National Gun Forum banner

21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,358 Posts
With some exceptions. As long as that religion isn't about harming people in anyway.
Make no mistake, I'm not opposed to the beliefs people have. I am, however, very opposed to people's actions when they are backed up by ridiculous claims that they are justified by religious belief. THAT is where I draw the line........

As you say, I won't defend the actions of people harming other people.

--Wag--
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
People need to understand what the function of the 2nd Amendment, what in fact the function of the entire Bill Of Rights, truly is. I take it most of the people on this forum probably know this but there are many people in the world who don't know the true function of the BOR.

Anyway the function of the BOR is this, the BOR does not grant rights rather it identifies rights. It identifies various natural rights, various God given rights, which means such rights are granted by God or by whatever higher power you might believe in, a power that's above the government. Such rights are constants, they existed before the BOR was written and they always will exist. The government did not grant such rights the government cannot take such rights away. All too often the left likes to say that the 2A only applies to muskets since those were the weapons of the time when the 2A was written, what they fail to understand is that the 2A existed before it was written. Before muskets it applied to swords, and since the 2A is a constant and always will exist it will always apply to the weapons of the times. Today it applies to modern guns such as semi automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and shotguns, and need I even say, fully automatic firearms. Whatever weapons exist in the future the 2A will apply to those, when such futuristic weapons come to be.

Sadly so many people don't understand the true function of the BOR, and sadly we have allowed our 2A rights to be trampled on by the government
A very interesting discussion,Sir.
I believe they are not necessarily God given but are innate. They are not the only innate rights that exist,just the only ones the founders listed. Several later amendments have added more rights (14,19) and some have been identified by court action. An unlisted (yet) right I believe in is health care.
Some have said that if not in the constitution it isn't a right. I disagree,it's just not a right that has not yet been identified or listed in law.
Some here may disagree; I await the nature of their comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,212 Posts
A very interesting discussion,Sir.
I believe they are not necessarily God given but are innate. They are not the only innate rights that exist,just the only ones the founders listed. Several later amendments have added more rights (14,19) and some have been identified by court action. An unlisted (yet) right I believe in is health care.
Some have said that if not in the constitution it isn't a right. I disagree,it's just not a right that has not yet been identified or listed in law.
Some here may disagree; I await the nature of their comments.

You do have a right to health care to some extent, just not free health care. You cannot be turned away from a hospital in an emergent situation. Though i know some have at some places but it is a law that they treat you and try to save your life if need be. You also have the right to seek out any doctor for treatment. What you don't have the right to is have others pay for it. You have the right to keep and bear arms but you must provide your own firearms unless maybe we should have free universal firearms? You have the right to free speech but not the right to have anyone pay for any type of device or platform to use that free speech(IE megaphone, internet provider etc) What would be next, the right for dentistry? Right to food, housing, clothing etc? You have the rights to pursue any and all of those things but not the right for others to pay for it. We have many rights but not the right to demand others pay for those rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
You do have a right to health care to some extent, just not free health care. You cannot be turned away from a hospital in an emergent situation. Though i know some have at some places but it is a law that they treat you and try to save your life if need be. You also have the right to seek out any doctor for treatment. What you don't have the right to is have others pay for it. You have the right to keep and bear arms but you must provide your own firearms unless maybe we should have free universal firearms? You have the right to free speech but not the right to have anyone pay for any type of device or platform to use that free speech(IE megaphone, internet provider etc) What would be next, the right for dentistry? Right to food, housing, clothing etc? You have the rights to pursue any and all of those things but not the right for others to pay for it. We have many rights but not the right to demand others pay for those rights.
First;NOTHING IS FREE.
Second;NOTHING IS FREE
Why only emergency care?
You can ave an injury or illness which will kill you just as dead but just takes a little bit longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmf552

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,212 Posts
First;NOTHING IS FREE.
Second;NOTHING IS FREE

Agreed, many people do receive free services but others pay for it. That is my point, why should a small percentage of the population have to pay more(when many are already taxed to death) so more people can receive "free" services? It would only be sustainable for a short period of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Agreed, many people do receive free services but others pay for it. That is my point, why should a small percentage of the population have to pay more(when many are already taxed to death) so more people can receive "free" services? It would only be sustainable for a short period of time.
This seems to me to be the basis of being "christian".
It seems to work in other countries. Not perfectly,but it works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
This seems to me to be the basis of being "christian".
It seems to work in other countries. Not perfectly,but it works.
I disagree. A Christian is called to provide the poor what they need out of charity. Once the government takes people's money by implied force and mandates the services, it is no longer charity, but quasi-socialism. The government can then use that healthcare mandate to manipulate people. That is the first rule of Saul Alinsky's list of Communist controls. That has nothing to do with Christianity.

Even today Christian and other charities provide health services the government does not and will not, especially in places the government doesn't care about. And they do it more efficiently and more compassionately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
First;NOTHING IS FREE.
Second;NOTHING IS FREE
Why only emergency care?
You can ave an injury or illness which will kill you just as dead but just takes a little bit longer.
Humans had the right to defend themselves, and their posessions, and often had to long before the Constitution.
Humans also had the right to do or not do healthy things before doctors and hospitals came along.
Rights are something humans have had since the dawn of man. Health care is something humans invented.
You do have the right to learn, earn the means and pay for health care as you deem neccessary or are willing too.
Nobody has a right to have someone else work for their benefits and health are.
Wait, isn't that called slavery?????

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
And you had the last word. :)

Now, on with the thread...............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Humans had the right to defend themselves, and their posessions, and often had to long before the Constitution. ...
Actually, it wasn't that easy before the united States of America was realized. Juris Prudence from the by-gone days lets us know that it was really difficult to provide a successful self defense case as the defendant. Very simply put, the primary reason was that back then money talked, and the poor and not so well off could not LEGALLY use self defense, either literlly or as a defense to criminal proceedings.

This made it extremely important to our Founding Fathers that neither the new government, of their own creation, nor another government or kingdom from afar be able to make subjects out of We the People ever again.

As late as August of 1987, I could not legally carry a gun, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SELF DEFENSE, in Florida. In order to CW or CCW, you, myself, and others would have to have a "specific and compelling" reason (e.g., regularly carrying bank deposits to the bank etc.) to be legally allowed to carry, or as I put it back then, "Convince our local sheriff that my life was just as important as was his."

Good news though, with the fiscal new year of September, 1987, the majority of common sense we previously elected into our state's houses, in a very basic sense, made Florida a shall issue state, which simply put meant that self defense, and self defense only, was/is a good enough reason for any law abiding resident of Florida to carry a weapon.

We've made some progress across the country, but we have so much further to go* as well as fight even harder to not lose what little we have gained as law abiding Americans.

PW





* - Recently, when pressured by local news hounds on what measures he would take if rioting, like was occurring across the rest of the country at the time, ever made its way into his locale, we had a local sheriff (Clay County, Fla.) make a public service announcement video for the residents of his county.

Here is a partial quote, "... You [want to] know what I will do? I will exercise the power and authority as sheriff, and I'll make special deputies of every lawful gun owner in this county..." (Full video here.)

That was in either late June, or early July of this year. The powers that be have already had this sheriff removed from office. The fight is NOT over. Far from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wag

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
The problem with explaining this to liberals is that you are explaining God given rights to a godless people.
Whether the rights are God given or innate,does it matter?
The important thing is that the BOR simply lists them, they had already existed before the BOR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Whether the rights are God given or innate,does it matter?
The important thing is that the BOR simply lists them, they had already existed before the BOR.
Yes it matters.

See, if our Creator endowed us with rights, prior to the writing of words in documents referred to as the COTUS or BOR, then no written work could ever dispel, controvert, or do away with them; however, if these rights were simply "innate" to mankind, then only the strongest are empowered with these rights, which is what went on in Europe during the time of our Revolution as well as what goes on today in countries and nations of peoples that do not KNOW they have Creator authored, and or Creator given rights supreme to the edict of governments or other men.

BTW- Simply reading the first five books of the Authorized, KJ bible version will prove beyond all doubt that killing someone in self-defense is not murder. What's more, it has been a biblical concept for over five millennia.


(Edited: Revolution, not evolution)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KILTED COWBOY

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Yes it matters.

See, if our Creator endowed us with rights, prior to the writing of words in documents referred to as the COTUS or BOR, then no written work could ever dispel, controvert, or do away with them; however, if these rights were simply "innate" to mankind, then only the strongest are empowered with these rights, which is what went on in Europe during the time of our evolution as well as what goes on today in countries and nations of peoples that do not KNOW they have Creator authored, and or Creator given rights supreme to the edict of governments or other men.

BTW- Simply reading the first five books of the Authorized, KJ bible version will prove beyond all doubt that killing someone in self-defense is not murder. What's more, it has been a biblical concept for over five millennia.
Thank you for your calm and kind response. I simply do not agree with your belief as bolded above BUT "I will defend your right to say it". (Amend.#1)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
Rights and laws differ. Is Health care a right? What about shelter-housing is that a right? what about food, is that a right.
You can go down a list of things a man needs to survive are they rights?
I believe you do not have a right to all the above guaranteed by the government.
You have a right protected by the constitution to work hard an pursue getting those things.
Charitable organizations have always been around to help people in need, not everything needs to be supplied by the federal government. Once government owns your healthcare they own you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Thank you for your calm and kind response. I simply do not agree with your belief as bolded above BUT "I will defend your right to say it". (Amend.#1)
Same to you. As well, I will agree to disagree, and be happy to be watchful over us both while on your right or left flank.


Rights and laws differ. Is Health care a right? What about shelter-housing is that a right? what about food, is that a right.
You can go down a list of things a man needs to survive are they rights?
I believe you do not have a right to all the above guaranteed by the government.
You have a right protected by the constitution to work hard an pursue getting those things.
Charitable organizations have always been around to help people in need, not everything needs to be supplied by the federal government. Once government owns your healthcare they own you.
You just nailed down the reason for the Democrats' welfare programs AND et cetera coming from the hand of government.

There is a term from slavery days that was used by owners and other slaves alike, the term was "house n*gg*r," which those refer to as such were just as much an owned slave as any other owned slave. These were a select group of slaves that were given benefits not afforded to all the other slaves on the plantation.

The Democrats decided that rather than making slavery illegal, they would make "house n*gg*rs" out of all the blacks. Wide awake (i.e., politically and socially) black folks like Mr. Martin Luther King Jr,, Malcom X, and my personal favorite from that era, Mr. Medgar "Wiley" Evers, knew what the racists in power and or as a part of our government's polity were actually doing with such welfare programs.

They and others like them were NOT murdered for their beliefs in equality, but rather for their admonitions to block folks to fight and struggle to own property and become engaged in their local politics and have a larger stake in their own socioeconomic standing.

Back in the sixties, self-serving elitist leaders here in America did not believe the term "uppity black person" to mean someone who wanted a handout, rather they believe it was someone who teaching other black folks to disdain the welfare handouts and make their own lives by working to own private property and businesses of their own.

Just my $0.02, ymmv

PW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
A very interesting discussion,Sir.
I believe they are not necessarily God given but are innate. They are not the only innate rights that exist,just the only ones the founders listed.
Yes and yes. The rights identified in the BOR are innate. By innate that means they are God given or if you don't believe in God that they are given to you by nature or by whatever higher power you might believe in. The point is, they were granted by a power that's above the government and as such the government cannot take them away.

And yes I also agree that there are other innate rights that were not identified by the founders and are still to be identified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Yes and yes. The rights identified in the BOR are innate. By innate that means they are God given or if you don't believe in God that they are given to you by nature or by whatever higher power you might believe in. The point is, they were granted by a power that's above the government and as such the government cannot take them away.

And yes I also agree that there are other innate rights that were not identified by the founders and are still to be identified.
Agree!(y) Also believe that if a right is not identified in the Constitutiom (YET),it still exists.
e.g. healthcare
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
Our judges and justices are all schooled in the BOR theory you are talking about, but many choose to ignore it. The same for a lot of our legislators. Historical BOR theory is not at all the problem we are facing with gun rights. The theory is being ignored, not because it is not understood, but because it doesn't fit with the narrative, so people have just chosen to disregard it. You explaining the theory to a bunch of gun owners changes nothing, nothing at all.
That would depend on the bunch of gun owners Im explaining it too. Gun owners come in all different shapes and sizes, they've got all different levels of understanding in regards to politics, in regards to the 2A and the BOR, and they even vary in the positions they take on where to draw the line between gun control and gun rights. So explaining the theory to a bunch of gun owners and the effect it would make, that depends on what bunch of gun owners we're talking about.

The fight for the RTKABA is now, in 2020, not in anything that was written in the 1770's.
Of course its not the same now as it was in the 1770s. In the 1770s such a right applied to muskets and other single shot firearms, those were the weapons of the time. Today it would apply to more modern guns, repeating rifles, repeating shotguns, repeating handguns, full automatics, ect. In the future it will apply to whatever weapons there are in the future.

You seem to think you have hit on some great revelation that if gun owners would only understand it, it would change everything. You are wrong. There is no philosophical answer to the fight for gun rights. There is only hard work.
It would certainly change some things if some gun owners understood it and acted on it. Just understanding it is not enough. You talk about hard work and acting on it is where the hard work comes in. But if we're to restore and maintain our right to keep and bear arms we not only have to work hard we also have to work smart. Horses work hard.

People who are really fighting for gun rights have no patience with people who only pontificate about it.
As for somebody who fights for gun rights I would say I have the least patience for people who claim to be for gun rights but aren't really for gun rights or if they are for gun rights they don't do anything about it.

As an example lots of gun owners and lots of people who claim to be for gun rights are all for the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is a clear violation of the 2A.

As for gun owners who don't do anything about it an example of that would be when they were going door to door seizing guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Gun owners were quietly turning in their guns. One of the purposes of the 2A is for it to serve as a final check and balance on the government. The US government functions on checks and balances, we don't want any one person or any one group having too much power. That is reenforced with the 2A, with the 2A if all else fails the people can take up arms and revolt against an oppressive government. Of course this should only be done as a last resort, if all else fails. However, sadly there are lots of gun owners who either don't understand that or if they do understand it they don't act on it.

Quietly turning in your guns as they were doing in the aftermath of Katrina is not revolting against an oppressive government, its the opposite of revolting against an oppressive government.
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
Top