Gun Rights: God given? Or man given?

[bucs90]

Hmmm. Thread went cold all of a sudden. Tough discussion?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ok. Great, so I think I agree with everyone.

The right to bear arms is a GOD GIVEN right. The 2nd Amendment simply recognizes that, thank goodness, as I 100% support the right to bear arms. Always have.

Gunny- you said it is for personal weapons, and would exclude a nuke. A suitcase nuke can be carried by 1 man. But, I again agree- nukes should not be part of this.

That said, how, where, and by WHO do we draw the line, officially, of what weapons should fall under that God given right? God didnt specify which weapons. And government....it seems....doesnt have the right to.

So, what weapons apply to "arms", and who gets to make that call? Because I believe the right to bear arms is God given, for ALL men. And yes, an illegal immigrant on US soil should be allowed to buy a gun. The immigration debate is another issue. But if I was a Mexican born in Juarez, I'd come here illegally, this country rocks, and I'd want a gun. Can't blame 'em.

most say weapons that one person can carry

that can be used against another person

such as a firearm or a knife

- Suitcase nuke
- Flamethrower
- RPG
- Grenade
- Vehicle mounted full auto .50
- Stinger anti-aircraft missile

All carried by 1 person. All could be used against 1 other person, or, one other vehicle/aircraft/boat. The suitcase nuke as an exception. But, if the whole government is tyrannasizing yo ass, should you have that right haha?

if it comes to that

then all bets are off on what you can have

i often wondered about cannons and the revolutionary war

and how the militia came about having them

did the farmers produce them

not so much

most cannon came from being captured from the brits

 

[bucs90]

most say weapons that one person can carry

that can be used against another person

such as a firearm or a knife

- Suitcase nuke
- Flamethrower
- RPG
- Grenade
- Vehicle mounted full auto .50
- Stinger anti-aircraft missile

All carried by 1 person. All could be used against 1 other person, or, one other vehicle/aircraft/boat. The suitcase nuke as an exception. But, if the whole government is tyrannasizing yo ass, should you have that right haha?

if it comes to that

then all bets are off on what you can have

i often wondered about cannons and the revolutionary war

and how the militia came about having them

did the farmers produce them

not so much

most cannon came from being captured from the brits

Ah. Good question. I have no idea. Guess the cannons did come from the Brits.

But, my question specifically is- what is the line in the sand of what weapons we can/cant have, and WHO gets to draw that line? The government? Or God? Because God didnt draw it, I read the Bible. It aint in there. So either the government gets to set the rules on what weapons we are allowed to have.......or, they cant, and anyone should be able to own any weapon they can afford.

 

[jon_berzerk]

- Suitcase nuke
- Flamethrower
- RPG
- Grenade
- Vehicle mounted full auto .50
- Stinger anti-aircraft missile

All carried by 1 person. All could be used against 1 other person, or, one other vehicle/aircraft/boat. The suitcase nuke as an exception. But, if the whole government is tyrannasizing yo ass, should you have that right haha?

if it comes to that

then all bets are off on what you can have

i often wondered about cannons and the revolutionary war

and how the militia came about having them

did the farmers produce them

not so much

most cannon came from being captured from the brits

Ah. Good question. I have no idea. Guess the cannons did come from the Brits.

But, my question specifically is- what is the line in the sand of what weapons we can/cant have, and WHO gets to draw that line? The government? Or God? Because God didnt draw it, I read the Bible. It aint in there. So either the government gets to set the rules on what weapons we are allowed to have.......or, they cant, and anyone should be able to own any weapon they can afford.

the short answer is you can legally have most

of the weapons you asked about if you follow the rules and regulations

and pay the tax

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is the right to own a gun "God given", or not?? Very simple. It is either God given, or inherent at birth, OR, it is granted to man by other men who have authority. I know which one most hard right wingers will say. That it is God given. Fair enough. And Im a Christian, and believe God is the God of all mankind, not just Americans.

So if government cant create or take away that right, but simply recognize it, isn't it fair to say that we, the United States, should recognize that ALL of mankind has the right to bear arms, even of the government of those people dont recognize it? So what if their government wont recognize it. We should. Which brings a few questions.

If the right to bear arms is God given, NOT government given:

- Then where is the line in the sand of what weapons are ok and not? And who decides that?
- If it includes ALL weapons, then we have no right to deny Iran a nuke

- If the right is God given, then it applies to all humans. Thus, how can we deny an illegal immigrant a right to own a gun? Our government either does, or doesnt, grant that right. If it is God-given, then we should treat it as such, right?

If you are gonna argue that 2nd amendment rights are ONLY for US citizens, then you are saying that the right is GOVERNMENT granted, not God given.

Does the 2nd Amendment "grant" that right..........or simply recognize the pre-existing God given right?

Inalienable, innate to the nature of being human; rights that can be neither given nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.

And as with all other rights, not absolute, subject to limitations and restrictions in accordance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Ah, but if the government has the ability to limit and restrict that right........then it does in fact have the power to grant that right or take it away? To truly have that right be God given, the government should have NO power at all over any part of it, at all, end of discussion. Right?

The Constitution affords Congress the authority to limit, curtail, or otherwise pre-empt the exercising of all civil rights. Depending on the level of judicial review should such a restriction be challenged in court, the restriction must be rationally based, further a legitimate governmental interest, be supported by facts and evidence, and not be motivated by animus toward the adversely effected class. See, e.g., Schenck v. United States (1919).

Obviously should Congress attempt to ‘void’ a given civil right, such an attempt would not withstand a court challenge, as Congress has neither the authority nor justification for such an act.

Compared to the First Amendment, for example, there’s little in the way of Second Amendment jurisprudence, as Heller/McDonald were so recently decided.

But that a right is inalienable doesn’t mean it can’t be subject to restriction. Consequently the political and legal process will over time establish a balance between what actions enjoy Constitutional protection, and what actions may be subject to restriction and regulation.

 

[bucs90]

if it comes to that

then all bets are off on what you can have

i often wondered about cannons and the revolutionary war

and how the militia came about having them

did the farmers produce them

not so much

most cannon came from being captured from the brits

Ah. Good question. I have no idea. Guess the cannons did come from the Brits.

But, my question specifically is- what is the line in the sand of what weapons we can/cant have, and WHO gets to draw that line? The government? Or God? Because God didnt draw it, I read the Bible. It aint in there. So either the government gets to set the rules on what weapons we are allowed to have.......or, they cant, and anyone should be able to own any weapon they can afford.

the short answer is you can legally have most

of the weapons you asked about if you follow the rules and regulations

and pay the tax

I dont think you can legally have a flame throwner, live grenade, stinger missile, or suitcase nuke. I dont think there is any possible way a private citizen can carry those around in his trunk. May be wrong, but Im pretty sure none of that is legal.

Anyway.....does government get to restrict any weapons? If so, that means government grants those rights.

 

[bucs90]

Inalienable, innate to the nature of being human; rights that can be neither given nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.

And as with all other rights, not absolute, subject to limitations and restrictions in accordance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Ah, but if the government has the ability to limit and restrict that right........then it does in fact have the power to grant that right or take it away? To truly have that right be God given, the government should have NO power at all over any part of it, at all, end of discussion. Right?

The Constitution affords Congress the authority to limit, curtail, or otherwise pre-empt the exercising of all civil rights. Depending on the level of judicial review should such a restriction be challenged in court, the restriction must be rationally based, further a legitimate governmental interest, be supported by facts and evidence, and not be motivated by animus toward the adversely effected class. See, e.g., Schenck v. United States (1919).

Obviously should Congress attempt to ‘void’ a given civil right, such an attempt would not withstand a court challenge, as Congress has neither the authority nor justification for such an act.

Compared to the First Amendment, for example, there’s little in the way of Second Amendment jurisprudence, as Heller/McDonald were so recently decided.

But that a right is inalienable doesn’t mean it can’t be subject to restriction. Consequently the political and legal process will over time establish a balance between what actions enjoy Constitutional protection, and what actions may be subject to restriction and regulation.

So government can alter God's will? If God granted a right, but didnt clarify any restrictions, then government can indeed....um...."adjust" God's will?

 

[Agit8r]

The modern sans-cullotes would have us believe that we emerged from the womb packing heat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok. Great, so I think I agree with everyone.

The right to bear arms is a GOD GIVEN right. The 2nd Amendment simply recognizes that, thank goodness, as I 100% support the right to bear arms. Always have.

Gunny- you said it is for personal weapons, and would exclude a nuke. A suitcase nuke can be carried by 1 man. But, I again agree- nukes should not be part of this.

That said, how, where, and by WHO do we draw the line, officially, of what weapons should fall under that God given right? God didnt specify which weapons. And government....it seems....doesnt have the right to.

So, what weapons apply to "arms", and who gets to make that call? Because I believe the right to bear arms is God given, for ALL men. And yes, an illegal immigrant on US soil should be allowed to buy a gun. The immigration debate is another issue. But if I was a Mexican born in Juarez, I'd come here illegally, this country rocks, and I'd want a gun. Can't blame 'em.

most say weapons that one person can carry

that can be used against another person

such as a firearm or a knife

- Suitcase nuke
- Flamethrower
- RPG
- Grenade
- Vehicle mounted full auto .50
- Stinger anti-aircraft missile

All carried by 1 person. All could be used against 1 other person, or, one other vehicle/aircraft/boat. The suitcase nuke as an exception. But, if the whole government is tyrannasizing yo ass, should you have that right haha?

It could be argued that the weapons cited above would fall under the classification of ‘dangerous and unusual,’ as noted by the Heller Court, where their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protection. As the Heller Court also noted, weapons ‘in common use at the time,’ such as handguns, would enjoy Constitutional protection.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Hmmm. Thread went cold all of a sudden. Tough discussion?

No, you got stupid.

 

[jon_berzerk]

most say weapons that one person can carry

that can be used against another person

such as a firearm or a knife

- Suitcase nuke
- Flamethrower
- RPG
- Grenade
- Vehicle mounted full auto .50
- Stinger anti-aircraft missile

All carried by 1 person. All could be used against 1 other person, or, one other vehicle/aircraft/boat. The suitcase nuke as an exception. But, if the whole government is tyrannasizing yo ass, should you have that right haha?

It could be argued that the weapons cited above would fall under the classification of ‘dangerous and unusual,’ as noted by the Heller Court, where their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protection. As the Heller Court also noted, weapons ‘in common use at the time,’ such as handguns, would enjoy Constitutional protection.

true

i was just pointing out that such weapons can be had

if certain rules and regulations are followed

-when is "at the time" and "common use" by who

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ah, but if the government has the ability to limit and restrict that right........then it does in fact have the power to grant that right or take it away? To truly have that right be God given, the government should have NO power at all over any part of it, at all, end of discussion. Right?

The Constitution affords Congress the authority to limit, curtail, or otherwise pre-empt the exercising of all civil rights. Depending on the level of judicial review should such a restriction be challenged in court, the restriction must be rationally based, further a legitimate governmental interest, be supported by facts and evidence, and not be motivated by animus toward the adversely effected class. See, e.g., Schenck v. United States (1919).

Obviously should Congress attempt to ‘void’ a given civil right, such an attempt would not withstand a court challenge, as Congress has neither the authority nor justification for such an act.

Compared to the First Amendment, for example, there’s little in the way of Second Amendment jurisprudence, as Heller/McDonald were so recently decided.

But that a right is inalienable doesn’t mean it can’t be subject to restriction. Consequently the political and legal process will over time establish a balance between what actions enjoy Constitutional protection, and what actions may be subject to restriction and regulation.

So government can alter God's will? If God granted a right, but didnt clarify any restrictions, then government can indeed....um...."adjust" God's will?

First of all, it has nothing to do with ‘god’s will,’ it has to do with the fact that the Anglo-American judicial tradition has recognized for centuries certain fundamental rights of men, dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

Men also have the right to civil governance, the right of freedom from as well as freedom to; where Congress has the authority to enact measures both necessary and proper to ensure civil governance, and the Constitution and courts to ensure government does not grow too powerful, jeopardizing those fundamental rights of men.

 

[bucs90]

most say weapons that one person can carry

that can be used against another person

such as a firearm or a knife

- Suitcase nuke
- Flamethrower
- RPG
- Grenade
- Vehicle mounted full auto .50
- Stinger anti-aircraft missile

All carried by 1 person. All could be used against 1 other person, or, one other vehicle/aircraft/boat. The suitcase nuke as an exception. But, if the whole government is tyrannasizing yo ass, should you have that right haha?

It could be argued that the weapons cited above would fall under the classification of ‘dangerous and unusual,’ as noted by the Heller Court, where their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protection. As the Heller Court also noted, weapons ‘in common use at the time,’ such as handguns, would enjoy Constitutional protection.

Hmm. True, good point. In fact, who defines "weapon"? Purely for self defense? What if I wanted an African Lion, on a leash, to protect me as my weapon? Or, if for defense, I literally wanted "bear arms" meaning a Kodiak bear on a leash? RIDICULOUS, I know. But they would be "unusual and dangerous" beyond reasonableness. So yeah, I could see that.

Fact is....God created man far before man created guns. Or even weapons. For many centuries, Im sure primitive man used only his fists as weapons. When they got smarter, they discovered sticks, rocks, then spears.

So, God created man. Man created weapons. God created man with the free will to act and govern himself. We have a responsibility to do that with reason. But we also had that right to pick up a stick from 10,000 years ago. We have the same right to pick up a gun today.

Good debate. You're one of the few here capable of it.

 

[bucs90]

The Constitution affords Congress the authority to limit, curtail, or otherwise pre-empt the exercising of all civil rights. Depending on the level of judicial review should such a restriction be challenged in court, the restriction must be rationally based, further a legitimate governmental interest, be supported by facts and evidence, and not be motivated by animus toward the adversely effected class. See, e.g., Schenck v. United States (1919).

Obviously should Congress attempt to ‘void’ a given civil right, such an attempt would not withstand a court challenge, as Congress has neither the authority nor justification for such an act.

Compared to the First Amendment, for example, there’s little in the way of Second Amendment jurisprudence, as Heller/McDonald were so recently decided.

But that a right is inalienable doesn’t mean it can’t be subject to restriction. Consequently the political and legal process will over time establish a balance between what actions enjoy Constitutional protection, and what actions may be subject to restriction and regulation.

So government can alter God's will? If God granted a right, but didnt clarify any restrictions, then government can indeed....um...."adjust" God's will?

First of all, it has nothing to do with ‘god’s will,’ it has to do with the fact that the Anglo-American judicial tradition has recognized for centuries certain fundamental rights of men, dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

Men also have the right to civil governance, the right of freedom from as well as freedom to; where Congress has the authority to enact measures both necessary and proper to ensure civil governance, and the Constitution and courts to ensure government does not grow too powerful, jeopardizing those fundamental rights of men.

Well said. Basically, striking that balance. I think thats where we are with the gun debate. Where is that balance between gun rights and civil governance?

I personally think much stricter and harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun are the best step. Next best is to reinvest in our mental health system. Now, both will require some additional government expansion. Bigger jails. New mental hospitals. Private companies cant (or shouldnt) have the power to incarcerate someone, so govt will have to pay for it.

Confiscation wont work. I personally think the current Class 3 licensing is plenty good enough for automatic weapons, as few criminals will have that license, and they'll break that law anyway.

The only real gun control measure I'd support are background checks, AND, Im 100% in favor of state permits for concealed carry, BUT, with a mandatory 40 hours of training to carry it. Make it 8 hours a day, for 5 weekends in a row. 5 Saturdays in a row. Most police academies are about 20 weeks, with probably about 100-120 hours dedicated to firearms. Military schools are even longer. The least we could ask is that if we are gonna entrust private citizens to carry, and possibly engage a bad guy, to be sure they are accurate and safe.

 

[Glensather]

Thou shall not kill, but thou shall have weapons to kill

Many translations change that to "Thou shalt not commit murder."

Personally, I believe so long as its reasonable I don't see a problem with it. An RPG-7v2 might be a bit too much, but I personally believe that there's nothing wrong with owning an M4A1 Carbine, if you can afford the hordes of ammo you'll need for that thing, because you probably won't learn how to properly shoot that without military training.

 

[Lakhota]

Is this a religious thread? If so, please provide some "credible" proof that any supernatural God exists.

Otherwise, I say gun rights are man-given.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So government can alter God's will? If God granted a right, but didnt clarify any restrictions, then government can indeed....um...."adjust" God's will?

First of all, it has nothing to do with ‘god’s will,’ it has to do with the fact that the Anglo-American judicial tradition has recognized for centuries certain fundamental rights of men, dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

Men also have the right to civil governance, the right of freedom from as well as freedom to; where Congress has the authority to enact measures both necessary and proper to ensure civil governance, and the Constitution and courts to ensure government does not grow too powerful, jeopardizing those fundamental rights of men.

Well said. Basically, striking that balance. I think thats where we are with the gun debate. Where is that balance between gun rights and civil governance?

I personally think much stricter and harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun are the best step. Next best is to reinvest in our mental health system. Now, both will require some additional government expansion. Bigger jails. New mental hospitals. Private companies cant (or shouldnt) have the power to incarcerate someone, so govt will have to pay for it.

Confiscation wont work. I personally think the current Class 3 licensing is plenty good enough for automatic weapons, as few criminals will have that license, and they'll break that law anyway.

The only real gun control measure I'd support are background checks, AND, Im 100% in favor of state permits for concealed carry, BUT, with a mandatory 40 hours of training to carry it. Make it 8 hours a day, for 5 weekends in a row. 5 Saturdays in a row. Most police academies are about 20 weeks, with probably about 100-120 hours dedicated to firearms. Military schools are even longer. The least we could ask is that if we are gonna entrust private citizens to carry, and possibly engage a bad guy, to be sure they are accurate and safe.

I'm impressed. Perhaps if we did show each other a bit more respect around here, we'd get ingenious ideas like this one. I could stand behind this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is this a religious thread? If so, please provide some "credible" proof that any supernatural God exists.

Nope. You may as well walk away, your attempt to derail this thread has been denied. Go away.

 

[bucs90]

First of all, it has nothing to do with ‘god’s will,’ it has to do with the fact that the Anglo-American judicial tradition has recognized for centuries certain fundamental rights of men, dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II.

Men also have the right to civil governance, the right of freedom from as well as freedom to; where Congress has the authority to enact measures both necessary and proper to ensure civil governance, and the Constitution and courts to ensure government does not grow too powerful, jeopardizing those fundamental rights of men.

Well said. Basically, striking that balance. I think thats where we are with the gun debate. Where is that balance between gun rights and civil governance?

I personally think much stricter and harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun are the best step. Next best is to reinvest in our mental health system. Now, both will require some additional government expansion. Bigger jails. New mental hospitals. Private companies cant (or shouldnt) have the power to incarcerate someone, so govt will have to pay for it.

Confiscation wont work. I personally think the current Class 3 licensing is plenty good enough for automatic weapons, as few criminals will have that license, and they'll break that law anyway.

The only real gun control measure I'd support are background checks, AND, Im 100% in favor of state permits for concealed carry, BUT, with a mandatory 40 hours of training to carry it. Make it 8 hours a day, for 5 weekends in a row. 5 Saturdays in a row. Most police academies are about 20 weeks, with probably about 100-120 hours dedicated to firearms. Military schools are even longer. The least we could ask is that if we are gonna entrust private citizens to carry, and possibly engage a bad guy, to be sure they are accurate and safe.

I'm impressed. Perhaps if we did show each other a bit more respect around here, we'd get ingenious ideas like this one. I could stand behind this.

Yeah, thats what I've tried to do. But, I too get caught up in the name calling a lot. We're all human.

But this idea is one I have always supported. I see nothing wrong at all with mandated training. In fact, I bet it would LOWER gun violence even more, as the criminals would know 1) People are carrying, and 2) People are trained well!!!! The criminals wouldnt bother going through the 5 Saturdays, so, they would be less trained and couldnt legally carry.

Maybe a huge compromise, like the Feds did with highway funding.

If a president (lets not specify, lets say its 2017), offered this compromise: A law that bans ANY new gun control bill for the next 75 years........If all 50 states will sign on and commit to starting their own state run and state funded CCW program, in which citizens would get their background check (all paperwork kept on file by the dealer, not the govt), got their permit (for a one time $100 fee to pay for instructors) and go through 5 single days of training, total 40 hours, on safety, law and tactics. The 5 day requirement would need to be completed within, say, 10 weeks. So you could go every other Saturday.

And just like a driver's license, it would be renewed every 5-10 years. Just a single day refresher, 8 hours, every 5-10 years.

It would be a great compromise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well said. Basically, striking that balance. I think thats where we are with the gun debate. Where is that balance between gun rights and civil governance?

I personally think much stricter and harsher penalties for violent crime committed with a gun are the best step. Next best is to reinvest in our mental health system. Now, both will require some additional government expansion. Bigger jails. New mental hospitals. Private companies cant (or shouldnt) have the power to incarcerate someone, so govt will have to pay for it.

Confiscation wont work. I personally think the current Class 3 licensing is plenty good enough for automatic weapons, as few criminals will have that license, and they'll break that law anyway.

The only real gun control measure I'd support are background checks, AND, Im 100% in favor of state permits for concealed carry, BUT, with a mandatory 40 hours of training to carry it. Make it 8 hours a day, for 5 weekends in a row. 5 Saturdays in a row. Most police academies are about 20 weeks, with probably about 100-120 hours dedicated to firearms. Military schools are even longer. The least we could ask is that if we are gonna entrust private citizens to carry, and possibly engage a bad guy, to be sure they are accurate and safe.

I'm impressed. Perhaps if we did show each other a bit more respect around here, we'd get ingenious ideas like this one. I could stand behind this.

Yeah, thats what I've tried to do. But, I too get caught up in the name calling a lot. We're all human.

But this idea is one I have always supported. I see nothing wrong at all with mandated training. In fact, I bet it would LOWER gun violence even more, as the criminals would know 1) People are carrying, and 2) People are trained well!!!! The criminals wouldnt bother going through the 5 Saturdays, so, they would be less trained and couldnt legally carry.

Maybe a huge compromise, like the Feds did with highway funding.

If a president (lets not specify, lets say its 2017), offered this compromise: A law that bans ANY new gun control bill for the next 75 years........If all 50 states will sign on and commit to starting their own state run and state funded CCW program, in which citizens would get their background check (all paperwork kept on file by the dealer, not the govt), got their permit (for a one time $100 fee to pay for instructors) and go through 5 single days of training, total 40 hours, on safety, law and tactics. The 5 day requirement would need to be completed within, say, 10 weeks. So you could go every other Saturday.

And just like a driver's license, it would be renewed every 5-10 years. Just a single day refresher, 8 hours, every 5-10 years.

It would be a great compromise.

training is good

it used to be common that people learned how to handle firearms

through their families and through a firearms training course

when i was a kid it was the area veterans that ran a class every year

for the kids it ran several weeks with a written and practical test

it was not contingent on owning a firearm but rather

a requirement to purchase a hunting license

i would not support a training mandate to own a firearm

but to rather to carry one about the community

same for refresher courses

other then that i would hope that over the course of years

that the owner would out shooting their firearms

enough to be continually familiar with it