Who qualifies for God Given Rights

[Chucktshoes]

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.

 

 

Not at all. As I mentioned before, The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to defend. If their governments oppress and strip them of natural rights, it is only because they have allowed it to do so. Our own government tramples all over our rights daily and we allow it. I say "we" because I include myself in that. Currently I am fighting it in my own way, but obviously haven't resorted to violence (even though I believe it to be morally just) as it hasn't crossed a line I am willing to die for yet. For I know that when the day comes that violence is the only option I have left, my death will soon follow. I hold no romantic notion that I will be victorious in a glorious third American Revolution. However sometimes even if you know you will lose, you still have to fight. 

Edited November 7, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest ThePunisher]

   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.

If it ever gets to this, the tyrannical government is sure not gonna arrest everyone and put them in prison or jails; the tyrants are gonna use firing squads.

[TrickyNicky]

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 TMF summed it up better than I could, I also think there's a possibility of us seeing some of common vernacular of the time as well.
Either way the practice of the whole thing seems fairly straight forward to me, may as well call them undeniable rights, or just unalienable rights for that matter, any way you slice it, that's the whole idea.

[RED333]

 If I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster..I still have a right to defend myself.

A lot of good stuff posted to this thread, I will say 100% of it is correct, just depends on you point of view.

Sour Kraut gets the best line of the day. Got a good grin out of it, thanks.

[jacob]

Cant believe I missed that. ..it is the best quote of the day...

[Guest ThePunisher]

Simply put, majority rules. America is at the crossroads of weather we remain a Constitutional Republic which was inspired by men who had faith in God, or succumb to big (tyrannical) government that is leading to secularism of America with anti-constitutional beliefs. It will probably be decided in the next 5 or 10 years to what direction the majority will lead us. Apathy by many in our country is sure not helping in our nation remaining a Constitutional Republic. The battle to keep our constitutional liberties and freedoms starts today. The 2014 elections will give us a good indication if we get to keep our constitutional liberties and freedoms much longer. Edited November 8, 2013 by ThePunisher

[daddyo]

"Man's got a right to protect his property and his life, and we ain't lettin' no rancher or his lawman take either." - Boss Spearman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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. 

Do you mean rather than 1-10 they just be in the articles? I imagine, but I don't know for certain, that the entire Constitution

could be amended. It seems that nowadays it even takes only a rotten President or two to amend it. The document has surely

been shredded as of late. It needs the support of the people to make it strong, not the government. The government is the

entity that would just as soon drop it and make something else the governing document. I know there are people in the

government and in all branches who would rather it be something else. It crimps their style. It is much more important to you

and I than them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

They thought of it as a possibility, but they signed, didn't they? There were many concerns about the Constitution. The government is

not allowed to take any of those powers for their own without our first granting them to them. When they usurp, they steal, and it is illegal

under the document itself. Look up what it takes to call a Constitutional Convention. It's not easy, and it won't be any easier in the future.

 

The Bill of Rights were put in to gather the rest of the states/colonies/territories into the union. The states demanded those protections

be put in there for the same reasons Madison and Hamilton feared them. How did Jefferson stand on them? And the rest?

[JayC]

Somebody who doesn't believe in God, would say that rights, natural rights, come from our humanity...  The fact that we are sentient thinking beings give us natural rights.

 

But, does it matter, you believe in God (I assume), and since God, our Creator, endowed inalienable rights on all of us, not just those that believe in Him, then you already believe they have natural rights...  so does it matter they use some crazy logic to grant those same rights to themselves without believing in God?

 

I see a lot of Atheists on message boards wanting to claim their GOD given right to self defense. It stuck me in the shower (where I do all my good thinking) that if your wanting to claim a right endowed by your Creator that you probably should believe in said Creator to get that right. Maybe they just go with the whole 14th Amendment Citizen idea. 

 

It's a good academic exercise to think about isn't it. Where do our rights come from and what is required to claim them. 

 

[JayC]

No, that is exactly what crazy people are teaching our kids...

 

Our rights existed before the Constitution was ever written, they existed before the founding fathers were born...  They are natural rights that stand above any law or 'government'.  And if you go back and re-read Declaration of Independence and the federalist papers you'll see this throughout both...  Go re-read the 9th Amendment and explain what that means if you truly believe the 2nd Amendment is a privilege.

 

And here are some examples of the flaw in the logic that the Bill of Rights grants us rights...  

 

Lets say instead of replacing the 2nd Amendment, they repeal the 5th, and pass a law that says the AG of the US can sentence you to death for looking at him funny...  Does the fact they passed a law to put you to death change the fact you have a right to live?  No, obviously not, you're right to life stands above any document or law...  

 

Another example is slavery...  Did slaves have a natural right to be free, to choose who they marry, and to learn how to read before the 13th amendment?  I think every one of us would say yes...  Of course every person has a right to be free...  

 

I agree there are tons of countries around this world that infringe on natural rights, but they can't take something away from you that belongs to you as a human being, they may only immorally violate those rights.

 

I'm sorry but you're wrong all people have natural rights that can not be taken...  among them are those rights detailed in the Bill of Rights, but by no means limited to just those enumerated rights.

 

The real question you have to ask yourself is why do free people put up with such infringements on any of their rights?

 

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?

 

[tnguy]

To put an alternative spin on it, if you believe in "God-given" rights, you also believe he can take them away from others when he leans over and whispers in your ear...

[JayC]

I think you're the only one here talking about using force to exert his will over anybody else...

 

I have a right to life, liberty and property (among others), and included in my right to life, I have the right of self defense using whatever I deem to be the best method or tool to provide for my self defense.

 

The number #1 unnatural death in the last 100 years has been democide...  the killing of people by their own government.  Every one of those death were legal, and under the constitution or laws of that government... people who violated those laws were enemies of the state...  but none of that makes it right, or moral, nor somehow prohibit the natural right to self defense to stop yourself from being killed. 

 

I don't want to force you to do anything other than respect my natural rights and leave me alone...  you want to give up for firearms, I'm not going to stop you...  you want to be a slave, or march into a gas chamber to be killed, more power to you...  More than 200 million people in a 100 years all 'legally' killed by their own government.

 

I might be an enemy of the state by violating laws that violate my natural rights, but they're my rights, and only I can freely given them up...  they're not yours or anybody elses rights to give away.

 

So how exactly does my position sound tyrannical?   

 

And if you really want to get into a deep conversation, lets talk about the rule against perpetuities and how you can be bound at birth by a contract signed by men born more than 250 years ago...

 

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.

Edited November 8, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

I'm not aware anywhere in our founding documents or federalist papers where rights were referred to as 'God given'...  endowed by their Creator yes...

 

But, 'natural rights' are all over documents from the revolutionary war and after...  The Virginia Convention of 1776 which approved the Declaration of Independence stated:

 

 

We are determined at all events, to act on that occasion as the men of spirit ought to do in defence of their natural rights...

 

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

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Inalienable rights was another term, also.

[Guest TresOsos]

"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."

 

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution simply enumerates certain Natural Unalienable Rights.....they are Rights, not suggestions or as stated by one poster..privileges.

 

Thus the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated and unalienable right.

[Dolomite_supafly]

"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."

 

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution simply enumerates certain Natural Unalienable Rights.....they are Rights, not suggestions or as stated by one poster..privileges.

 

Thus the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated and unalienable right.

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.

[Guest TankerHC]

I see a lot of Atheists on message boards wanting to claim their GOD given right to self defense. It stuck me in the shower (where I do all my good thinking) that if your wanting to claim a right endowed by your Creator that you probably should believe in said Creator to get that right. Maybe they just go with the whole 14th Amendment Citizen idea. 

 

It's a good academic exercise to think about isn't it. Where do our rights come from and what is required to claim them. 

 

I do mine on the tooolit. Also do my Constitutional study there, both kinds. :love:

 

(Sorry, that OP was wide open for this one, had to take it)

Edited November 8, 2013 by TankerHC

[jacob]

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.

that argument doesn't hold water...the founders specifically stated that no man should be deprived of life or liberty without due process....this goes back to support the argument purported by many of the posters...the individual makes the decision to relinquish their rights...the legal process is just a byproduct of that decision...

 

as far as having a right to protect myself goes, I believe in a level playing field...so did our founding fathers...you know those enemies of the state?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Now, we can have preachers of the government being the boss, and we can have preachers of man being the boss. Sounds almost

like a chicken-egg thing, doesn't it? Man created the government, and man is the boss of government. That is what our Constitution

asserts so that government is not allowed to become tyrannical. The problem is that there are men in this country who think the

total opposite. Those are the same ones who say the Constitution is a living, breathing document. If you want to find the enemy of

the Constitution, look no further than those who wish to change it. They only want to change it so they can have man "ruling" over

the rest of man, thereby having two classes of man. Simple enough?

 

We have enough(too many) people saying "cake or death" already. I just want my freedom(rights) and you can have cake(privileges),

or death. :D

[Mike.357]

did I miss something or can someone point out where god is mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights?

[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. 
 

Yeh, bribery and extortion must be legal, also, just like our current government that passed the ACA. Or did you forget that? Lots

of bribery and extortion going on with just that one bill, plus only one side passed it, not that that matters much. It must still be legal.

 

When was the Constitution used against us, excepting the illegal misuse of the supremacy clause, and maybe another clause?

What has continually been used against the people, instead of the Constitution, was the failure and weakness of man. Criminal

acts which are set forth in the Constitution and very infrequently used against the many traitors who infringed everything that

can be infringed on man at one time or another. It is usually caused by some kind of fear and always has some kind of safety

factor built in the law, even though the law itself may be completely unjust.

 

Now, considering all of that, do you still want to call some part of government "legal" or do you wish to modify that? You can go

trouncing around in the Federal Register all day long, perhaps weeks if you dare, and you can find all kinds of laws that have no place

or justification. Go ahead and call them legal. They're not, most of them. In fact, most of them are not based in reason or logic.

 

I think Chuck hit the nail a while back when he said something about being just, and being right. I think it all hinges of one's

understanding of right and wrong, instead of blindly following the line into the gas chamber, don't you?

 

Now, don't go and tell me I'm some kind of enemy of the state, okay?

 

And another thing. Just because a law is passed, doesn't make it part of the Constitution. It still has to pass muster if it is ever challenged.

That law can be nullified or repealed by a future congress and a signature from the President, unless it is veto proof. Then you don't need

that signature.

 

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

 

That's from the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. And it can happen again, if need be. And their english

is much better than our modern day hip hop crap speech that is so eloquently retarded.

[tnguy]

A right cannot be taken away, a priviledge can.

The word is "abrogated". It is subtly different.

It is quite possible to have a right that is not recognized by law. The 9th amendment is quite definite about it. Edited November 8, 2013 by tnguy

[Guest Keal G Seo]

First, sorry I've in and out of this, just been busy.

 

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

I tried to leave the "God" and even "Creator" out of it in my second response. Just the fact that you are a living being to me says you have the right to defend yourself. As for animals, I didn't mean that they understood what they were doing. For example, the guy that beats his dog until one day the dog has enough of it and turns on him. IMO that dog had the right to defend himself but us as humans are going to put it down because our laws deem it "vicious". In that example we are the tyrannical government. As for our moral duty to actually oust a tyrannical government, yes I agree...but as an individual there isn't much one can do give the sizes of the opposing forces. They would have to be oppressing everyone in order to gain support for any movement. A really good example of this is the open carry videos. IE "They were asking for it" or "It isn't affecting me so why should I care" attitude that so many have.

Examples aside, I just think every living thing (including humans) have a right to continue living and they don't need anyone's permission to do so. (That said, I also eat meat lol)

[JayC]

The 5th Amendment allows your rights to be restricted after being found guilty of a crime.  Now, that may very well be an infringement of your rights...  is beating your kids or your wife really a serious enough crime to for life cast somebody as an outcast...

 

I'm not sure...  We have to infringe on peoples rights who harm others...  as a society we have no choice...  you must remove the liberty of a murderer, or a rapist...  a wife beater is in that same boat....  I do disagree with society that if somebody is so dangerous they can't be trusted with a firearm, they should still be in prison.

 

But, the fact that we exert force and restrict liberty once you've been found guilty by a jury of your peers of a real crime...  is not tyrannical, nor contradictory to our natural rights. 

 

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.