Who qualifies for God Given Rights

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I still don't understand why there are several folks hung up with someone's use of the word "God". Whether it be God, natural,

inalienable or destiny, in the meaning here, the use is similar, and not implying religion, which I think there are too many who

are quite sensitive to. It doesn't say Christianity, Judaism, Islam or mention any other religion, so, what's the problem?

 

Touchy! If you don't like God, go worship the darned refrigerator. That's not what this is about. Henry VIII had an issue with the

Catholic church and came back with the Church of England. Keal's use of "human" or someone's use of "natural" is fine by me,

for the sake of argument of an issue, but isn't this nitpicking of Spiffy's use of "God given" a bit much? This discussion is worth

more than this. I haven't seen the first bit of anyone trying to impose a religious belief on anyone. What's the problem?

[Mike.357]

I still don't understand why there are several folks hung up with someone's use of the word "God".

 

from the first post

 

 

 

I see a lot of Atheists on message boards wanting to claim their GOD given right to self defense.

 

i thought god was the topic,  sorry

[jacob]

I am sure that is the reason that the framers didn't specifically use the term god in our founding documents, even though most of them were deeply religious...they did not want to inhibit a person's rights because they didn't subscribe to the beliefs of a state church...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

from the first post

 

 

i thought god was the topic,  sorry

Actually it is about that or inalienable, or human, or whatever similar term one might use that fits. I think it might have sounded a

bit hypocritical when a supposed atheist uses a word that doesn't fit into their corner neatly. Probably not much more than that.

Sorry Mike. Maybe the discussion took the wrong turn and started with additional substance, other than ranting about about religion,

which suits me just fine. The word God can be used without invoking any particular religion, can't it?

 

Maybe the OP should have made it "inalienable" rights in the header. It wouldn't have mattered either way to me.

[Guest TresOsos]

Get convicted of domestic violence and tell me how your unalienable right fairs afterwards. If a right cannot be taken away then how does that happen? A right cannot be taken away, a priviledge can.

 

You have a right to protect yourself, the tools you use are a priviledge given to you by your fellow man. This has been proven over and over again.

I guess we can change the 1st Ten Admendmends of the Constitution from the "Bill or Rights" to the Bill of Privilages. Oh wouldn't the Fed's just love that.

 

Just because we, citizens, have allowed them, government, to encroach on our rights does not mean they don't exsist as rights and they are suddenly "privilages".

Our rights can and probably will cease to exsist, not because they do not exsist as rights, but because we, as poor stewards and defenders of them, allow them to be taken.

[Mike.357]

 

 

Maybe the OP should have made it "inalienable" rights in the header. It wouldn't have mattered either way to me.

 

maybe that would have kept god out of the discussion. 

[tnguy]

I still don't understand why there are several folks hung up with someone's use of the word "God". Whether it be God, natural,

inalienable or destiny, in the meaning here, the use is similar, and not implying religion, which I think there are too many who

are quite sensitive to. It doesn't say Christianity, Judaism, Islam or mention any other religion, so, what's the problem?

 

Touchy! If you don't like God, go worship the darned refrigerator. That's not what this is about. Henry VIII had an issue with the

Catholic church and came back with the Church of England. Keal's use of "human" or someone's use of "natural" is fine by me,

for the sake of argument of an issue, but isn't this nitpicking of Spiffy's use of "God given" a bit much? This discussion is worth

more than this. I haven't seen the first bit of anyone trying to impose a religious belief on anyone. What's the problem?

 

I think the issue people are having is with the "If you don't believe in God, you can't believe you have rights" implications. Quite plainly nonsense.

[tnguy]

Maybe the OP should have made it "inalienable" rights in the header. It wouldn't have mattered either way to me.

 

I think that would have negated the point the OP was trying to make.

[daddyo]

I still don't understand why there are several folks hung up with someone's use of the word "God". Whether it be God, natural,

inalienable or destiny, in the meaning here, the use is similar, and not implying religion, which I think there are too many who

are quite sensitive to. It doesn't say Christianity, Judaism, Islam or mention any other religion, so, what's the problem?

 

Touchy! If you don't like God, go worship the darned refrigerator. That's not what this is about. Henry VIII had an issue with the

Catholic church and came back with the Church of England. Keal's use of "human" or someone's use of "natural" is fine by me,

for the sake of argument of an issue, but isn't this nitpicking of Spiffy's use of "God given" a bit much? This discussion is worth

more than this. I haven't seen the first bit of anyone trying to impose a religious belief on anyone. What's the problem?

 

Because in this day and age, you must not offend anyone by voicing your faith. Not atheists, not muslims, wiccans, nor any other non-Christian belief system.

 

It is however, perfectly acceptable for others to offend you by ridiculing it.

That's what some call "social justice".

Edited November 8, 2013 by daddyo

[Dolomite_supafly]

I was just saying there is a process to remove the various ammendments and just because we don't agree with it doesn't invalidate the process or give us cause to take up arms against the government.

 

Everything we complain about every day can be reversed. Problem is we are too lazy to make the calls, donate time or money or even get out to vote. I get tired of hearing people say they are not going to vote because they do not like the candidates. It is especially upsetting when I get a deer in the headlights look when I asked them what they did to support their candidate. Those same people who cry foul when election time comes refused to support THEIR candidate months or years earlier then on election day. Then they sit in silence and refuse to vote as a means of protest. No wonder we have lost the country, we allow our adversaries to win by default because we don't want to put in the same work they are willing to do. We expect our representatives to know what WE want without us calling them. They are not clairvoyants.

 

We all came together to make sure out ARs/AKs were not outlawed, why can't we do the same for something else like the ACA? If you want to reverse the ACA then you have to put in the effort that our opposition did. I bet if every person unhappy with the ACA called their representative every day from now on it would be on national news and within weeks it would be reversed. How many here called before it was passed to voice their opinion? How many have even called since it was passed to voice their opinion?

 

Or how about calling another representative? Just because our state seems relatively safe, which we aren't, from the liberal agenda doesn't mean we are safe. Make calls to those who represent people who are in jeopardy of loosing and stop the momentum before it reaches our borders. There is no law that says I cannot call some representative from another state and raise hell. They call our representatives from other states or use our own courts to beat us yet we, again, sit in silence to protest what is happening.

 

And all of this is the process by which we make sure we put this country back, not taking up arms. When it comes time I will fight against those who intend to subvert the process, be it fellow citizens or those in government. Right now the process is still working but we have to put forth at least some effort.

[tnguy]

You seem to have missed what's been going on. The Looters are now running the country. It is not being run by a small collection of administrators, doing a little here and a little there to make things run smoothly, the tipping point has been reached and vast quantities of wealth are being liberated and used to buy influence to keep those in power in power. We don't have a government, we have banditos.

[Dolomite_supafly]

You seem to have missed what's been going on. The Looters are now running the country. It is not being run by a small collection of administrators, doing a little here and a little there to make things run smoothly, the tipping point has been reached and vast quantities of wealth are being liberated and used to buy influence to keep those in power in power. We don't have a government, we have banditos.

How many calls have you made to a representative in the last 6 months? In the last year? In the last decade?

[jacob]

Dolomite, I agree that the people should stand up and fight for this country using phone calls and emails to our elected officials. Problem is that a growing segment of this country depends on the govt for their livelihood instead of creating their own destiny as our founders intended. You can only fight that so far with votes before at some point in our future it will be meaningless. Our republic is slowly depending into democracy where mob rule will eventually ensue.

You mentioned the amendment process provided in our Constitution being used in the past. What rights enumerated to us in the Constitution have been depleted by any amendment process?? I would argue none. As 6.8 posted, our rights have been abridged by our govt using laws and EOs passed outside of their Constitutional authority and upheld by a SCOTUS that is increasingly using intl law as basis of interpreting than the Constitution and the essays of our founders for their reference....

[jacob]

I apologize, I meant descending into a democracy...cell phone keyboards are not big hand friendly. ..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We always have to be diligent. I haven't seen anyone disagree with that, yet, but there can come a time when options are

minimalized to the point of using other means to right the ship. You can call someone an "enemy of the state" until you're

blue in the face, but if that time ever comes, you may have changed your mind on that one. I certainly hope so. I doubt

there is a single person on this board who wants that to happen, also, but it is most certainly one of the remedies the

founders mentioned. It's also one of the reasons the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights.

 

Are we now counting how many times we contact our representatives?

I do my share. I want to unseat Lamar. Are you in that fight? I can't do much about the other states, but that's one I can, but 

all Tennesseans need to be in that fight, also.

 

You say the process is till working. Bribery and extortion is making your version work, I guess. Let's see, McConnell, Manchin,

Landreaux, who else? Alexander, Shumer, do I really need to go on? They and many more are using tricks, not proper

process, to get bills passed, and many are bought off. Do you like seeing the process using yours and my tax dollars used

for that? That doesn't appear to me to be the proper process at all. Some have just accepted it and crawled back in their holes.

If the rule of law is that this kind of law is allowed to continue, how much more do you think we can stand, as a country. We're

already using a process for appropriations without using a budget, and we borrow 2-3 dollars for every one we have to help

everyone who has a hiccup. We have had an out of control government for decades and you want to call it what?

 

You also have the view, or did, to just unseat every incumbent each election cycle. How is that helping anything? I'm not picking

on you Gordon, but I do wonder how unseating the good ones each time is productive? That just leads to continual uncertainty,

doesn't it? There are a few good ones in the den of thieves who try to make things right. Ted Cruz is being trashed by his own

party for doing just that. Do you want him to be unseated? See what I mean? There is a rational way of defeating tyranny and it

includes educating the voting public in the right way of electing reps to their offices. These schemes people cook up to throw the

baby out with the bath water should be forgotten.

 

I love my country, but I have serious reservations about the ones in charge of it. All those lives, sacred honor deserve better.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Dolomite, I agree that the people should stand up and fight for this country using phone calls and emails to our elected officials. Problem is that a growing segment of this country depends on the govt for their livelihood instead of creating their own destiny as our founders intended. You can only fight that so far with votes before at some point in our future it will be meaningless. Our republic is slowly depending into democracy where mob rule will eventually ensue.

You mentioned the amendment process provided in our Constitution being used in the past. What rights enumerated to us in the Constitution have been depleted by any amendment process?? I would argue none. As 6.8 posted, our rights have been abridged by our govt using laws and EOs passed outside of their Constitutional authority and upheld by a SCOTUS that is increasingly using intl law as basis of interpreting than the Constitution and the essays of our founders for their reference....

 

Think you can't stop those who receive benefits? If we, as a nation, called those representatives that give it away every single day they would change their opinion. Demand they reduce the benefits like what has recently happened but also demand they continue to reduce the funds. At some point those who receive them will realize that working will get them more. There are some who will never do that but in the last 5 years there have been droves that have chosen welfare over working.

 

I agree that laws are being used to take away our freedoms but those laws, and those who passed them, can be removed through the process I mentioned earlier but we have to work and not wait to vote.

 

We have not got to a point where the process no longer works, we are just at a point where most people are to lazy to use the process. And most times they only use it when it impacts them personally and even then some will just sit in silent protest. I understand we are frustrated because the last 15 presidents have slowly eroded our freedoms but that is not the fault of the government. We want to blame the government but the person who should garner 99.9% of the blame is the person viewed in the mirror for not wanting to use the process. And now that someone else has used the process to beat us we are upset.

 

So lets see. Those who are in office and taking bribes just walked into that position? No, they were voted in by people who used the process. If you don't like what they are doing then call every single representative, including the offenders, and tell them what needs to happen. Sitting in silence, complaining on the internet, is not the process process that gets these people out of office.

 

Cruz will likely be a distant memory in a few election cycles. He will go grab his fair share and then hopefully leave. It has played out over and over again. A new representative comes in wanting to change the world then they ALWAYS give in. So yes I would rather have a government full of newly elected officials still wanting to change the world than someone who will have compromised themselves by their second term. I seem to recal Chris Christie being the conservative savior not to long ago and see where he is now? Cruz will follow his footsteps like hundreds before him and the only way to stop it is to stop them after their first term. So yes I have every intention of voting against every single incumbent.

[gun sane]

We can all agree that It's really foolhardy to enter into any argument about a subject in which you have no knowledge.    I wouldn't argue with a chemical engineer because I don't know the first thing about the periodic table of the elements.  You won't catch me in a debate with a mule skinner because of my ignorance of skinning and mules.  So why would an atheist, who has no knowledge of God, wage an unending theological debate against Christians, who have come to know Him?  It would be extremely difficult to convince me that a Rolls Royce doesn't exist if I have one sitting in my garage.  But, as it is written, "Let God be true and every man a liar."  We do see Him through a dark glass, but He gives knowledge and clarity to them who would ask Him for it.

 

The founding fathers were men of an entirely different era.  There were conflicts of opinion, granted, but at that time in history issues such as, "Does God exist?" were not on the front burner of the national stove.  It was widely accepted that their ancestors sitting on upper branches in the family tree came here for the purpose of being free to worship God or to escape tyranny.  Therefore it is logical to accept that they would include mention of the Creator into the foundational documents as the inspirational force of their beliefs of life and how men should rule and conduct their affairs.  But the leaders of our emerging government also recognized that those who disagreed with their faith were entitled to taste the same freedoms as they, given that all humans are made in God's image.  But we are here in the 21st century with a lot more historical and philosophical baggage to cart around.  I suppose this is why we yearn to return to a more simplistic order of reasonable government.  Today's political and social scene is filled with pure madness.  It's best to look outside ourselves and discover timeless rules of wisdom that we all too often overlook.

Edited November 8, 2013 by gun sane

[tnguy]

Think you can't stop those who receive benefits? If we, as a nation, called those representatives that give it away every single day they would change their opinion. Demand they reduce the benefits like what has recently happened but also demand they continue to reduce the funds. At some point those who receive them will realize that working will get them more. There are some who will never do that but in the last 5 years there have been droves that have chosen welfare over working.

 

And why would they listen to you when those who receive the benefits will continue to vote for them and completely outnumber you(us)?

[Dolomite_supafly]

And why would they listen to you when those who receive the benefits will continue to vote for them and completely outnumber you(us)?

 

Our country is lost. All hope is now gone, no sense in even making an effort.

 

Heck, thank you for enlightening me and saving me all those phone calls, letters and emails. I will just sit here in silent protest and not lift a finger.

[jacob]

No one is saying an effort shouldnt be made, but can you not be realistic enough to admit that given the way the mentality in this country is drifting that we will not at some point be out numbered by people who would rather suckle off the govt teat?

[tnguy]

Our country is lost. All hope is now gone, no sense in even making an effort.

 

Heck, thank you for enlightening me and saving me all those phone calls, letters and emails. I will just sit here in silent protest and not lift a finger.

 

Haha. No, you're right. You have to do what you can. It's just hard not to be bleak sometimes.

Edited November 8, 2013 by tnguy

[JayC]

Try taking a bone away from a pack of starving dogs... tell me how that goes.  Look at Europe for examples of what happens when you try and make even minor cuts in social welfare programs....

 

They burnt down buildings in the capital over a slight increase is college tuition costs.  What do you think happens to downtown Detroit, Newark or even Lexington, KY if the just did away with disability and food stamps?

 

Dolomite, I contribute to candidates I believe in, I call both my state and federal legislators at least 8 to 10 times a year.  So, I'm not just 'crying' about the problems on the Internet.

 

But the fact is to avoid massive social unrest, where on civil society breaks down, would take us decades to fix...  and we don't have decades left on the credit card.  The truth is you're right, there is a coming showdown between the liberty elements, and the 'social justice' elements, where people will have to make a choice...  and it's likely that choice will be made at the point of a gun.

 

Some of us believe that natural rights, stand above all things created by man, they existed first and therefore can not be taken away by a man or group of men.  When a 'law' or legal theory is used to immoral infringe on those rights and force is used to assert control under the law of free people, that we not only have the right but the duty to fight back through whatever force is needed.

 

I hope I'm wrong...  I hope that we're able to find a solution that doesn't result in the attempt to crush our liberty in the name of security and social justice...  but I fear we won't before it too late and the answer that people accept when that times come is to welcome even more soul sucking government control because liberty is a dangerous and scary place.

 

Make no mistake, I'm not advocating violence, nor am I some 'wanna-be rambo', I realize that insurrection is about the worse thing that could happen...  but it's a lot better than being a slave with no freedom, which is what is in store for us if we're disarmed.

 

Think you can't stop those who receive benefits? If we, as a nation, called those representatives that give it away every single day they would change their opinion. Demand they reduce the benefits like what has recently happened but also demand they continue to reduce the funds. At some point those who receive them will realize that working will get them more. There are some who will never do that but in the last 5 years there have been droves that have chosen welfare over working.

 

I agree that laws are being used to take away our freedoms but those laws, and those who passed them, can be removed through the process I mentioned earlier but we have to work and not wait to vote.

 

We have not got to a point where the process no longer works, we are just at a point where most people are to lazy to use the process. And most times they only use it when it impacts them personally and even then some will just sit in silent protest. I understand we are frustrated because the last 15 presidents have slowly eroded our freedoms but that is not the fault of the government. We want to blame the government but the person who should garner 99.9% of the blame is the person viewed in the mirror for not wanting to use the process. And now that someone else has used the process to beat us we are upset.

 

So lets see. Those who are in office and taking bribes just walked into that position? No, they were voted in by people who used the process. If you don't like what they are doing then call every single representative, including the offenders, and tell them what needs to happen. Sitting in silence, complaining on the internet, is not the process process that gets these people out of office.

 

Cruz will likely be a distant memory in a few election cycles. He will go grab his fair share and then hopefully leave. It has played out over and over again. A new representative comes in wanting to change the world then they ALWAYS give in. So yes I would rather have a government full of newly elected officials still wanting to change the world than someone who will have compromised themselves by their second term. I seem to recal Chris Christie being the conservative savior not to long ago and see where he is now? Cruz will follow his footsteps like hundreds before him and the only way to stop it is to stop them after their first term. So yes I have every intention of voting against every single incumbent.

Edited November 8, 2013 by JayC