions, become at least on a limited basis, despotic. The only actual limitation that can be placed upon such a right, is that it may not interfere directly with the same rights of another. No, me having a gun and it scaring you does NOT infringe on your rights. You can leave, learn, or whine and protest (First Amendment!), but not remove MY right. My First Amendment right to Free Speech does NOT allow me to, say, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, subjecting the other patrons to physical danger of their and others' panic, costing the business revenue, and using up civic resources (Fire Dept.) needed elsewhere all for my amusement.

Does that in any way make any sense or clear any of this up?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I want to go back to the concept of "rights conferred upon us by our society."
I want to illustrate my position in this matter by writing about prisoners who have been adjudicated of having committed a serious crime against society.
(The matter of slavery is similar to that of prisoners, by the way. Substitute "slave" for "criminal," in the example below.)

When a member of society commits a serious crime, society, in the form of its legally-constituted police force, hunts him down, captures him, and brings him in for trial and, perhaps, punishment.
The criminal thus loses his natural rights. How can this be? Can someone be deprived of his natural rights?
Is this proof that a person's rights are conferred upon him by society, which can therefore properly, morally, and legally strip him of those rights because the giver can also take away?

I say, "No!" A person can only relinquish his natural rights. They cannot be taken away, because they were never given in the first place.

When society's police is hunting down the criminal, the malefactor retains all of his natural rights. That includes his natural right to armed self-defense.
When the police catch up with him, the criminal has a choice to make: Shall he surrender meekly? Or shall he fight back, probably to his death?
Most asocial and amoral people are, at base, cowards. Thus, most choose to surrender.
When the malefactor surrenders to the police, he does so by voluntarily abdicating his natural rights. Thus, he throws himself upon the mercy of society.
But if he wishes to retain all of his natural rights, he must defend himself, which is best done with arms and ammunition. It is almost certain that, eventually, he will die in a fusillade of police-fired bullets. But until his death, he has retained his natural rights.

Some of the most famous criminals of the 1930s abdicated their rights, and ended up in prison. Some were ambushed by society, and thus unwillingly "died with their boots on." And some—he ones we best remember—fought it out with the cops and retained their rights until their last, dying breath.

The same is true of Black African people sold into slavery by their chieftains, or captured in attacks by Islamic slave traders.
If the potential slaves surrendered, thus abdicating their natural rights, they became slaves.
But if the potential slaves had fought back, even futilely, they would have died free men and women.

The same may eventually be true of all of us. Not just we gun owners, but everybody.
We can abdicate our natural rights, or we can fight—and very likely die—free men and women.

Would you like to live on your knees, or die on your feet?


----------



## CeltKnight (Oct 5, 2014)

Tip said:


> Question: do you believe in corporal punishment?
> 
> So if one sufficiently violates society's morals and laws does God take back the God Given right to breath?
> Or does He somehow abdicate and surrender his powers to someone/something else?
> ...


We have the right to self protection ("Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" ... I'd say that comes largely under "Life").

When someone seeks to violate those we have the right as a society to protect ourselves. Simple human psychology is that we only restrain our actions due to possible negative consequences. We therefore have the right as a society to remove people dangerous to the safe and continuous operation of our society FROM our society. _I_ don't have the right to secure you for years in a prison cell but SOCIETY does, via it's elected judges and appointed jurists and sentencing guidelines written into law by those we employ to do such (our legislators, and no, they do not always get it right thus we must remain vigilant but we as a nation have not).

_I_ DO have the right to injure or even kill another human being when reasonable in order to protect myself, another, or property (don't plan on shooting anyone over a TV, but an armed man in my house is a threat to ME and Mine so ... well, a debate for another time and thread, methinks).

As to the death penalty, we can argue that all day, from a religious standpoint, a non-religious standpoint, an economic standpoint, a social justice standpoint, a sociological standpoint, etc. In the end we shall fall on whatever sides we started out on and not agree. Such is as it is with polarizing topics.

I was going to go on and on (hard to believe with me, I know) but there's my answer, at least, in a nutshell. Good question, by the way.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

SailDesign said:


> You talk about a "creator" that gave us rights. Even if I DID believe (I don't) I can find nothing in the Bible that says this. Please elaborate.


I don't know if you will find "creator" that gave us unalienable rights in the Bible. I assume however you've heard of Thomas Jefferson who got the ball rolling in the Declaration of Independence.

 What Thomas Jefferson Meant by 'Unalienable Rights'


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> I don't know if you will find "creator" that gave us unalienable rights in the Bible. I assume however you've heard of Thomas Jefferson who got the ball rolling in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> What Thomas Jefferson Meant by 'Unalienable Rights'


Initially, Madison was against a Bill of Rights when the topic was broached. He saw no need for this since the new federal constitution already enumerated those things the government was charged with doing and for which they were granted the authority and power by the People for this purpose. He believed that a Bill of Rights was more of a hindrance than a necessity.

Enter George Mason and Patrick Henry who were both adamant that a Bill of Rights was not only necessary but absolute for the protection of the People's natural rights and for the preservation of their future liberty. They convinced Madison of their cause, along with refusing to ratify the new constitution without a Bill of Rights, and thank God they did.

What this tells us is that there were among the Founders, men who so distrusted a central government that they not only desired to constrain it with the chains of the Constitution but also threaten it with the unlimited powers of the states and the People.

Once again, thank God they did this.

By the way, this has been a very good discussion about a very important topic. Hats off to you folks.


----------



## CeltKnight (Oct 5, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ... A person can only relinquish his natural rights. ...They cannot be taken away, because they were never given in the first place.


VERY well put, Sir!

I, however don't think of them as "relinquishing" their rights, but rather simply choosing to not use them. Their rights don't actually go away (believe me ... sometimes the cats in jail/prison seem to have more rights than you and I ... well, except for that whole "privacy" thing).

My difference of view is probably just semantic, but I offer for your consideration: The fleeing criminal in your scenario certainly has the "right" to self defense. If feloniously attacked he can defend himself or defend another from a felonious attack. However when said fleeing felon hath been summonsed by a lawful court or a lawful attempt is being made to apprehend him from the commission of a crime, he does not have to right to resist with physical force, most especially deadly physical force, the efforts of those attempting to secure his arrest. To do so makes him a valid target for the officers of the law and court to excercise THEIR right to self defense. If he had the right to shoot the police to avoid capture, and the police then had the right to shoot him to stop from being shot, and he then had the right to shoot them to keep them from shooting him for shooting at them ... it's a "Best Man Wins" or a "They with the most bullets win" scenario, or at least, with respects, seems so to me. That actually sounds ... well, darn it, it sounds like a passable way to do things (very Old Western sounding) and certainly puts the blame and repercussions directly upon the shoulders of whomever is acting in an egregious fashion.

Anyway, again, well said, well put, and except for my mostly semantic difference, I agree! :smt023


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

...Please remember that I am rabidly anti-semantic. :yawinkle:


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

CeltKnight said:


> <huge f'ing snippage!>
> 
> Does that in any way make any sense or clear any of this up?


Not really.


----------



## Tip (Aug 22, 2012)

Yep - we have certain rights granted by our creator who no one, not even society, can take away ... except that society can force us to "relinquish" them under certain conditions. 
Right?


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Do all the countries in the world have this same right to life from our creator?
:smt017


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

We started off with sticks and stones to defend ourselves , obviously granted from our creator as read above.
Where does nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc. Come into play as a weapon of self defense ,,, granted to mankind in regards to right to life by our creator.
We have advanced since the bible, bill of rights. 
And who are we to deny any country their God given right to defend themselves..
Every country should possess an arsenal equal to an aggressor to maintain their creators God given right to life??


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

pic said:


> Do all the countries in the world have this same right to life from our creator?
> :smt017


No, not all countries, but some countries attempt to emulate the U.S. with a similar constitution or bill of rights, but as we all know this country is indeed unique and it's populace must be of morals or the constitution will fail according to John Adams(too many freedoms for an unmoral society). So in other words at present our constitution wouldn't work in dictatorships such as Fidel's Cuba, Putin's Russia, Socialist China, Monarchy's such as Saudi Arabia, Feinstein's California or pure Communist states such as North Korea to name a few. .:smt1099


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

denner said:


> No, not all countries, but some countries attempt to emulate the U.S. with a similar constitution or bill of rights, but as we all know this country is indeed unique and it's populace must be of morals or the constitution will fail according to John Adams(too many freedoms for an unmoral society). So in other words at present our constitution wouldn't work in dictatorships such as Fidel's Cuba, Putin's Russia, Socialist China, Monarchy's such as Saudi Arabia, Feinstein's California or pure Communist states such as North Korea to name a few. .:smt1099


Must. Behave. Myself. Here......


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

There are two competing, mainstream philosophies.
One is based upon Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism.
The other is republican in form, but has no philosophical name other than "Capitalism."

Our political system is based upon the other, republican-capitalist philosophy.
All of the socialistic, communistic, paternalistic, welfare systems are based upon Bentham's Utilitarianism.

I've always seen a proof of the success of our system, versus Utilitarianism, in the fact that Utilitarianist systems "dress up" their societies with a Constitution that mimics ours, but is essentially rendered meaningless by the way that their governments actually operate.

Utilitarianism takes away the natural rights of the people, in order to deliver "the greatest good for the greater number."
To do that, the government has to be the strongest force in the society. Central planning is a necessity. Dissent cannot be tolerated.
Subjects of a Utilitarian government must be convinced to abdicate those natural rights with which we are endowed at birth, in favor of only the rights granted to them by their government. The _quid pro quo_ is that the government promises to deliver reasonable comfort, reasonable security, and reasonable health to the people.
We have already seen how "well" this works. And yet, there are people who still say, "Yes, but were I the one in charge, the system would work properly."

Optimism breeds illusion.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

CeltKnight:
Thank you for submitting such articulate posts. It's a shame that there are so many people that refuse to understand or accept it. May God save our Republic!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Pic:


> Do all the countries in the world have this same right to life from our creator?


Obviously they don't, if they did there probably wouldn't have been a Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, Stalinist Russia and too many others to list. However the subject is the United States of America and the principles it was founded on. At any rate it really doesn't matter what type of system other countries have or what their beliefs are. These are not the same beliefs or system of government that we have. So why bring it up?


> And who are we to deny any country their God given right to defend themselves..


There's a difference between defending themselves and starting world wars, committing genocide and committing terrorist acts throughout the world. I guess you'd be okay with allowing any nation or groups who's only goal is to maim and slaughter those who do not conform to their beliefs to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Here at home we can just arm all of the criminals in the United States and let them all out of jail. It's the same thing. Every civilized nation has to have laws to punish criminal behavior and those that do commit criminal acts have forfeited many of their "God given" rights. I'll bet that even "God" would be okay with that.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> Optimism breeds illusion.


Another great post!


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> Pic:
> 
> Obviously they don't, if they did there probably wouldn't have been a Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, Stalinist Russia and too many others to list. However the subject is the United States of America and the principles it was founded on. At any rate it really doesn't matter what type of system other countries have or what their beliefs are. These are not the same beliefs or system of government that we have. So why bring it up?
> 
> There's a difference between defending themselves and starting world wars, committing genocide and committing terrorist acts throughout the world. I guess you'd be okay with allowing any nation or groups who's only goal is to maim and slaughter those who do not conform to their beliefs to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Here at home we can just arm all of the criminals in the United States and let them all out of jail. It's the same thing. Every civilized nation has to have laws to punish criminal behavior and those that do commit criminal acts have forfeited many of their "God given" rights. I'll bet that even "God" would be okay with that.


I knew God was only on our side. Thanks, what a relief . 
:smt1099


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I think it was a Frenchmen named Voltaireue who Said
"that if God did not exist, we should invent one"
But he believed in God, but was punished for his words that did not agree with certain people.
Politics, Religion, make a good conversation . Hostile attitudes will soon show up. 
Restraint is hard.
I personally appreciate and respect everybody's opinions.
I would like to thank paratrooper for another great thread starter. :buttkick:
Just kidding about the buttkick,lol.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic:


> I knew God was only on our side. Thanks, what a relief .


I'm not trying to imply that the United States never did anything wrong. Many people and nations have done terrible things in the name of "God" or religion. The blame can be put squarely on the people who have their heads buried in the sand and have allowed their governments, sometimes intentionally or in this case our government to go beyond which it was initially intended. Such as we see happening today with this lawless administration. The issue here is "rights" endowed to us by our "creator" and the reasoning behind that. Not religious wars, beliefs or foreign systems of government and their religious beliefs. The United States of America overall is a force for good as long as we adhere to the principles that it was founded on. Sadly there have been administrations who have veered from that. It's up to us through forums such as this, letters to our newspapers, contacting politicians or what ever means we have at our disposal to convince others. Otherwise we will have lost our "Republic".


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pic said:


> ...I would like to thank paratrooper for another great thread starter...


Yeah. I should've told him that, too.
So: +1


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Yeah. I should've told him that, too.
> So: +1


It's the least I can do for all of the great people of this forum. :mrgreen:


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Yeah. I should've told him that, too.
> So: +1


Yes me +2, I just wonder if paratrooper got the answers he was looking for?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

denner said:


> Yes me +2, I just wonder if paratrooper got the answers he was looking for?


Yes and no. :watching:


----------



## sprale (Apr 4, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> I keep hearing people say it's a God Given Constitutional Right to own and possess a gun.
> 
> Obviously, I understand the constitution part, but where does the God given part come into play? :watching:
> 
> Are there "other rights" that God has given us that I'm not aware of?


You mean that the idea that something gave you rights, rather than owning responsibility for expressing those rights, doesn't make sense? What part of imaginary mythology did you miss?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

sprale said:


> You mean that the idea that something gave you rights, rather than owning responsibility for expressing those rights, doesn't make sense? What part of imaginary mythology did you miss?


It's no real secret that I don't believe in a God (of any kind). Never have since young, and I don't see myself changing any as I get older.

I'm not a real big fan of politics either, and do what I need to do to stay out of it. As far as I'm concerned, both topics are a boat-load of BS.

The phrase "God given right to own a firearm" was amazing to me, and that someone would even say it. When it comes to the bible, I know nothing about it. But, I'd be shocked if owning a firearm, was indeed addressed somewhere in it.

Maybe I'm just over-simplifying all this to some degree or another. After all, we are just talking mythology......right?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

sprale said:


> You mean that the idea that something gave you rights, rather than owning responsibility for expressing those rights, doesn't make sense? What part of imaginary mythology did you miss?


You're new here.
We're having a polite conversation. Well, _mostly_ polite, anyway.
Please don't be snarky.

I may have to ask my imaginary friend to smite you. :mrgreen:


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

For those that believe in a higher power/God, etc., self defense would be a given right.... However for the believers there were no guns when all was made...... Just saying.......

*"What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right."
*
--Howard Cosell


----------



## OldManMontgomery (Nov 2, 2013)

*The Declaration of Independence*



paratrooper said:


> It's no real secret that I don't believe in a God (of any kind). Never have since young, and I don't see myself changing any as I get older.


Okay, that does make it harder for you to grasp.


paratrooper said:


> I'm not a real big fan of politics either, and do what I need to do to stay out of it. As far as I'm concerned, both topics are a boat-load of BS.


I more or less agree with you about politics. The bad news is, lots of people are interested in politics and if you don't stay connected, 'they' get to decide what you get to do.


paratrooper said:


> The phrase "God given right to own a firearm" was amazing to me, and that someone would even say it. When it comes to the bible, I know nothing about it. But, I'd be shocked if owning a firearm, was indeed addressed somewhere in it.


The quote referenced is in the Declaration of Independence. Now, all the leftists try to claim that isn't the Constitution, therefore it has no standing in law or governance. They have to, because if they admit the Declaration is in fact the 'soul' of this nation - as the Constitution is the skeleton - they lose every argument they have about how to run the country.

Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the declaration) and all the men who signed it believed there was a power and authority higher than any government. While those men didn't agree exactly on every detail, they all agreed there was in fact a God who was interested in the lives of men and who gave life itself and a freedom to be an individual. So the Declaration of Independence is in fact a 'religious' document - much to the horror of the left.



paratrooper said:


> Maybe I'm just over-simplifying all this to some degree or another. After all, we are just talking mythology......right?


Perhaps someone is talking mythology, I'm not. I'm talking about a couple real things. This nation for one. The principles behind it for another. The God who inspired it in the sense of inspiring men to form a system of government rather unheard of on Earth prior to the establishment of this nation. Those are all 'real' things, as real as can be. That some don't see it is not a refutation.

One more quick thought. Being 'pro-gun' isn't enough to value this nation. One must also be 'pro-freedom' and that applies to everyone. But 'freedom' should not be confused with 'license' or 'anarchy'. There is a groundwork of principles by which citizens of this country live. Those principles of equal protection under the law, ownership of property (including guns) and the right to be left alone by the government except under extreme circumstances are ALL based on Biblical teaching; specifically those of Christianity.

Trooper, if you want to see the 'list' appreciated by the founders of the United States, read the Declaration of Independence. If you want to see the entire list in detail, read and study the Bible. It is easiest and one gets the best understanding in a mainstream Christian church. From what you've said, this may or may not appeal to you, but you asked the question and I have provided you an answer.

I can not also provide you understanding in like manner.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I would recommend that you just try to stop being offended by references to "God-given" by people who may be mis-using the language, or because there are so many references to God in so many of our early documents. Nobody, then or now, was or is trying to make you believe in God if you don't want to. 

In those days, most folks did believe in God, or at least pretended to, because everybody else did, and most governments actually required it. Early efforts to achieve personal freedom were largely centered around the right to believe in (or not believe in) whatever religion the individual wanted. This included atheists and agnostics. 

Personally, I think many atheists have created a religion of their own that rivals any other religion for intolerance of opposing beliefs. I say fine - don't believe in God, if you don't want to. You have free will to choose, thanks, in large part, to people who did believe in God, but fought for your right not to. Live and let live, and don't get your panties in a wad at every mention of the word "God."


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

OldManMontgomery:


> The quote referenced is in the Declaration of Independence. Now, all the leftists try to claim that isn't the Constitution, therefore it has no standing in law or governance. They have to, because if they admit the Declaration is in fact the 'soul' of this nation - as the Constitution is the skeleton - they lose every argument they have about how to run the country.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the declaration) and all the men who signed it believed there was a power and authority higher than any government.* While those men didn't agree exactly on every detail, they all agreed there was in fact a God who was interested in the lives of men and who gave life itself and a freedom to be an individual. So the Declaration of Independence is in fact a 'religious' document - much to the horror of the left.


Very good sir! Along with your entire post.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Duplicate post


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks to all for your replies. I know some of you put some time and effort into them, and I do appreciate that very much. 

I turn 60 in four days. This birthday will be a milestone for me in a lot of ways. I tend to measure the stages of my life in various ways, and age obviously plays a part in that. 

I'm quite happy in my skin and how I've lived my life. I look back at certain stages of my life and think that I wouldn't have done it any other way. For me, that's a validation of choosing the proper way to live a good life. 

Religion has never played a part in my life. I've never felt a void due to that fact. My parents taught me right from wrong, treat others as you would like to be treated, and help those that cannot help themselves. That was the foundation of good parenting. I feel that I have lived up to their expectations, and then some. 

When it comes to politics, I watch FOX News. I feel more enlightened than the average person on the street. :smt002


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

> thanks to all for your replies. I know some of you put some time and effort into them, and I do appreciate that very much.
> 
> I turn 60 in four days. This birthday will be a milestone for me in a lot of ways. I tend to measure the stages of my life in various ways, and age obviously plays a part in that.
> 
> I'm quite happy in my skin and how I've lived my life.


Medications does wonders for feeling good in your skin, some choose alcohol.:smt033
Happy birthday ole man, and go get your colonoscopy n gall bladder removed.
You have not yet experienced the word of God that comes with the gift of faith.
Good luck on your journey, thou speaks of God through your posts. Seek and ye shall find


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Sixty? Hah! You're still a mere child. :goofy:

Get past 75, and we'll talk.
There's not much else to do, at that age, but compare disfunctions and reminisce about the women we've enjoyed...and how long ago that was. :mrgreen:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Sixty? Hah! You're still a mere child. :goofy:
> 
> Get past 75, and we'll talk.
> There's not much else to do, at that age, but compare disfunctions and reminisce about the women we've enjoyed...and how long ago that was. :mrgreen:


Thanks for the support and words of wisdom...........I think. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> I turn 60 in four days. This birthday will be a milestone for me in a lot of ways. I tend to measure the stages of my life in various ways, and age obviously plays a part in that.


All of us have done (or will have done, someday) a little 'soul-searching' at various points in our life. As we get older and the people we care the most about begin taking control of their own lives (as opposed to waiting for us to 'fix' everything), we may feel the need to measure our worth to the world. But it's a hard thing to measure and nobody is really qualified to judge themselves fairly. So, if we are honest, we may just decide to 'pull in our horns' a little bit and let the world continue to swirl around us, without being quite so aggressive in trying to convince others to feel the same way we do about everything. In the end, if we can at least determine that we have lived our lives with a clear conscience, we are way ahead of most folks. If we truly do have a soul that lives on, it seems likely that it, too, will be at peace with itself. It's a simple concept, and doesn't require us to follow some narrowly defined path that may have been invented by someone who was much more screwed up than we are.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

Childhood is where we make faces and laugh at the mirror.



Old age is where the mirror does the same.


----------

