Sorry, I’m a Christian and I was just reaffirming about the statement. I realize that christianity can be a triggering subject. I personally couldn’t care less what a person’s religious view is, because is just that, their personal view.
If you’re Christian great, if you’re a Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or any other religion that’s fine to as long as you’re not becoming an extremist. To many wars have been fought over religion and that’s just the truth.
@WildRose, my (deeply non-professional) understanding is that the Founders referred to divine guidance for the Declaration precisely because they had to go above a legal defense for the rebellion they were justifying. But when it came to the Constitution, they were crafting the extent and limits of a government, and therefore referred only to the authority of people. That’s why we can amend the Constitution but not the Declaration of Independence – they are referring to different levels of authority. If it was all God’s will, there would be no way to make changes.
For me, I think we’re on really firm ground when we say we have a constitutional right – that’s about as powerful an argument as there is, and does not open us up to “those gun nuts think they have God on their side.”
From a techincal standpoint you’re correct as far as the verbiage of the document itself but remember our most basic rights have their foundation in the Northwest Ordinances and DOI.
If you review their writings during and between each other after the drafting of The Constitution it’s clear they were still working they believed under divine guidance.
Remember too the BOR and the order in which they specified which rights were simply not to be infringed or violated by the govt.
Schools today tend to teach that Our Constitution is the cornerstone of our establishment but in reality it’s fourth in line with the NWO’s, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation preceding it.
Thanks, @WildRose – as ever, you give me something to think about. Again, this is not my field of expertise, but a quick search around shows that there is debate about these issues, even here on this blog. My own sense is that there is a difference between a God-given right, as are the three spelled out in the Declaration, and a divinely inspired document, like the Constitution.
I learned a lot from here:
But also I think the distinction is strategic. I know with absolute certainty that the 2nd is a Constitutional right, and that the Surpreme Court has affirmed it as an individual, not state, right. These are facts. God’s position on the 2nd is open to interpretation and debate, where I feel much less certain. If I’m in dialogue with someone on these issues, I’d rather stick to aspects that are not debatable.
Thanks, as ever, for engaging!
I went to a private Christian school and to church growing up and I firmly believe one can make the Bible say whatever it is you want it to say. Verses contradict themselves, things open to interpretation, and things like that. Heck, not even my Bible teachers or pastor ever agreed things read or meant the same thing, despite all being the same flavor of Christianity and some working at the same school.
I highly suspect nothing will be worked out on the topic here.
Get three lawyers in a room and you can get six or eight different points of view on it.
The History however is pretty clear.
Historians at least used to be pretty straight forward in presenting the facts, partisans and atty’s however usually have their own agenda behind their most consistent arguments.
The best atty’s though can argue at least two sides of any case or issue.
We’re not trying to solve anything, just having a discussion.
The Constitution does not grant nor give us our rights - it protects and guarantees our rights. Read Jefferson and the other founding fathers and you will learn that they believed our rights were given to us by our creator; that the right to self-defense is a natural and inalienable right, that the right to keep and bear arms is a facet of that natural right. We humans are good at creating tools, so it is natural for us to employ tools in our defense. And I can’t imagine anyone arguing that a female should be disbarred a means of protection against a larger, stronger assailant.
Actually, the right to keep and bear arms, and in so doing, self-defense, is not a Constitutional right, but a right guaranteed by our Constitution (and the Constitutions of many states). Jefferson stated that the RKBA pre-existed the Constitution and any government of man; that it is a natural and inalienable right given to us by our Creator. He further stated that even without the Constitutional guarantee, we would still have that right.
At least several passages in the Bible allude to the belief of self-defense, whether or not they believed it to be a right given to them by their God, they still believed in being able to defend oneself. It is also a natural instinct in all living creatures, even plants have defense mechanisms to protect against insects, animals, bacteria, etc.
Jerzy, read the words of our founding fathers concerning our rights. Jefferson was quite succinct in his reasoning for his belief in our right of self-defense and our RKBA. He stated it is given to all of us by our Creator. That these rights are natural and inalienable, pre-exist any government of man, and pre-exist our Constitution; that even without the 2A, we would still have these rights; that the 2A only guarantees our right, not grants it. You can believe what you want, but these are the facts.
It is not a matter of having “God on one’s side”, but of having a natural right of self-defense. I can’t imagine being a female and being told by my government that I am not allowed to defend myself with any means necessary against a larger, stronger assailant. Even our laws codify the right to force in stopping an assault on one’s self, up to and including justified homicide, aka self-defense.
The whole issue of “how many rounds do you need?” and being told if you “need” more than x, you need to learn to shoot more proficiently. When the police discharge multiple mags, one never hears that argument made, that the police should only be “allowed” to have x rounds to defend themselves. Even the gun control laws exempt police and military, they occasionally also exempt CC holders. Why should that be? Shouldn’t we all be “allowed” the same ability to defend oneself? Isn’t your life as important as a LEOs?
please. let’s stop discussing HERE about “God given rights”.
There is no way anyone can convince me giving me these examples:
“He stated it is given to all of us by our Creator.”
How many times I need to explain my point of view? “Jefferson stated […]”, doesn’t mean "God gave […]"
I can respect Jefferson’s words, but these words were not given by God
If I tell you that I believe that God meant red was blue, that means God gave us option to interchange these colors?
I’m not going to discuss politics or religion here. These are our private matters and there is no reason to continue this thread that way.
This was posted 22 hours ago:
Mentioning that our rights are natural and inalienable is not discussion of religion, neither is stating that Jefferson stated our rights were given to us by our Creator. The “Creator” whoever/whatever, isn’t religious. Something happened that created our reality. We have yet to discover what that is. That is not religious. I am an Atheist, so I do not take belief in a “Creator” as a religious belief, but as a fact, a physical reality.
However, the 2A has roots in pre-existing law, so the concept of self-defense is not a new idea derived by our Founding Fathers. If you took some time to learn about our rights, you would understand that these are not “Constitutional” rights granted. The 2A is a prohibition on government, not a granting of rights. “Shall not be infringed” is clear and concise prohibition on government limiting our RKBA and our inherent self-defense that is the basis of that right.
Also, many of the Founding Fathers were well-educated and as such also well-read. They also knew a lot about history, and philosophy. Many of the principles in our Constitution were derived from John Locke who was influenced by Thomas Hobbes. They also believed in a natural right to self-defense, not “God-given”, per se, but a Right of Nature, a necessity for self-preservation; a need to do whatever is necessary to achieve that, and therefore, in accordance with that, lies the need for the right to keep and bear arms.
Way back I posted a verse from the New Testament. I also stated that I had look to the New Testament for my own peace of mind when it comes to being armed and self-defense. It wasn’t ment to start a discussion on anyone’s religious views. We have freedom of religion in America. What anyone else thinks or believes is their business. I feel that hearing other points of view, even those I disagree with, helps me better understand and communicate on any topic. Lots of good posts on this thread. Thanks everyone.
Matthew 10:34 KJV
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 22:36 KJV
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
You may not like it, but I suggest you gather some info before you make a statement as such. The right to defense is very much in other scripture as well.
Sorry… I’ve promised NOT to continue this… but I really cannot stand aside.
Please do not misinterpret words of Testament.
You gave me ONE verse… have you red WHOLE chapter?
“I came not to send peace, but a sword.” doesn’t mean what you have thought.
Jesus use these words as a paraphrase. The real meaning was that He came to embroil mankind, to find out if men valued earthly life above Him.
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
That’s a real meaning of “sword”.
Oh… maybe Admin should close this thread?
You can accept or reject that they were divinely inspired and guided or that our most basic rights come from God. That’s your choice.
What you have to understand though is their mindset and beliefs at the time of the drafting if you’re going to understand our founding documents and why they are written as they are.
The founding documents must be read in the language of the day and context of the times in which they were written if they are ever going to be understood.
That doesn’t mean you have to believe in God yourself.
If our rights come from a higher authority than man they are beyond the reach of gov’t or it can be phrased, the gov’t has no moral authority to infringe upon or deny them.
It’s all about power and authority, not religion.
Often misconstrued meanings and quotations arise. That is purely your opinion. I gave you two scriptures among many. There was a third scripture by another gentlemen. But the only thing I will say is, once you post on a social media platform. Anyone can respond. So it’s up to you to be prepared. That was my point. If you are surprised at my response that’s purely on you sir. I won’t stand aside and see The Word I learned be intentionally twisted. The Word d finitely does condemn “murder”, it however does not condemn self defense.
A truth I’ve sadly realized is prevalent, way too prevalent for my liking. 