Sunday, May 13, 2012

How Are Gun Rights God-Given And Inalienable?

Our friends over at Ammoland have the explanation.

And the short answer is that part of the foundation for keeping and bearing arms rests in laws that lend order to nature. These are laws that God ordained and implemented just as certainly as he implemented and ordained the moral law (the 10 Commandments). This point is worth explaining because it’s fundamental to an understanding of how our inalienable rights flow to us from God rather than from government. As such, the foundation of those rights transcends government, which is why the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

There are two sets of law authored and maintained by God: Divine Law, consisting of the 10 Commandments and the outworking of those commandments in the New Testament, and Natural Law, consisting of the order intrinsic to nature and the universe around it. We know Divine Law from reading the Bible, and we know aspects of Natural Law because it is written upon our hearts and consciences. The Apostle Paul indicated this in Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”
My response:


  • This is one of those “If you agree no explanation is necessary, if you don’t agree no explanation is possible” kinda things.

    The way I look at it is this.

    1. right to life
    2. right to self-defense
    3. right to own and carry a particular inanimate object called a gun.


    The absurd jump from number two to number three takes the kind of spinning and justifying you gave us in this post.

    Bravo.
  •  
    What's your opinion? Do the Christian fundamentalist gun owners who push this nonsense have no concern for their atheist brothers-in-arms, or their Jewish friends?

    What about that "shall not be infringed" nonsense? Isn't raising that to the level of "god-given" a bit silly when infringements already abound? Didn't the god-inspired Supreme Court already rule that "reasonable restrictions" are acceptable?

    What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

    36 comments:

    1. I'm not a Christian. Christians, in fact, would label me a pagan or heathen--a philosophically inclined one, if they're being charitable. Nevertheless, I accept the argument about natural rights, and I see no need to ground such an argument in the divine. Call me a humanist, as well, but my belief in the inherent worthiness of human beings asserts the first right that you named: a right to life. When my life is threatened, I have the derived right to defend it. Our present state of technology provides firearms as an effective means of doing so, and thus, my right to firearms comes from my right to life. There's nothing absurd in that chain of reasoning. You, Mikeb, simply don't accept the right to self defense. If you did, you'd see that owning and carrying a gun makes sense.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. There certainly is something absurd in that third step. You might as well say you have the natural human right to carry a spray can of liquid plutonium.

        Delete
      2. It is next to impossible to use a spray can of liquid plutonium without harming lots of citizens for decades. Remember the objective is for an individual to save lives.

        Delete
      3. Correct, Capn Crunch. There is no legitimate way for a private citizen to use plutonium. It has a mass effect. Guns are different. But there's no way to get gun grabbers to understand perspective or reason.

        Delete
    2. What absurd jump from two to three? Cavemen carried clubs and David carried a slingshot. Where's the big jump?
      orlin sellers

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Orlin, carry whatever the hell you want, but don't tell me it's a "right," on the same level as the "right to life." That's the part that's bullshit.

        Delete
      2. How do I have a right to life if I cannot protect it from an attacker?

        Delete
    3. The God-given aspect is obvious in both Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the New Testament.

      We can see the Natural Law aspect as we observe nature. All creatures fight to survive. Man is no different. I have stated this before. An animal will use every possible means to defend itself and preserve its life. Man will do the same. Is it somehow "unfair" or "dangerous" that a grizzly bear has huge claws, powerful arms and jaws, and can run over 30 mph for a short burst? Is it even more unfair that a grizzly bear is unpredictable and could attack something or someone for no apparent reason? Is it unfair that a spitting cobra can spit its venom on the order of 10 feet to blind prey or an attacker?

      More importantly, why is it okay in the eyes of a gun-control advocate for a person to defend themselves with virtually any object except for a firearm? Why are firearms taboo, verboten?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Why stop at the right to own and carry a gun, then. By your reasoning wouldn't you have a natural human and god-given right to carry, say, a military flame-thrower?

        Guns should not be verboten, that's another trick on your part. We're not talking about banning guns. We're talking about removing the sacred and inviolable aspect of carrying a gun so that it can be reasonable controlled. Too many people prove themselves to be unfit and incapable of responsibly managing this activity, therefore restrictions are required. All your talk about "rights" interferes with that necessary process.

        Delete
      2. Human life is sacred and defending human life is a sacred act; laws that interfere with an individual's ability to defend life are immoral and unconstitutional.

        If a person has mental illness and society justly does not trust them with firearms, then they need to be in a safe environment with custodians that are always at their side and able to protect them.

        If our justice system justly convicts a person of a violent crime, they should stay in prison until we trust them to purchase and use firearms responsibly. If our justice system justly convicts a person of a non-violent crime, there is no reason to mistrust them with firearms after they are released from prison.

        If an otherwise "fit" person is careless with a firearm and causes injury to property or people, punishment ranging from fines to prison time depending on the severity of the careless act are in order.

        Anything else interferes with a citizen's liberty and is inconsistent with the basic tenant of our republic.

        Delete
      3. "Too many people prove themselves to be unfit and incapable of responsibly managing this activity, therefore restrictions are required. "

        There is a group of people who have shown themselves to be vastly more unfit and less capable of managing guns: politicians and bureaucrats. A small percentage of individual gun owners aren't fit to own guns. A very large percentage of politicians and bureaucrats are not fit to manage those who own guns.

        It takes a special type of fool to want the usually incompetent to manage the rarely incompetent.

        Delete
      4. Sorry, Capn, there are lots of people walking around free, as they should be, who are incapable of managing guns safely. We need to identify them and legislate their disarmament. That's what gun control is all about, not disarming the qualified but identifying the unqualified.

        Delete
      5. What was Chicago's handgun law? A ban. What was D.C.'s law? A ban. What was the Assault Weapons law? A ban. It's funny how your side claims not to want to ban anything, but when it comes to creating laws, it's ban, baby, ban.

        Delete
    4. To answer some of the questions that MikeB posed:

      Yes, armed Christian citizens are concerned about the right of atheists and Jews to possess firearms and protect themselves.

      About the U.S. Supreme Court and infringements ...
      God gave us life, liberty, logic, emotions, basic rules for happy living, and free will. Because of the free will component, people sometimes harm others. Thus Second Amendment infringements abound. Whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court is God inspired, the individual members of the Supreme Court are not God inspired and their determinations are fallible. Thus the Supreme Court may embrace restrictions that nevertheless infringe the right to keep and bear arms and my ability to defend myself.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. So, are you one of those extremists who feels "shall not be infringed" is to be taken literally with no exceptions?

        Delete
      2. For anyone who is a free citizen and not convicted of a violent crime? Yes.

        Delete
      3. Greg, you're already waffling. Either it's infringed or it is not. It is.

        Delete
      4. No, I see much of our current gun control as an unconstitutional infringement.

        Delete
    5. Capn Crunch is on a roll here with good sense. Keep it coming, brother, keep it coming.

      ReplyDelete
    6. "Orlin, carry whatever the hell you want, but don't tell me it's a "right," on the same level as the "right to life." That's the part that's bullshit."

      It's the only effective means of stopping rapists and murderers. It's not on the same level as the right to life, it's a corollary. The fact that you aren't smart enough to comprehend the very simple theory and practice of human rights does not negate the existence of human rights.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. The 2A has been bastardized in order to fit the modern view of individual rights. It's total bullshit. You want to stop murderers and rapists with a gun, go ahead, but don't tell me that you have a god-given or a natural-human right to own that gun. That's as ludicrous as if I said I have a natural-human right to carry a rabbit's foot in my pocket.

        Delete
      2. Mikeb, do you deny that we have a right to property? If I earn money and use it to buy a product, do I have the right to possess that product? In the case of guns, that product can be owned and used in a safe and responsible manner. Creating a blanket restriction against owning or against carrying firearms implies that no one can use them correctly.

        Delete
      3. Randolphus MaximusMay 15, 2012 at 1:26 AM

        +1 Greg -

        I totally agree with you

        What hasn't been mentioned yet is that an individual can be denied their property under the Constitution, but only if the individual has been given due process.

        Delete
      4. Randolphus Maximus, exactly so. I'm speaking of good citizens here. Mikeb believes in the idiot's veto. In his view, we all must be treated as though we're incompetent or guilty. By contrast, my position starts with the presumption that we're basically good and reasonably intelligent citizens--the necessary presumption of a democracy.

        Delete
      5. The right to property is written with a small "r." It's not elevated to the lofty heights that you guys assign to the Right to own guns. I say that Right with a capital "R" is bogus. That's not at all what the slave-owning misogynists who wrote the Constitution had in mind.

        Delete
      6. You keep demanding that the founders of this country be perfect to be worthy of your respect. They were extraordinary in any period, but especially for the times in which they lived. But with regard to rights, whether you capitalize the word or not, rights are fundamental to who we are and to a democratic form of government. You have yet to show me how I can rely on a government that isn't constrained by the idea of individual and sacred rights.

        Delete
      7. They were no more extraordinary than modern politicians.

        Delete
      8. You don't spend much time studying the people you denigrate, I see. The founders were extraordinary people from an extraordinary period. Consider just one example: After Adams and Jefferson were both out of office, they wrote a series of letters to each other. In them, among many other topics of discussion, they debated the meaning of ancient Greek verbs. What politician today has that level of education and intellect?

        Delete
    7. Mikeb, bastardization? Modern view? That, my friend, is toro caca. Men have been walking around armed forever. Remember that 'palladium of liberty'? Hardly a modern view.
      What else is not a modern view are the other Bill of Rights. Why not get rid of the other rights?

      Why not infringe on a person's right to free speech or his right to remain silent. Evidently you don't think people should be allowed free will and autonomy.
      If you can't trust your neighbors free will and right to be armed, why in the world should he respect your free will to speak your mind.
      Evidently you think your rights and free will trumps your neighbor's. Where exactly do you get that right? Sounds like some sort of modern bastardization of rights to me.
      orlin sellers

      ReplyDelete
    8. Mike,

      "That's not at all what the slave-owning misogynists who wrote the Constitution had in mind"

      Which argument is it? Is it that the founders did not intend for individuals to own military grade hardware? Or - Is it they did mean the 2A held that Americans can own weapons without infringement but we should disregard what they said because they were slave owning misogynists?

      I think you know deep down the founders held the same view of the 2A that many of us espouse. Will you just be honest and state that even if the founders intended for our view of the 2A that America should just blow it off?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. My belief is the 21st century concept of gun rights would be as foreign to the Founders as the man on the moon.

        Plus, you guys who love to put them on the pedestal as demi-gods are foolish.

        Delete
      2. Oh, do tell--what is your concept of gun rights in the modern world?

        Delete
      3. I'm talking about the gun rights you enjoy and keep trying to expand upon. Do you think Jefferson and Addams would recognize that?

        Delete
      4. When it comes down to it, who cares? I go with the words that they wrote--the text. It says what it says, regardless of what their intent may have been. We can debate their intent as a matter of historical interest, but only the text is the law.

        What you don't seem to recognize is that I want to see expanded rights in many areas. I support equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I support allowing mosques being built on whatever property a Muslim congregation can afford to buy. I also support expanding gun rights. It's all from the same core belief that we have the right to make our own choices.

        Delete
      5. You love the text so much that you leave out the first three words (or four depending on whether you use a hyphen or not).

        Delete
    9. You have a right to a education but you can't have books or go to school.

      ReplyDelete