Who qualifies for God Given Rights

[Dolomite_supafly]

Anyone who attempts to overthrow any part of the government that was legally put in place is an enemy. Just because we do not agree with what is going on now or what may happen in the future doesn't give us the right to overthrow a process that is legal. I will support my government so long as the process they are using is legal and if that requires me to take up arms against others to protect it then so be it. I took an oath for support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Anyone who attempts to illegally change the Constitution is an enemy to the Constitution and to this country.

 

Our founding fathers put in place a means for change and it has been used before and likely will be used again. But just because we do not agree with the outcome we cannot declare it invalid or illegal. We all love the Constitution when it falls in our favor but cry foul when the same process we used is then used against us.

 

A Consitutional Convention that removes any ammendment would be legal and anyone who would attempt to subvert the Constitution or the process by which it is changed is a enemy. 

 

And trust me when I say that making phone calls, sending emails, donating money right now is a lot easier and safer than fighting later.

 

I have said for a very long time that people want to complain but do not want to put forth the effort to ensure the representatives up for election do represent them. We do not make calls, do not volunteer, do not engage people in conversation or donate to those we want to win. Then when we don't get to vote for the person we didn't support we refuse to vote in protest. How many of us actually did ANYTHING to help their chosen candidate? If you want to change the country it takes more just waiting to see if the person is on the ballot is someone you would vote for.

 

That is why the liberals have us beat and always will as long a we don't do the same. They get out and talk to people, they organize, they donate and they are very vocal. On the other hand Republicans sit in silence as their means of protest. I suggest we all take our angst and become more outspoken. Call your candidate and voice your support. Contact others and let them know who your support. Volunteer or donate to show your support. Heck, a few emails a day will go a long way. This will do more than sitting in silence waiting to vote for a candidate that has ZERO chance of winning against a candidate that is organized much better than we are. Sitting around doing nothing accomplishes nothing. 
 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So if a Constitutional Convention was held and the 2nd Ammendment, or any ammendment for that matter, was removed from the Bill of Rights what would you "fighters" do?

I wonder what you would do if you heard of the possibility of that Constitutional Convention? Personally, I would be real concerned.

And, yes, I would consider my options carefully. Fighters? Why'd you bring that up? anyway, I would fight to protect a right, if it came

down to that. I kinda figured you would, also. The word "fighter" means a lot of things. There are many ways to "fight". Or are you

trying to say something else?

[Dolomite_supafly]

Just sayign there are a lot of people who have this grand illusion that they have the right to take up arms and "fight" when they do not agree somethign that was legally put in place.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Anyone who attempts to overthrow any part of the government that was legally put in place is an enemy. Just because we do not agree with what is going on now or what may happen in the future doesn't give us the right to overthrow a process that is legal. I will support my government so long as the process they are using is legal and if that requires me to take up arms against others to protect it then so be it. I took an oath for support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Anyone who attempts to illegally change the Constitution is an enemy to the Constitution and to this country.

 

Our founding fathers put in place a means for change and it has been used before and likely will be used again. But just because we do not agree with the outcome we cannot declare it invalid or illegal. We all love the Constitution when it falls in our favor but cry foul when the same process we used is then used against us.

 

A Consitutional Convention that removes any ammendment would be legal and anyone who would attempt to subvert the Constitution or the process by which it is changed is a enemy. 

 

And trust me when I say that making phone calls, sending emails, donating money right now is a lot easier and safer than fighting later.

 

I have said for a very long time that people want to complain but do not want to put forth the effort to ensure the representatives up for election do represent them. We do not make calls, do not volunteer, do not engage people in conversation or donate to those we want to win. Then when we don't get to vote for the person we didn't support we refuse to vote in protest. How many of us actually did ANYTHING to help their chosen candidate? If you want to change the country it takes more just waiting to see if the person is on the ballot is someone you would vote for.

 

That is why the liberals have us beat and always will as long a we don't do the same. They get out and talk to people, they organize, they donate and they are very vocal. On the other hand Republicans sit in silence as their means of protest. I suggest we all take our angst and become more outspoken. Call your candidate and voice your support. Contact others and let them know who your support. Volunteer or donate to show your support. Heck, a few emails a day will go a long way. This will do more than sitting in silence waiting to vote for a candidate that has ZERO chance of winning against a candidate that is organized much better than we are. Sitting around doing nothing accomplishes nothing. 
 

Are you assuming a Constitutional Convention is some kind of easy process? It isn't.

 

I do my share of the rest, do you? I talk, email, use signage, call my reps, etc. I'd like to think more people do, also.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are lots of people living under an illusion, but I haven't seen that much of it in this thread, until you mentioned "fighter" like

someone was pounding their chest. I saw only opinions, both correct and some misunderstood. That's what discussions usually

do. People tend to learn by them Gordon.

[jacob]

Anyone who attempts to overthrow any part of the government that was legally put in place is an enemy. Just because we do not agree with what is going on now or what may happen in the future doesn't give us the right to overthrow a process that is legal. I will support my government so long as the process they are using is legal and if that requires me to take up arms against others to protect it then so be it. I took an oath for support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Anyone who attempts to illegally change the Constitution is an enemy to the Constitution and to this country.

Our founding fathers put in place a means for change and it has been used before and likely will be used again. But just because we do not agree with the outcome we cannot declare it invalid or illegal. We all love the Constitution when it falls in our favor but cry foul when the same process we used is then used against us.

A Consitutional Convention that removes any ammendment would be legal and anyone who would attempt to subvert the Constitution or the process by which it is changed is a enemy.

And trust me when I say that making phone calls, sending emails, donating money right now is a lot easier and safer than fighting later.

I have said for a very long time that people want to complain but do not want to put forth the effort to ensure the representatives up for election do represent them. We do not make calls, do not volunteer, do not engage people in conversation or donate to those we want to win. Then when we don't get to vote for the person we didn't support we refuse to vote in protest. How many of us actually did ANYTHING to help their chosen candidate? If you want to change the country it takes more just waiting to see if the person is on the ballot is someone you would vote for.

That is why the liberals have us beat and always will as long a we don't do the same. They get out and talk to people, they organize, they donate and they are very vocal. On the other hand Republicans sit in silence as their means of protest. I suggest we all take our angst and become more outspoken. Call your candidate and voice your support. Contact others and let them know who your support. Volunteer or donate to show your support. Heck, a few emails a day will go a long way. This will do more than sitting in silence waiting to vote for a candidate that has ZERO chance of winning against a candidate that is organized much better than we are. Sitting around doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

Good points and for the most part I agree. My only point is that the citizens of this country have allowed the govt to illegally change the way the Constitution is applied for decades by doing the exact opposite of the suggestions you made at the end of your post...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

As a matter of fact, some of the things the federal government is doing, as we type, is unconstitutional, yet, I doubt

you will admit it. Many laws have been passed that are completely unconstitutional, and have never been challenged.

The trend is likely for it to continue with the kind of Congress we have, nowadays, but I didn't say anything many

don't already know.

 

Just about all laws that were passed using emotion and not founded in some kind of principle of law and reason and logic

are unconstitutional. Chew on that a while.

[Dolomite_supafly]

If the means they use to fight is not legal then they are enemies of the state, whether it be with arms or not. Seems to me you liked a post that someone mentions fighting with a fist or a gun. To me that is someone who is implying taking up arms to force his will upon those who he doesn't agree with. Tyranny is not a government exclusive. People can become tyranical as well and has happened all over the world.

 

I know the governemnt is breaking the law, I will admit it, but taking breaking the law is not what we need to use to correct it otherwise we are no worse than those breaking the law.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You have a right to protect your rights. An unjust law is still unjust. I didn't say the only way to change it is taking up

arms, but that is one of the options mentioned by the founders. And it should be considered when all else fails, otherwise,

you will lose your rights.

 

The US Constitution is a document that limits the powers of the federal government. When it "takes" something by executive

order or a law that is otherwise unconstitutional, it is an unjust law, and is a right not granted by the people. All remedies, at

that point, need to be considered to undo that wrong. For far too many years, people have allowed those wrongs to linger.

If you think I said "fight" anywhere there, so be it, but I said all remedies. Maybe, at some point, that will have to happen.

I don't know.

 

Gordon, it isn't about agreeing with someone. The Constitution, if you mean everyone has to agree with it makes the

law, is a problem. The US Constitution is the Constitution. That's it. It can get interpreted correctly or incorrectly at

times. But it was'nt placed there to be agreed or disagreed with. That was settled a long time ago, and not by you or I.

If there are disagreements to it, there is the Constitutional Convention process, not Congress monkeying with it, continually.

 

It was placed there to limit the federal government and set duties for the branches of government.

Edited November 7, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Chucktshoes]

Dolomite, you seem to conflate what is legal with what is right. They are not necessarily the same thing. When laws are just, they are right. When laws are unjust to resist them by whatever means one has available to them is more than right, it is one's moral responsibility. Every genocide, mass murder and imprisonment committed by a government was perfectly legal by the laws of that government. It doesn't make it right.

 

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...," Thomas Jefferson as written in the Declaration of Independence

 

 "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." MLK Letter from the Birmingham Jail

Edited November 7, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[jacob]

If the means they use to fight is not legal then they are enemies of the state, whether it be with arms or not. Seems to me you liked a post that someone mentions fighting with a fist or a gun. To me that is someone who is implying taking up arms to force his will upon those who he doesn't agree with. Tyranny is not a government exclusive. People can become tyranical as well and has happened all over the world.

I know the governemnt is breaking the law, I will admit it, but taking breaking the law is not what we need to use to correct it otherwise we are no worse than those breaking the law.

I posted what he liked. I am not advocating an overthrow of a govt, just simply stating what our founders intended. Now, for that matter our country was founded on a revolution by a minority of the people, and our country is supposed to represent the rights of the individual, not the collective. If people choose to exercise a natural right to defend themselves with a firearms they should not be deprived of that right and given a rock just because they are in the minority. Last I checked the govt was all gung ho about getting rid of their weapons...they can have mine when they destroy theirs.

Also, "if" guns are outlawed, how do I get compensated for turning them in?? With MY own money?? That doesnt settle well with me. What do you plan to do with all that NFA stuff and EBRs?? Wouldnt it make you an enemy of the state to keep them??

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And your last paragraph is an example of an unjust law.

[E4 No More]

Oh, boy...another religious debate on a gun forum. :(

[c.a.willard]

They aren't supposed to be able to be taken away by the stroke of a pen on law. By passing the Bill of Rights, it was done to

give incentive to get the rest of the colonies to join the union. An amendment can't just fall off by passing a law. Laws and

amendments to the Constitution are separate and are treated differently. The 2nd was put in to protect the citizenry from

tyranny and to limit the federal government's ability to pass laws that may abridge it.

 

Discussions are just discussions, just like this one. You can agree with them or not.

 

That bold statement is just not true, except that of opinions of particular founders, but they still signed and passed the document in the end. . The government did not grant anything. The government is limited by the document, not given

powers. The government can't take something they don't have the power to. In the cases where they have succeeded

to do that, they have nibbled at the edges of those amendments by using clauses of the Constitution improperly

and illegally. The Constitution was intended, all along, to restrict the powers of government, not embolden it.

How was my statement not true.  Both Hamilton and Madison wrote extensively about there fears of adding a bill of rights and that it could potentially be utilized by the government for usurping powers not intended for the federal government.  They also argued that by making it the law it gave the federal government the pretense to do so.  This is one of the reasons of why the amendments are phrased the way they are, it is to attempt to mitigate that risk.  

 

Yes they are more difficult to remove and can not be removed as easily, however with enough popular support a amendment to the constitution can be removed.  It has happened before.   They are even easier to circumvent with enough political pull and popular support.  For evidence of this one needs to look no further than the over use of the commerce clause and it's use to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

[homeagain]

Interesting concept to me is that (in my mind at least) the 'giving of the law' is either democratically ordained (majority rule) or inalienable (God-given).  If there is no 'god,' then no right (law or otherwise) is truly inalienable as at any point in time the majority can change (alienate the minority from) those 'rights.'  I have some friends that are atheists (very nice people, actually).  We agree to disagree on the issue of the existence of God (we do have friendly debates on the issues, though).  Question posed to them was if it were all of a sudden legal by way of democracy for me to wantonly kill your child, would it be 'wrong' if the majority of the populace has deemed it 'OK'?  Their answer was 'yes' of course.  But how could it be 'wrong', if that right to live isn't truly inalienable?  A 'right' cannot be inalienable unless granted by an authority greater than our 'pay grade' so to speak, as the majority can take it away.  Can't 'prove' a right, as we can't 'prove' God's existence.  So, in order for us to accept rights as inalienable, we (as a society) must have a majority of deity-believing people to do so. 

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Who said otherwise?

No one, this was a thought experiment for the question: Where do our rights come from and what is required to claim them?
I was able to give my answer to that question in my first sentence, God. I also answered it in a way to address the OP's thought on:
 

if your wanting to claim a right endowed by your Creator that you probably should believe in said Creator to get that right

If you would like a more precise and less theistic view from me: You are born with those rights as a living being. You don't need permission to exercise/claim them. Yes if someone bigger and badder comes along (like a tyrannical government) there isn't much you can do about them infringing on your birth rights.

The animal kingdom is a good example of this: Any animal that feels threatened and has the means too will defend itself and has a right too survival the same as every other animal. We humans though (the tyrannical animals) will put down animals that attack humans even if it were, in the animals eyes, perceived as defense of themselves or their offspring etc.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I would just as soon leave the "God given" part of this to mean by your "Creator", if only to keep the fight over someone's religious

beliefs to themselves. Theistic or whatever, Pagan, voodoo, it'd be better to just drop the impending argument before someone

wants to get it personal. Creator, for the discussion, is perfectly fine with me. I think we all know what that means.

 

But if you want to take this into the animal realm, I think that is not a very good comparison. And, please don't take offense by the

word "lower", but lower animals have a little less processing power in their brains. Humans have cognitive skills different from lower

animals.

 

"Yes if someone bigger and badder comes along (like a tyrannical government) there isn't much you can do about them infringing

on your birth rights." No, Chuck addressed that. You have a moral duty(responsibility) to fight a tyrannical government. The law of

the jungle applies to the jungle. I'd just as soon not be included with the jungle, thanks. When the jungle can come up with a

written constitution that protects the animals from governments, there might be something to this. Hey, Animal Farm is good! :D

[Jonnin]

No one said the constitution was not a work of man. The framers were simply stating a belief that men had natural rights that govt didnt grant and couldn't just take away...the individual must decide to relinquish those natural rights of their own volition...

 

No one in this thread said it, that I saw.  I have seen it said any number of times that "freedom of speech" or "RKBA" or the rest are "god given".   I am not sure either of those are indeed provided by the almighty, unless he is mighty selective about who is covered, HE missed most of china for example.

 

Hmm, if they had a CC & tossed out the 2nd .... what would I do?   I am not a warrior and have no intentions of shooting anyone for the rest of my life if it can possibly be avoided.  Neither will I be running down to melt my hardware.   I will help fight it within the system as hard as I can, yes -- though at that point, its a lost cause probably.    And if they start going door to door collecting, well, I will have sold mine to someone who WILL fight (for the cause, if possible), and probably hidden a few things here and there.   As noted in the other thread, we can always make more guns faster than they can collect them and they can't arrest everyone, heck the jails can't even hold the real criminals.

[Spiffy]

Everyone qualifies. They are natural rights. No need to subscribe to any one religious philosophy or even any at all. Some believe their creator to be God, others believe in a combination of actions and reactions, mutations and evolvements. Maybe both are right and God set the evolutionary ball rolling, who knows?

Either way its got nothing to do with my rights as an American.

 

But the Founding Fathers didn't call it a Natural Right, they called it a GOD GIVEN right.

[Spiffy]

Protecting yourself might be a "God given right" but the ability use a firearm was given to us by a man made document. The 2nd Ammendment is not a right but a priviledge given to us by our founding fathers. A right is something that cannot be taken away by man. The ability to use a firearm to defend yourself can be taken away just as easily as it was given. There will be a day when there will be a Constitutional Convention to remove or alter the 2nd Ammendment. And by the simple fact it can be taken makes it a priviledge.

 

There are tons of countries around the world where someone cannot use a firearm in self defense so that is not a right given by the creator, if there is one.

 

Also, if it is a "God given right" who's God gave them that right. Was the Hindu God or the Muslim God?

 

I feel that it is a RIGHT that we have allowed the government (city, county, state, federal) to turn into a Privilege, much like voting. I never understood why being guilty of a felon in and of itself means you not longer have a say in how things are ran. 

[Spiffy]

I just want to say that TGO is an amazing place on the internet. If I had posted this thread ANYWHERE else, it would be locked by now and there would be 3 bans and 10 time outs. Everyone here should be thankful we have a place to discuss such topics in a civil nature.

[Spiffy]

There are some interesting discussions in the world of U.S. history about this exact thing.  Several of the framers of the constitution did not want a bill of rights for a different reasons.  One of the more interesting reason is that some of our founders felt anything put into the bill of rights is now granted by the government and therefore could be taken away by the same government. 

 

From a legal standpoint dolomite's argument rings true, by passing the amendments they became codified as US law and laws can be rewritten or abolished by the government and the people it serves. 

 

I'm in that camp. I think the Constitution should have re-written to include the safeguards that are commonly called the Bill of Rights. 

[Joe357]

Rights; If you didn’t believe in GOD or the constitution or manmade laws, then there are no Rights. Man used his/hers intellect to determine Rights. Think about it; before people believed in GOD and before laws, there was nothing to stop anyone from surviving other then one’s self. Also known as animal instinct or survival of the fittest. To kill or be killed. GOD and human law changed that or if you don't believe in GOD, then manmade law.

[TMF]

But the Founding Fathers didn't call it a Natural Right, they called it a GOD GIVEN right.

So? God means different things to different people, and He is called by many names in thousands of languages that exist and have long been dead. Even an atheist can recognize that he came from somewhere, such as the Big Bang or nature. Why can't that be their God? What about folks who believe in both? I think your original question is putting your own subjective spin on what you believe God is versus what others might believe. That's all well and good, until we start talking about who has what rights based on their beliefs. That is dangerous territory and suggests to me something sinister as opposed to a general respect for the liberties of your fellow man.

[jacob]

That's all well and good, until we start talking about who has what rights based on their beliefs. That is dangerous territory and suggests to me something sinister as opposed to a general respect for the liberties of your fellow man.

This is exactly what the founders/framers intended...