I guess I’ll just keep exercising my God given rights to own a gun while y’all try to figure out what to do about it.
I don’t need a reason to exercise my God-given rights
You are totally right, at least to the extent that logic fallacies like this (begging the question), does not require one to engage the use of reason. “God told me” and divine right have been used by people since the beginning of time.
People have been smart for a long time!
Natural rights are those which are inherent to human dignity. Basic needs. Life, liberty, equality.
You can’t say that being prevented from owning a gun would impinge upon your dignity as a human person.
Who said anything about dignity? If I own guns it’s because I choose to.
Natural rights are generally a matter of dignity. I.e. they are necessary to uphold the basic dignity of the human person. Water, basic healthcare, shelter, opportunities for education and employment.
Owning guns adds nothing to human dignity. So it’s not a natural right.
Correct. I own guns because I choose to and I have the God-given right to. It’s not about dignity. The opposite would be people such as yourself who derive their dignity through the thrill of trying to control others. I believe you’re jealous that I have the courage to exercise my rights.
I do understand that I have the natural right to own a gun. I also understand that the world has an abundance of angry thugs who would love to take away that right.
Read the quote. The context is clearly talking about civil authority
If by civil authority, you mean governments, police, military, etc., then, no, it is not. Well, maybe in Europe, but in the States:
those who legimately hold authority
In the US, this refers to every citizen. Every citizen has legitimate authority. Note that is uniquely an American perspective, and much of the world doesn’t understand this distinct point of view of America’s Founding - that it wasn’t a collectivist movement (like the French or Red Revolutions), but rather a collection of individuals desiring individual freedom, and thereby, meaning that individual citizens have authority, legitimately. Every citizen has the right and responsibility to use arms to repel aggressors against their civil community.
In the Constitution, it’s referred to as the “militia”. Some like to think the State’s national guard is the successor of the militia, and that’s partially true - in the sense of the cases of state-wide sponsored organized militias. However, the militia didn’t refer to an institution of the various States, but to the citizens willing to defend their States. The militia were the citizens willing to take upon these responsibilities when called upon.
Now, much of the world doesn’t follow this. In fact, much of the world doesn’t understand this. That individuals were endowed by their Creator by unalienable rights. It’s self-evident. Well, it wasn’t - not back then. Back then, it was self-evident that God endowed Kings and Queens with unlimited power, not that all men are created equal. It’s arguable, by the posts here, whether all men are equal, or if only the anti-gun people are equal.
I say this as a Catholic who wears my concealed handgun wherever I go, including Mass.
I would say that defending yourself and your family, using lethal force if necessary, is a preservation of human dignity if not a dignified act itself. Leisure – people also use firearms because it’s fun to shoot clay pigeons – is also an integral part of the human experience. Most importantly, Amendment II is in place to ensure that the people of a Nation have the capacity to at least resist a potential American tyranny. If that last one isn’t defense of human dignity, I don’t know what is.
That’s hilarious. I’m trying to control you?
Look back up the thread buddy. I’m in favour of gun rights. But as rights go I think you’d be hard pressed to argue a case for gun rights as a “natural” right.
We’re just splitting hairs now. I agree with you!!!
I just don’t believe it can be defined as a “natural” right.
You need to judge whether the particular “rights” you have in mind are good for the community or not.
So you oppose gun control? No registration, no licensing, no age restrictions, no mandatory training, no background checks? If you are for any of these, you are for control. It’s just a matter of how much control you believe in. If you are for no gun control, then I take back what I said, however, I still know it to be a natural right.
That is true, but it doesn’t go far enough. I have the right to more than basic healthcare. I have the right to the best healthcare on the planet. I have the right to live in a $50 million dollar mansion. I have the right to bottled water. I have the right to doctoral degrees. What I don’t have is the right to force you or anyone else to pay for those things. Don’t confuse rights with entitlements.
That is one of the most terrifyingly dangerous justifications of rights I have ever heard. We have rights because God granted us the ability to make decisions and discuss them and because our fallen nature means we need them to protect each other from each other, not because they’re “good for the community”. The mindset you espouse leads to the trampling of individual rights at the hand of tyrannical government, even – especially, dare I say – if not meant. Every time.
An armed community is inherent to God’s will for us? Were gun laws to be voted upon in my community - I’d seek to answer the question: of the options available to me, which do I think will do the most good / least harm. That is an appropriate question to ask in all circumstances where one wants to choose the moral course. Now some may sincerely conclude that leads to the view that widespread availability of guns and a well armed community is the best course.
The right to the reasonable use of a gun in self-defense is a derivative of the most fundamental right, the right to life. The community in its collective wisdom defines “reasonable.”