2nd Amendment: God given right?
- Thread starter mewachee
- Start date
- Status
yet the debate continues.
"General Gun Discussions"
Not all threads make me comfortable either.
Gun Related, and the thread hasn't gone astray as many might expect.
"General Gun Discussions"
Not all threads make me comfortable either.
Gun Related, and the thread hasn't gone astray as many might expect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its a tool in the chest of Self-Defense. I do not see how having the "right" to own a gun automatically equals the right to self defense. A man who has lost his "right" to a gun has not lost his ability to defend himself has he? If the gov't came knocking tomorrow and confiscated all of your guns, would you have lost the right to defend yourself? No. The best means, reliable means, to? Sure. But there is nothing stopping you from using a knife, baton, or fists to defend yourself.
So even if self-defense today means gun rights because natural law was re-interpreted, I wouldn't agree with it since whether or not you can have a gun does not limit you from defending yourself.
Looks like a lot of good posts that I'll have to come back and read on, which could alter my opinions on the matter.
This topic is clearly not gun-related, and is thus a violation of the first rule. Topics more closely related to guns have been locked for this, many times.
The topic is clearly not a discussion of guns, but a discussion of rights, in general, and their intersection with religious beliefs or lack thereof. It is thus a violation of another forum rule. See this thread for comparison: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=379337 It was quicly locked, despite being more closely related to guns, and more harmonious than the current thread.
I have given no indication that this thread bothers me or makes me uncomfortable. Please do not practice your dime store psychoanalysis on me.
All people have certain rights, these rights are the ones that you are born with. Governments were created as a means or a tool to safeguard the rights of humans. Governments derive their authority through the permission of the people that they would attempt to govern. A government's authority to protect itself is merely the collective right to self defense. A government cannot govern a people who do not wish to be governed, it would be impossible to do so.
Governments can be distorted and corrupted to deprive one segment of the people their rights to the benefit of others. When this happens, it is the responsibility of the people to alter or abolish a government that acts in such a manner. That does not always mean force. It can mean the ballot box, or even redressing one's grievance in court or through the press.
The right to self defense is fundamental. The right to defend yourself from a single attacker, a dozen attackers, or even a million attackers is a human right. The right to do so, like all other rights, is not absolute. If you rape, you do not have the right to defend yourself from her counter attack. You may have the ability, but not the right. One person's right can never be used to rightfully deprive another of their rights.
The same with a government- just because a government has the ability and the power to carry out an act does not mean that they have the AUTHORITY to do so. Of course, if no one takes a stand and refuses to allow such a trespass, the abuse will continue. "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
The right to protect yourself implies a right to the tools to do so. Firearms are currently the most efficient tools of defense.
The COTUS merely exists to prevent the majority from enslaving the minority- the old axiom that "popular speech need not be protected" is still true. Once we have outlawed individual rights, we have lost our moral authority. History will judge just how effective the COTUS was in that pursuit.
Governments can be distorted and corrupted to deprive one segment of the people their rights to the benefit of others. When this happens, it is the responsibility of the people to alter or abolish a government that acts in such a manner. That does not always mean force. It can mean the ballot box, or even redressing one's grievance in court or through the press.
The right to self defense is fundamental. The right to defend yourself from a single attacker, a dozen attackers, or even a million attackers is a human right. The right to do so, like all other rights, is not absolute. If you rape, you do not have the right to defend yourself from her counter attack. You may have the ability, but not the right. One person's right can never be used to rightfully deprive another of their rights.
The same with a government- just because a government has the ability and the power to carry out an act does not mean that they have the AUTHORITY to do so. Of course, if no one takes a stand and refuses to allow such a trespass, the abuse will continue. "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing."
The right to protect yourself implies a right to the tools to do so. Firearms are currently the most efficient tools of defense.
The COTUS merely exists to prevent the majority from enslaving the minority- the old axiom that "popular speech need not be protected" is still true. Once we have outlawed individual rights, we have lost our moral authority. History will judge just how effective the COTUS was in that pursuit.
We've had all the relevant positions presented, from inalienable rights come from a god to inalienable rights come from a natural law to there's no such thing as inalienable rights to it doesn't matter to "you say tomasto and I say tomahto".
And there is no "debate". Faith is not persuaded.
And there is no "debate". Faith is not persuaded.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
