Why do freepers claim that the RKBA is "God given"?

[Unrepentant Fenian]

I don't see where the Constitution or Bill of Rights claims that. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Because religious folks are fundamentally anti-person....

God always gets the credit for anything good, while people get the blame for anything bad.

It's just the way religion works.

[baldguy]

2. Because God created guns in His own image.

[Katya Mullethov]

50. He did supply the disciple John with proper drawings

The gospel of John Moses Browning


1 In the beginning was the 1911, and the 1911 was THE pistol, and it was good. And behold the Lord said, "Thou shalt not muck with my disciple John's design for it is good and it workith. For John made the 1911, and lo all of his weapons, from the designs which I, the Lord, gave him upon the mountain."

2 "And shouldst thou muck with it, and hang all manner of foul implements upon it, and profane its internal parts, thou shalt surely have malfunctions, and in the midst of battle thou shalt surely come to harm."

3 And as the ages passed men in their ignorance and arrogance didst forget the word of the Lord and began to profane the 1911. The tribe of the gamesman did place recoil spring guides and extended slide releases upon the 1911 and their metal smiths didst tighten the tolerances and alter parts to their liking, their clearness of mind being clouded by lust.

4 Their artisans did hang all manner of foul implements upon the 1911 and did so alter it that it became impractical to purchase. For lo, the artisans didst charge a great tax upon the purchasers of the 1911 so that the lowly field worker could not afford one. And the profaning of the internal parts didst render it unworkable when the dust of the land fell upon it.

5 And lo, they didst install adjustable sights, which are an abomination unto the Lord. For they doth break and lose their zero when thou dost need true aim. And those who have done so will be slain in great numbers by their enemies in the great battle. a

6 And it came to pass that the Lord didst see the abomination wrought by man and didst cause, as he had warned, fearful malfunctions to come upon the abominations and upon the artisans who thought they could do no wrong.

7 Seeing the malfunctions and the confusion of men, the lord of the underworld did see an opportunity to further ensnare man and didst bring forth pistols made of plastic, whose form was such that they looked and felt like a brick, yet the eyes of man being clouded, they were consumed by the plastic pistol and did buy vast quantities of them.

8 And being a deceitful spirit the lord of the underworld did make these plastic pistols unamenable to the artisans of earth and they were unable to muck much with the design, and lo these pistols did appear to function.

9 And the evil one also brought forth pistols in which the trigger didst both cock and fire them and which require a "dingus" to make them appear safe.

10 But man being stupid did not understand these new pistols and didst proceed to shoot themselves with the plastic pistol and with the trigger cocking pistols for lo their manual of arms required great intelligence which man had long since forsaken. Yet man continue to gloat over these new pistols blaming evil forces for the negligent discharges which they themselves had committed.

11 And when man had been totally ensnared with the plastic pistol, the lord of the underworld didst cause a plague of the terrible Ka-Boom to descend upon man and the plastic pistols delivered their retribution upon men. And there was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth in the land.

12 Then seeing that the eyes of man were slowly being opened and that man was truly sorrowful for his sinful misdeeds, the Lord did send his messengers in the form of artisans who did hear and obey the teachings of the prophet and who didst restore the profaned 1911s to their proper configuration, and lo, to the amazement of men they didst begin to work as the prophet had intended.

13 And the men of the land didst drive out the charlatans and profaners from the land, and there was joy and peace in the land, except for the evil sprits which tried occasionally to prey on the men and women of the land and who were sent to the place of eternal damnation b by the followers of John.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a Several old manuscripts add the following text. "And they didst chamber it for cartridges who's calibers startith with numbers less than the Holy Number 4. And lo the Lord did cause great grief amongst these men when their enemies who were struck in battle with these lesser numbers didst not fall but did continue to cause great harm."

b or Hell

[east texas lib]

67. Ah, scriptures from the book of Series 70...

Always relevant.

[htuttle]

3. Adam did too have a gun!

How else did he fend off the dinosaurs?

[Historic NY]

11. he should have shot the snake....dumbass look what he caused.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Why don't you go to free republic and ask them?

[Unrepentant Fenian]

6. Because I don't want to have to shower afterwords.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Any info you get here will be 2nd hand.

I would guess that a good many quotes from our founders make many ties in this regard.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

10. Why didn't they spell it out in the BOR then?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. Probably because not all of them believed the exact same thing.

[SteveM]

39. This religious question should be posed of the "Freepers."

I don't use that website, but you seem familiar with it. They probably can answer your theological question.

[billh58]

5. I have seen

the argument in this forum, that in the absence of the Constitution, RKBA would still exist as a "basic human right" to defend oneself.

[SteveM]

40. One could argue that the First Amendment is a "basic human right," BoR or no.

Since that amendment at least recognizes the rights enumerated, implying that they are extant before the Constitution's passage.

I certainly see a "'basic human right' to defend oneself" as a right pre-existing the Constitution.

Not sure what God has to do with it.

[billh58]

44. Of course

one could argue for the pre-existence of any number of "enumerated," AND non-enumerated rights. We have a "right" to breathe, to eat, to have sex -- but like self-preservation, these are also all hard-wired instincts common to all living things. The provisions of the First Amendment (and ALL of the BoR) are written to enumerate specific restraints on The Congress, and not to "grant" any rights whatsoever.

All "rights" are pre-existing, and pre-date the dawn of civilization. The advent of civilization brought about "laws" which were required to restrict some of the baser instinctual survival-of-the-fittest rights exercised by non-civilized Man. The US Constitution not only enumerates those "rights" which Congress may not "make laws" to totally deny, it also spells out a system whereby The Congress can enact certain laws which reasonably restrict those same rights for the common good, after having passed the representative democratic test of majority consent (yelling "fire," libel, perjury, endangerment, terroristic threatening, etc.). The Judicial Branch then assures that laws are Constitutionally sound, and the Executive Branch enforces them.

One could also argue that a right to "self-defense" does not specifically include, nor exclude, a right to carry a gun. Self-preservation is an base instinct, while actually defending oneself involves "acts" such as fight, or flight. For those who choose the "fight" option, there remain many choices, among which include using a gun.

To hold that an inherent, and unwritten "right" exists within a civilized society to specifically allow all citizens the unrestricted right to carry a gun may be a stretch of logic, philosophy, and common sense. That may be one of the reasons that the Founders chose to enumerate the Second Amendment -- in case it ever became necessary to subject it to reasonable civil restrictions under the other provisions of the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

53. Good thing nobody said that, then..

"To hold that an inherent, and unwritten "right" exists within a civilized society to specifically allow all citizens the unrestricted right to carry a gun may be a stretch of logic, philosophy, and common sense. "

I don't think many hereabouts have argued for an unrestricted right. Limits on where (courthouses, polling places, schools) / who (convicted criminals, the mentally ill, children) seem reasonable to many here.

[billh58]

54. Didn't say that

"many hereabouts" have argued for unrestricted rights, but a few absolutely hold views very close to that, and label anyone who supports ANY restrictions as evil, anti-American "grabbers" who are purposefully ignorant of the "intent" of the Constitution and its BoR. Just like the "gun nut" extremists, the "grabber" fanatics do nothing to help the cause of civility, or the case for rational compromise.

My personal take is that the restriction of ANY Constitutional right should be both reasonable, and beneficial to all. Restrictions concerning the "where" and the "how" of acceptable gun use (not ownership) are still up for further refinement, and clarification.

There is also the unsettled issue of local-rule, which appears to be coming to a head in the courts. The recognition that some areas have much higher crime rates, than other areas in this country, is being challenged as a criteria for imposing, or relaxing, restrictions on gun use by local State, County, and City governments. I'm not convinced that the "one size fits all" rule should apply to gun use.

[X_Digger]

57. Interesting notion..

"many hereabouts" have argued for unrestricted rights

Care to cite some examples?

There is also the unsettled issue of local-rule, which appears to be coming to a head in the courts. The recognition that some areas have much higher crime rates, than other areas in this country, is being challenged as a criteria for imposing, or relaxing, restrictions on gun use by local State, County, and City governments. I'm not convinced that the "one size fits all" rule should apply to gun use.

Two things strike me..

1) would you feel the same about 'local rule' for say, freedom of the press? religion?

2) Inherent in sentences 2&3 seems to be, at first glance, an assumption that the number of gun laws / legal ownership bears some correlation to the amount of gun crime. While I wouldn't say that there's anything other than conjecture about more guns = less crime, I think the recent trends in crime (down), gun ownership (up), and relaxation of gun laws (rise of concealed carry + expansion of castle law) would give lie to the common assertion that less guns / more restrictions on legal ownership = less crime.

Something I read today, apropos of 'local rule'-

reference http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/08-1497_cert_amici_texas1.pdf

"it is one of the happy incidents of the federal system" that each State may "serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (cited in Nat’l Rifle Assoc., 2009 WL 1515443). But the discretion of state and local governments to explore legislative and regulatory initiatives does not include "the power to experiment with the fundamental liberties of citizens safeguarded by the Bill of Rights." Pointer, 380 U.S. at 413 (Goldberg, J., concurring.)

[billh58]

59. You left out

the "topic" part of my opening statement, and putting the two parts together would read: "Didn't say that "many hereabouts" have argued for unrestricted rights, but a few..." And no I can't cite "examples" of the "few" because I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to go back through hundreds of posts. I can assure you, however, that I have seen absurd claims by some (a distinct minority) pro-gun posters. I have also seen absurd claims by anti-gun posters (another distinct, but very vocal minority), and I don't have examples of those at my fingertips either.

As for your sentence #2 above, you have my point exactly backwards, and it is most likely my fault for not being more explicit. I meant to point out that in areas where there are higher crime rates, the relaxation of restrictions on gun use would make more sense. In Hawaii, it would not make as much sense to fix something which is not broken. As most States have similar versions (many have word-for-word versions) of the Second Amendment written into their Constitutions, what possible harm could "local rule" have on the reasonable, and Constitutional, regulation of gun use at the community level?

Highlighting "freedom of the press," or "freedom of religion," or ANY of the other components of the BoR, as an argument against imposing restrictions on the RKBA is interesting, but falls apart on several levels: the foremost of which is that States DO have the right to regulate and restrict, and to define the limits of certain aspects of ALL enumerated rights through licensing, permitting, taxation, zoning, codified and Constitutionally-sound Laws and Ordinances, etc., etc., etc.

Again, I support the 2A RKBA as written, and as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS. I also support reasonable restrictions on where, and under what circumstances, someone can exercise ANY right, and believe that each community in our Federation of States can better decide their own social needs than can the Federal Government.

[X_Digger]

60. The point re the first amendment was in re 'local rule'..

.. ie, when 'local rule' effectively denies the right, it's not constitutional- ie, if Cook County, IL said that all applications for protests / demonstrations had to be submitted in person, on the first Monday of the month, between 9:00am and 9:05am, it would be seen as an unreasonable restriction on the first amendment's 'association' language. But Cook county denying licensing for any and all handguns is cool? Since it effectively bans a 'class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes' (paraphrased from Heller) I see the same level of restriction for a different amendment.

All this may be moot by next spring. Today the SCOTUS decided which cases it would hear this session, and there's likely to be at least one of the cases regarding incorporation against the states of the second amendment via the fourteenth amendment.

[billh58]

62. That's what you

get with a 5-4 majority of neoconservative, Dubya-appointed, right-wingers...;-)

Putting forward improbable examples of patently "unreasonable" laws is a poor way to make a point -- don't you think? Even if a local government enacted an unreasonable law (and many have), the courts are there to nullify and reverse it. I would rather give a local government the benefit of the doubt, than to prohibit a locality any say whatsoever in making laws.

Go in peace, and I wish you well in all of your endeavors.

Best,
Bill

[X_Digger]

63. Improbable restriction on the first, real world on the second..

Chicago says that all firearms must be registered. Except 'firearms' only includes rifles and shotguns. And it must be renewed every year. And if the registration ever expires, it can never be registered again.

That, to me, seems analogous to the example I posited re the first amendment.

[Euromutt]

8. It is funny how the rest of the BoR isn't "God-given," apparently

The very notion of freedom of religion is pretty much antithetical to the doctrine of any religion that has ever classed anything as heresy.

[imdjh]

12. Sure it is. You unalienable rights come from nature and nature's god. If you are into gods.

Otherwise, they are simply accepted as unalienable, which doesn't make sense really, but the generally idea is that you are entitled to certain rights simply for being a law abiding member of society.

[Euromutt]

21. I'm not into gods, but I am nevertheless into human rights

The way I see it, human rights simply stem from the notion that one should not do unto others that which one would have them do unto oneself. Human rights are simply the product of enough people saying "I don't want this particular thing done to me." Acceptance of the existence of a human right comes from enough people acknowledging that, if they don't want this particular thing done to them, they can't reasonably have it done to others, and agree that the government can't do that (at least not arbitrarily).

[jeepnstein]

23. This isn't meant as a jab...

I find it interesting that folks claim not to be religious and then promote one of the core concepts of Christianity. Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic or anything but it always strikes me as ironic how folks outside of Christendom can "get it" more than some of my brothers and sisters in Christ. It's both refreshing and frustrating.

Having said that, I don't see anywhere in my copy of the Bible where any rights are discussed as being a gift from God. It spends a great deal of time discussing how we are to submit to lawful authority. You know? The whole "meek inheriting the Earth" thing? I value my rights and will defend them as far as I can without compromising my faith.

[Euromutt]

29. By "core concept of Christianity," do you mean...

... the ethic of reciprocity ("do not unto others etc.")? Because that's hardly unique to Christianity; it's cropped up in any number of civilizations, who appear to have developed the notion more or less independently. In spite of the Parliament of the World's Religions claiming it as the common principle of many religions, I don't think the precept needs any religious underpinning at all. Simply, wherever people have tried to live together, they have rapidly come up with this idea. We can make young children understand why they shouldn't do something by asking "well, how would you feel if someone else did that to you?" without having to invoke the will of any deity.

[billh58]

30. See this

link:

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

[jeepnstein]

31. Yes, I do.

Jesus spelled it out in quite clear terms that we are to apply this rule to our daily lives. He didn't say it was negotiable for his followers. It's one of the more challenging aspects of taking up the Christian faith. While it is a quite admirable quality displayed by the non-religious it is a requirement for Christians. Sadly, many do not take it as seriously as they do the judgment and brimstone.

It is such a simple concept but one many of us fall so short of following. Anyway, I just always find it admirable and refreshing when someone states that as one of the central tenets of their personal belief system.

[hansberrym]

17. well aware that Almighty God has created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring..."

[msongs]

9. so people can get their blood lust jollies over righteous killings? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Someone has to counter those here who would rather the victims be raped, maimed or killed. nt

[Euromutt]

18. It's no worse than getting your self-righeousness jollies over unjustified killings

You do realize that all those threads about justified shootings are a response to people who post stories about some domestic shooting to go "See? See that Guns Are Bad?" It's a battle of anecdotal evidence, and I find it rather tiresome, but let's not pretend it's one-sided.

[Treo]

15. I'm going to pretend you're serious

When I claim that any right is “God Given” I am stating that it is a Natural Right and that it exists wholly independent of government intervention. I have the right of freedom whether the government says I do or not. The basis for this isn’t in the U.S. Constitution it’s in the Declaration of independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Will E Orwontee]

16. It is more of a philosophical statement . . .

Made with the understanding that our rights do not emanate from the legislative acts of man nor are they the gifts of a benevolent ruler.

Some of course make it sound like a theological statement but always remember, the "endowed by our Creator" statement of the Declaration of Independence was simply a rebuttal to the then unquestionable "divine right" of the King to rule however he wished (see John Locke & Algernon Sidney).

Saying that rights are "God given" is a useful reminder that government is instituted to protect pre-existing rights. It matters little really who or what "God" is or even if "It" is a supreme being . . . The important principle to understand is that rights do not flow from government decree.

[Francis Marion]

19. Definition of Freeper??

What's that?

[Francis Marion]

20. Oh, I see.

Freepers are these folks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"


So, why do Freepers say that the RKBA is God given?
It's likely in the same vein as the Jeffersonian language of the Declaration of Independence, which holds as self-evident that, all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator (that's where God comes in) with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And I have to say that I agree with this premise. The rights of the people flow from the Supreme Being, not from the politically influenced, morally challenged Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court rules at times in harmony with what I believe is intended by the Author of Liberty, but then again, if Justice Taney tells me that a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect, I claim that this is an offense to a set of men made, as are we all, in the image of God.

Can the Supreme Court make concentration camps, waterboarding, slavery etcetera morally acceptable or unacceptable throughout time by means of whim and quorum? I don't think their collective opinion imbues their decisions with moral authority. Their decisions simply convey precedent, and authority, but neither precedent nor authority have moral significance. They're systems.

Take away the sacredness of the human condition, though, and no abiding moral compass need be considered. Murder can sometimes be OK, sometimes not, no different than drinking a glass of water or not.

Take away God, and erase the Author and Guarantor of enduring rights, dismiss any expectation that your kids may know the same Liberty that you did. It'll be OK or not OK, as the vote goes, to lie, steal, kill, covet... with the Supreme Court at the fountainhead of morality.

This is likely an archaic and quaint belief to many today, but I think it is near the Founders' accounting for Liberty, and of the underpinnings of Liberty.

[billh58]

27. Which "God"

do you suppose that Jefferson envisioned as our "creator?" Jefferson was a Deist, and borderline Atheist, who did not subscribe to the "supernatural" aspects of religion, such as the Christian version of literal "creation," and he despised "organized" religion. Jefferson did, however, admire and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but discounted any "miracles" supposedly performed by him. Jefferson was one of the foremost proponents of the separation of Church and State.

"Taking away God," neither enhances, nor detracts, from the freedoms that a People take for themselves -- either by force (American Revolution), or through moral pressure and logic (Civil Rights Movement). The exercise of morality and freedoms have very little in common, except that immoral people can be free, and moral people can be enslaved. Benevolent civilizations are founded on fundamental moral principles for the most part, but maintained by systems of government which limit people's "freedoms" to the extent required to maintain civility, and to prevent anarchy: the Law.

There are no "God-given rights." There are only people who recognize other people's rights, or not, which brings us to the need for government and man-made laws. The concept of "morality" has been a part of our evolution to self-awareness, while the concept of "freedoms" are a unique invention of modern man, in the same vein as "religion." The concept of regulated societal freedom was invented to combat the natural state of "Man's Inhumanity to Man" (aka survival-of-the-fittest). The concept of organized religion is just another set of invented rules designed to regulate Man's more natural instincts, with a promise of eternal life (or at least a second shot) as a reward for compliance.

[Francis Marion]

55. Our nation began in the 18th century, not the 21st

The point is that the edifice constructed by the founders is an 18th century phenomenon, not of the 21st century. Their life, times, and reckoning of politics and philosophy are preserved as data. Data simply exists, and isn't arguable- although you today may ascribe less, or no, spiritual significance to the source of the people's rights and Liberty. That is your modern prerogative, but the founders' data speaks for itself and reveals their thoughts on this topic.

Their built framework, and widely held understanding of the source of the People's Liberty, posits God-given Rights and Liberty. Which God? They were sufficiently broad minded to grant wide latitude in this matter, leaving it up to the conscience of the individual, having seen, and rejected, the excesses of narrowly defined offerings, whether Puritanism at home or the state religion of the mother country. But it is accurate to say that the 18th century intellectuals who fought, justified, encouraged and prevailed in revolution, those whose surviving thoughts reached us through books and correspondence, inhabited a sacred cosmos. Some even professed atheism. But spirituality influenced their understanding of life, of philosophy and government, and that shows in the data.

It's not a defensible claim to say that there are no God given rights. You'd have to know this for a fact, with all attendant burden of proof for such knowledge. You may believe this, but I say that you probably do not know this.
My point is that, in this sense, there are God given rights: not to debate the existence of God, but to comprehend the intent and thought process, of the founders. And God was their justification for, and author of, the People's Liberty.

We may dispute the existence of God, we may dispute whether or not He grants Liberties; but the 18th century data simply exists. I can put myself in their place and infer thereby their formulation of the cosmos, and as a modern American christian, agree with their spiritual accounting for Liberty. The modern materialist can follow me part way only- you can grasp the founders' world view as well as I can by study, but as a materialist you must say that the rights of the people must delineate from causes other than spiritual. You're having the same sort of trouble that an 18th century Christian congressman would have after being transported to the atheist Marxist Soviet Union- in both cases, the structures of life and politics, the source(s) of the people's rights, are built upon distinct, and I think irreconcilable, premises.

[billh58]

56. Jefferson was

a self-declared Deist, and the philosophy of the founders who were "Deists and Theists without a Creed" has much more in common with Atheism than Christianity. My response to your previous post did not refute that Deists recognized a God, but pointed out that Jefferson did not believe in "supernatural divinity." The "which God" question, was aimed at the difference between the supernatural Christian God, and the Deist belief in a more practical universal God not endowed with supernatural powers. And, there were also pure Atheists among the Founders, who were also products of The Enlightenment.

The "data" does indeed just "simply exist," but the interpretation of that data is at best, subjective, as none of us are privy to the private thoughts of those 18th century individuals. Much has been written about (and by) Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine, and it is fairly evident (based on the existent data) that they were in general opposition to the religious thinking of their Christian (Great Awakening) colonist compatriots.

You are of course free to continue in your superstition-based Republican (and Free Republic) beliefs that human rights are "God given," or created by some supernatural, and unknowable entity. I, on the other hand, will continue in my science-based (evolutionary) belief that as Mankind evolved a sense of self-awareness, he also invented the concept of civilization which in turn fostered the further invention of morals, rights, religion (unfortunately), and finally science, philosophy, and the arts. Prior to the advent of civilization, there was no concept of "rights," but only survival-of-the-fittest by whatever means it took.

I'm not attempting to start a religious war with you, but when your first few posts amount to a defense of the right-wing radicals at Free Republic (Freepers), you have thrown down a virtual gauntlet. Your attempts to imbue the Constitution with religious intent, and to portray its enumerated Rights as having divine origins, constitute a typical religious-right Free Republic mainstay which is easily recognizable -- even while wearing the lipstick of "reasoned" discussion.

[Francis Marion]

58. Don't equate 18th century spriituality with 21st, nor with materialism

I hadn't even heard of Free REpublic before this! Still don't know 'em, don't have a dog in that fight, besides not even owning a guantlet.
I claim that the 18th century understood a sacred cosmos, and 18th century thought and institutions reflect this influence, at times overtly, at times obliquely. Jefferson wrote to persuade, to pluck a responsive chord in his fellow Americans; I don't think he chose his words carelessly at all. Whatever his concept of spiritual matters may have been, (I think that he acknowledged God's existence), but more importantly, he assumed that his audience would agree with the premise that the rights of the people delineated from God and not from King George.

It's self indulgent to impose one's modern Christianity upon 18th century people as it is to impose materialism upon their world view. They were, and shall remain, as they were, not as we are, nor as we'd like them to have been. We are their posterity. We owe them something, because they often thought about us, they lost property, life and limb for us. (Hmm, self sacrifice- that's another Christian virtue.) We owe them this: to care for this country, this "Sweet land of Liberty" (what a great song- who, again, is "Thee"?) and to do so effectively, we need to see the world the way they did, and to understand institutions of their creation as they intended them to function. And we will not always agree. Slavery had to be eliminated, and women needed to vote. But we need to know how the machine works from the original manufacturers perspective to care for the machine, or to modify it.

Ignoring their intent, their formulation, I cringe as if watching an electrician sauntering in to conduct brain surgery. He had better be an accomplished brain surgeon, besides an electrician, to have any hope of success, let alone the prospect of severely damaging a delicate, complex system. We're not qualified to modify the aparatus of the founders, I think, if we have no appreciation for their world.

Now however the human condition is explained, at any given point in time, it's either our best guess as materialists or else it's as a mystical or sacred narrative. But I think, to see ourselves and our ancestors with greatest clarity, we must know something about their world view, and how it was formed. That way we know the reasons underpinning their thought.

[billh58]

61. You, of course,

have the right to your own self-righteous opinions, your condescending lecture style, and to attempt to put words in the mouths of others. I, on the other hand, have the right to take what you say with a grain of self-indulgent salt, and to hold that there is little difference between Jefferson's, Franklin's, or Paine's "18th century" beliefs based on The Enlightenment philosophy and science of the time, and my own "21st century" beliefs based on the advancements of that same philosophy and science to today's standards. The main difference being that I can point to more fact than they could.

The "God" they believed in did NOT, in their Deist/Atheist beliefs, have the supernatural powers necessary to bestow philosophical, or moral "rights" on His "chosen people." The People fought for their rights, and physically took them from a tyrant through an act of rebellious war. I agree that it is possible that the Founders may have used references to a "God", or a "Creator" in order to push their contentious Constitutional agenda, and to placate the Great Awakening crowd. They were politicians, after all.

If you are not a troll from Free Republic, then I apologize for labeling you as such. Your offensive and flippant attempt to defend them in a previous post, however, certainly made that assumption easy enough to make.

[Francis Marion]

64. With your cool-headed indulgence,

I'll condescend one last time, then the floor's yours. Free Republic BTW sure strikes a nerve- what's the history behind that?
So you concede the founders spirituality as a significant part of their world view. From their trust in Providence for success in an war with an empire, their concept of Liberty delineating to man from God... Even a Deist would agree that at some point, God created this world, giving the brain the good sense, cunning and perseverence to yearn for, and win, Liberty. The common thread is spirituality, in some form.
And no matter how mad you get, (Free Republic, Free Republic) the founders' spirituality, as a relevant input to their work, endures.

Putting your own words back into your mouth if you don't mind, you say, 'There are no "God-given rights." There are only people who recognize other people's rights, or not, which brings us to the need for government and man-made laws.'

You may believe this, but you do not know it. And if you KNOW God, and from long association have never noticed him dispensing Liberties to His people, then you at least have some basis for your statement. If that is the case, you've got the basis for an interesting book. Or if you KNOW that God doesn't exist, then he can't very well dispense rights and Liberties. Do you this to be the case? Another good book.

Well, you're entitled to your view, and all its implications, but the founders spiritual accounting for Liberty is hard to dispute. And all I am saying is that the modern materialist stands apart from the founders in an important respect, separated by the shattered bridge of spirituality. That is, if the source of the people's Liberty is important at all.

You can't get inside their heads, understand their work as they did, if you discount spirituality. And you have cast aside a fundamental premise with which they built this great nation. It's necessary to renovate, repair and maintain their edifice, but to do so with full understanding of the design. Spirituality was part of their foundation, and we need to be clear on their intent when modifying the system.

Well, I have explained myself in the most rational, calm and even handed manner and am now curious to get the back story on FR as a to the MENTION of the group whose title role in this thread makes talking about them unavoidable, especially for folks who haven't heard of them. Are we a tolerant group with room for many different viewpoints, or a reactionary orthodox monoculture? I had thought it was, at least should be, the former.

You don't have to believe in the structural properties of rebar to live in a reinforced concrete house. But if you're designing the house, you need to know and implement the material properly, and, moreover, the material must have the properties your plan will ask of it. But if somebody decides to renovate the structure, generations after the designer has died, then the renovator had better be as clear as the designer on the role of every element. On the one hand, the designer might have had an irrational belief in the strength of scotch tape, and used that in place of rebar. Which will not bode well for the building as it shifts over time. On the other hand, a modern person who discounts the merit of rebar, even denies that it exists in the structure because he can't see it, (even though the original plans, avaiable to anybody, specified the rebar) has needlessly compromised their ability to maintain or modify the structure.

Spirituality isn't a concept you can dispense with or deny to no effect, I think, with respect to a structure built upon spiritual assumptions. Adios.

[benEzra]

22. FYI, John Locke was more of a liberal than a freeper...

and the concept of natural rights was a major underpinning of the Enlightenment, the foundation of modern progressive thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. I believe there is a natural right to self defense.

Does that "natural right" translate to "God Given"?
Well, if you believe in God, I suppose it may. I would support the statement that We all have a God given right to self defense.
I think that's why the founders chose the verbiage "inalienable" - to eliminate religion and recognize a natural preexisting right.

Now does that right include the right to use a gun to do so... is RKBA god given as well?
I'm not sure. Logically, I think it would be silly to tell somebody they have a right to defend oneself and then deny a means to do so.
To defend oneself an adequate defense must be presented. Therefore the RKBA supports another higher order right of self defense.
RKBA empowers the god-given right to self defense.

To summarize: I think that while RKBA may not be a god-given/inalienable right, it supports/empowers the inalienable right of self defense.
RKBA is symbiotic to the inalienable right of self defense and thus both rights are necessary for each others' existence.
Whether or not one right being inalienable/god-given make both so (due to their mutual relationship) is simply arguing semantics.

[billh58]

28. Self-defense

is not a right in the same vein as voting, or speech, or assembly. Self-preservation is the prime universal genetic instruction embedded in all living things, and is driven by the instinct to propagate and preserve the species.

Unfortunately, that same genetic instruction is the Mother of greed, aggression, and territoriality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. Silly

I'm not buying it.

My identity and whether I thrive and survive has nothing to do with owning a gun.

"Prime genetic instuction"?

As a gay man, I can assure you that if a woman isn't going to do it, a gun sure as heck isn't.

Seriously, where do people come up with this?

[billh58]

34. Being gay

doesn't change your basic genetic hard-wired instincts, only your sexual preferences. The self-preservation instinct IS genetically embedded in all living organisms, and is a primary force of natural selection and evolution:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Instinct_and_the_Unconscious/The_Danger-Instincts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Absolutely nothing was said about "owning a gun," so I have no idea where that came from. Self-defense can be accomplished by many other means than with a weapon, and is an act, whereas self-preservation is an instinct which can manifest itself through many different acts.

Seriously? People "come up with this" through education and science.

[Hoopla Phil]

68. Speaking of silly. . . n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. I agree that self-preservation is genetically hardwired into everyone.

But I would also claim that self-defense, an act satisfying that ingrained sense of survival, is an act in which every human being has a basic right to exercise. Self Defense (an act of survival) is much more than an instinct... it is a right. No different than how basic species survival instincts drive people attracted to another to mate - would you agree that sex is a basic human right?

I'm not claiming the means to empower an inalienable right of self defense are completely without boundaries or restriction. I'm simply stating that IF there is such a thing as an inalienable (or "god-given") right to self defense - then the actions and items that adequately empower such a preexisting right MUST also be codified as rights.
In not so many words, the RKBA is mutually inclusive to recognized inalienable rights of self defense.

Now if someone were stating the argument that people DO NOT have a natural right to defend themselves against unwarranted bodily harm... then I would have agree to disagree. At least then I would be able to understand and respect their aversion to weapons and other self defense concepts. I just cannot accept the logic that any person (or animal) should be expected to simply lie down and die or submit to any threats - and would have to recognize the fundamental impasse of the debate.

[billh58]

47. The genetic

"hard-wired" instinctual responses associated with self-preservation when threatened, are "fight, or flight." If one chooses the fight option, then any number of "acts" are available, among them using a gun if the particular situation "reasonably" calls for it. Choosing the flight option is the logical alternative to "simply lying down and dying," which would violate the self-preservation dictate. Another instinctual choice would be to be wary of violating the territorial boundaries of known predators: the exercise of prudence and reasonable caution.

Conversely, civilized society has a right to spell-out (through the Law) the circumstances under which the use of a specific weapon, or any fight option, is deemed "reasonably" permissible. The bulk of the RKBA argument, however, is not about the "why" but more about the "when, where, and how." I believe that a large majority of Americans agree with the right to "keep" a gun in one's home for self-defense, or for sporting activity. "Bearing arms" in the public venue to ward off a perceived threat, seems to be the main point of contention.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

49. "Bearing arms" in the public venue to ward off a perceived threat,...

"'Bearing arms' in the public venue to ward off a perceived threat, seems to be the main point of contention."

Most of the people carrying firearms in public do not wear them to "ward off perceived threats". Most people wear them concealed with the intent of ENDING a threat once manifested. Over 600000 valid CCW permits exist in FL with a total population of over 18M... roughly 3.3 percent. I've been to Florida quite a bit and have never seen one firearm worn openly in public, much less even 1 out of every hundred people wearing one openly. The law only permits them to draw the firearm once deadly force is justified, which makes for a very poor tool to ward off offenders.

I do admit, there is a Flight instinct as well that I overlooked, but when someone points a gun in your face and makes demands I highly doubt the instinctual "Flight" response helps at all... unless you can outrun bullets. I would guess most victims either fight back or comply whereas flight would be a limited option in most circumstances. The fact is that if US code is to recognize people's right to defend themselves they must also realize criminals can and will always get the best tool to commit crime with - guns. So naturally, firearms should be available for defense and defense should be not be restricted to private property only. Those old dead guys that wrote the Bill of Rights recognized this and simply wrote "the right to keep and bear arms" in the 2A in regard to the people's defensive right because they realized technology may change and whatever the best " arms" in use are, the people should have access to it.

As all of this pertains to the OP concern of "God Given right to RKBA"...
I believe everyone has a right to adequate defense as prerequisite to satisfy the God given right to survival/defense.
Likewise, I don't think the 2A is about guns... it's about having the necessary tools to satisfy that same God given right.

[billh58]

51. I am not

disagreeing with your premise of a "right to self-defense," or the intent of 2A. I would question, however, the substantial difference between "the intent of ENDING a threat once manifested," and a "perceived threat?" By the very nature of its meaning, a threat is the perception of impending danger. A threat is either existent, or it is not. If you are saying that there is a difference between the concepts of anticipating a threat, and the perception of a possible threat, I believe that hair is to fine to split.

I have no axe to grind with the RKBA crowd, and I realize that most law-abiding Americans are responsible people. I believe that it is my "right," however, not to take all pro-RKBA arguments on face value, nor to automatically "trust" an armed individual because he or she professes to be harmless. Just like strangers bearing gifts, I have always maintained that one should also beware of strangers bearing arms, and that philosophy served me well during my military service.

I am eternally grateful that I have spent all of my adult life in Hawaii where guns are rare, and no one is allowed to open-carry (except designated military or LEOs), or conceal-carry (in the absence of strict extenuating circumstances). Hawaii's per-capita gun death rate is the lowest in the nation, and I fully expect to die with my boots off.

Peace...;-)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Self Defense?

Yea that worked out well in the wikd west...didn't it?

[billh58]

37. Actually, the

Old Wild West is mainly a collection of myths which began with dime-novels, and culminated with Hollywood seat-fillers.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. Define "Wild West"

Are you referring to small settlements/towns or plains-living and ranchers out in the middle-o-nowhere.
In settlements and cities, many areas actually had gun control where carry was not even allowed in the city.
Out in the middle of nowhere, survival was pretty much self supplied. I imagine self defense was a life necessity for these guys.

I'm still not certain what was meant by your statement, "Self defense? Yea that worked out well in the wikd west...didn't it?"
???
Are you suggesting it didn't work out well? Why or why not?

[slackmaster]

25. Because they are religious

Was that supposed to be a difficult question?

[gorfle]

26. On religion.

Lots of people believe in a deity. They believe that our natural rights are endowed by their creator (deity). The Constitution simply enumerates (lists) some pre-existing rights, and limits the power of government. A religious person assumes that these pre-existing rights came from God.

I am not superstitious, so I don't ascribe supernatural origins to things.

I simply believe that all sentient creatures have the right to self-determination and self-preservation, simply by virtue of being sentient. Being sentient, we have, or should have, empathy for others, and that empathy should naturally lead us to the "Golden Rule": Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We retain arms to use against those who do not respect that rule.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. I think the OP poster was trying to imply that all RKBA supporters are Freepers.

The OP poster hasn't come back to respond to any sub-posts in his own thread. He has certainly been given some excellent answers.

[X_Digger]

36. True.. failed troll post.

Expected to seagull in, drop some shit, and fly away cackling- and actually gets a philosophical discussion started.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

41. First, you're wrong...

First, you're wrong, I don't think all pro gun people are freepers, but thanks for speaking for me anyway. Here's your sign. Second, you're wrong, I have replied to some of the posts, I never intended to reply to all of them. Thanks for playing.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. I did miss where you snarked a couple of times.

But you didn't reply to any of the serious answers. I stand by my opinion.

Prove me wrong by giving serious responses to some of the serious answers that you got.

[TheWraith]

38. Because they feel the need to attribute everything to religion.

They're not keen on the fact that the founding fathers were nowhere near as religious as some people like to make them out to be. In fact, the FFs were a pretty diverse lot: Quakers, deists, a dozen flavors of Protestants, Catholics, and even a few people like Jefferson and Franklin who were openly against organized religion as it was practiced.

Ben Franklin famously said in a letter to a clergyman shortly before Franklin's death that Franklin considered the philosophy of Jesus Christ to be about as good a one as we're likely to see on this world, though he did not subscribe to what came afterward, and he did not take a position on the divinity of lack thereof of Jesus. He wrote to the clergyman that he (Franklin) did not intend to undertake research on it, for he anticipated soon the opportunity to find out with less effort.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. They aren't. See Treaty of Tripoli. In any case, some people just don't understand inalienable

or unalienable.

[billh58]

52. In the beginning

ALL rights were inalienable, and survival-of-the-fittest behavior dictated who would prosper and prevail. Then Man evolved to the point of self-awareness, and invented civilization, morals, laws, and other forms of restricting "inalienable rights": the Garden of Eden fable.

With the inventions of philosophy and religion, Man has been arguing about the meaning of "inalienable," and who gets to define the term, lo these (relatively recent) thousands of years.

[Dr. Strange]

65. Declaration of Indepence would be my guess:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If RKBA is one of those unalienable rights, then it's "God-given."

[Recursion]

66. A lot of people view civil rights as "God-given"

Have you really never heard that before?

"...that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights..."