It is a basic human right to gather good and self defense. The gun provides these abilities efficiently. The fact that government has them supports the citizens basic right.
That's right, mock the bill of rights. I don't mind, it just shows who and what you are. - - - Updated - - - Because those arms are the best tool of personal self defense, as well as collective self defense against tyranny.
The problem with this argument is you need to first prove the existence of god to claim it gave you rights. Since you can't do that, rights are human constricts that are agreed upon in a society and enshrined in law.
The constitution was written with the understanding that as history moved forward it would need to be amended. The words you are holding up as inviolate are the first ten edits of a document we always knew would need to evolve. The existence of these amendments demonstrates the imperfection of our constitution. That it's writers recognized the need to periodically reconsider and update the rules of this land. I am not mocking the constitution. On the other hand, I find your confusion of legislation with the word of God worthy of a good chuckle.
There's really no point in debating with a person who feels that might makes right. The debate doesn't matter, only the outcome of the physical conflict matters.
Hardly. Ok lets call them Nature-granted. The right to defend your life using the best methods available, and to defend the right of society to exist free of tyranny, is something no human being has the right to challenge. Self defense existed before society, and so did the weapons to ensure it.
Not believing in God does not mean that natural rights do not exist. Natural rights are those rights that exist sans government. No need for God for that.
Not true at all, the right to self defense and more so the right to use deadly force and the best tools for doing so are much more rooted in natural rights and science then religion. This is evident in that the Judeo-Christian culture our western society is largely rooted in believes it's a sin to kill and to turn the other cheek. This contradicts the right to self defense and to bear arms. However principals of evolution, natural rights, free will, and human intelligence dictate the natural morality of killing in self defense and the use of tools to do so.
You made an argument as to what defines a human right. The right to arms fits all the requirements you laid out. Thus, human right.
You fully understand that have yet to cite any text anywhere in the US constitution or federal law that grants the right to arms.
It's a completely different idea of governance. Really the gall of an Aussie arguing with Americans about the American Bill of Rights. I don't try and give you kangaroo dating advice.
Then perhaps you could explain the founding fathers reasons for putting in the Bill of Rights? So when do we lose our right to free speech and any searches and seizures become legal anytime the government wants? Is that an example of "history moving forward"? I don't think that's history anyone wants. Without the Bill of Rights we might as well be China. I know some people would love that though. The Bill of Rights, and our Constitution are just as relevant today as it was when it was written. I'm not calling God into anything, they did that.
No really, if you are going to make such an absurd claim, you will need to prove it. I don't necessarily disagree. I just take issue with "God given rights".
It kind of does though. There's no way to prove these "natural rights". It's just a man made concept. rights are simply a man made concept that a society agreed upon and enshrines into law.
Different men had different reasons for agreeing to the first ten edits to our constitution. With the thirteenth people lost the right to own slaves, with the eighteenth the right to consume what we choose. Recently we seem to have gained a right to health care. *shrug* As our society evolves, we will gain and loose other legal rights. Personally, I hope we maintain the right to free speech (limited though it is) but some would argue we've already lost many protections against arbitrary search and seizure. But I still prefer this one to what China offers. The patriot act, the Snowden/NSA issue, and that surreal footage that came out of the Boston bombing a tapestry of nearly seamless images collected from a seemingly impossible number of cameras bring up complex issues. They demonstrate black and white guarantees may become more grey as history moves forward. Thankfully we have a living constitution which can adapt as our perspective on these issues evolves.
Name something that the bolded part doesnt apply to. All concepts are man made. You don't believe that you have natural rights? You believe all your rights are granted by government? Your right to free speech? Your right to reproduce? Your right to liberty? Your right to pursue happiness? Luckily, our founders recognized these natural rights and wrote a document that keeps government from restricting them.
right. that's my point. nobody has natural rights. you have constitutional rights. they are granted by society, by the laws they enact. and without that document you don't have any rights. that's the point.
Then take it up with the Constitution and the men who wrote it. 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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
And your argument is exactly why we must not allow the government to trample on ANY of our rights, especially the 2nd. Without the 2nd, how do you defend the Constitution when your free speech and legal rights are stripped right after? We have lost NO rights during the entire history of the Constitution, we have only gained them. There is ONE example of us losing something, and that was the 18th. How'd that go? For all of your examples, the Constitution is that one thing we hold up to look to pull us back from going to far, and is the basis for denoucing all of those things, including the Patriot Act.
A free society recognizes that you have natural rights. Some government don't recognize this. Thus they are not a free society.
but there is no such thing. all rights are man made concepts, which are agreed upon by society and enshrined in law
Really? Did you miss the word Creator right there in the middle in caps? God was often referenced, give it up. - - - Updated - - - Go punch a wolf and see if it disagrees with you.
