The Tea Party will change America back to the days of Thomas Jefferson

[Alias]

We do have a right to defend ourselves. I do not know that we have a constitutional right to do it with particular weapons. The scotus said we have a right to arms for self defense but I fail to see where that is written in the const.

However the const. does say that we have a right to have arms (in general and does not state a restriction) to alter or abolish government.

Perhaps not explicitly, but I think they're gonna have a hard time telling us we can't defend ourselves when the revolution starts.

 

[clarkatticus]

apparently you guys missed the sarcasm. If you are afraid a few discontented blacks at a meaningless rally are a threat big enough to warrent guns, maybe you should just barracade your houses and wait for the end. I found it amusing, but you tend to fear everything. guess that is what the Koch bros want

 

[Alias]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRE36Fxxx1w

 

[Dr.Who]

And, although I respect the "right to bare arms," because it is in the constitution, I am personally not convinced that it is a wise stipulation, as I would argue that there have been MANY more innocent people killed because of the wide spread availability of guns, than people saved by their own guns!

But. . .I realize that I will NEVER convince anyone of my point of view, and I am certainly not trying. I am just reserving my right to express my point of view.

I suspect that the facts that feed your point of view are wrong. Would you change your mind if the facts were different? If not then you must have formed your opinion based on other reasons. If yes then you are open minded.

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps not explicitly, but I think they're gonna have a hard time telling us we can't defend ourselves when the revolution starts.

I am drawing a disctinction between defending yourself from government and defending yourself from burglers.

Clearly the constitution gives is the right to defend ourselves from gov with arms.

Clearly we also have the right to defend ourselves. I just fail to see where the const says we can defend ourselves from burglers with arms.

But I am making an error in forgetting that all rights not restricted by the gov are retained by the individual. If we have the right to defense from burglers and we have the right to guns and we retain rights then clearly putting them together we can defend ourselves with guns from burglers.

 

[Alias]

I am drawing a disctinction between defending yourself from government and defending yourself from burglers.

Clearly the constitution gives is the right to defend ourselves from gov with arms.

Clearly we also have the right to defend ourselves. I just fail to see where the const says we can defend ourselves from burglers with arms.

But I am making an error in forgetting that all rights not restricted by the gov are retained by the individual. If we have the right to defense from burglers and we have the right to guns and we retain rights then clearly putting them together we can defend ourselves with guns from burglers.

Right. Govt does not give us our rights. We have the right to defend outselves at all times and that is a God-given right.

 

[GenSeneca]

We have the right to defend outselves at all times and that is a God-given right.

Don't take this the wrong way but... How do you prove to someone that our rights come from God?

Aside from that I agree that government doesn't grant Rights, it can only recognize and protect our Rights, however, governemnt does have the power to grant legal privileges - which are often confused for, and even called, "rights".

 

[Alias]

Don't take this the wrong way but... How do you prove to someone that our rights come from God?

Aside from that I agree that government doesn't grant Rights, it can only recognize and protect our Rights, however, governemnt does have the power to grant legal privileges - which are often confused for, and even called, "rights".

I don't think you can prove to someone our rights come from God. We live in a secular age where people are moving from faith in God to faith in their technology....secular religion.....that's what I call it. Global warming, liberalism, new age progressivism, etc, it's all part of the secular faith or "secular religion". That's how I see it. Just my opinion.

 

[Openmind]

Right. Govt does not give us our rights. We have the right to defend outselves at all times and that is a God-given right.

"Defend ourselves" is a very VAGUE concept!

Do you REALLY think that God gave us the right to "defend" our I-Pod from thieves by taking the life of those thieves away?

I don't think so!!!!

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't think you can prove to someone our rights come from God.

If you are unable to prove an assertion, then it doesn't have much merit.

 

[Dr.Who]

Don't take this the wrong way but... How do you prove to someone that our rights come from God?

Aside from that I agree that government doesn't grant Rights, it can only recognize and protect our Rights, however, governemnt does have the power to grant legal privileges - which are often confused for, and even called, "rights".

You say that it is self-evident and then those to whom their has been such revelation will understand it to be so. But others will have to conclude that those who wrote the Const thought it was self evident and wrote the rights into the highest law - for them it is unproven that they are God given but it is proven that the const recognized them.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't think you can prove to someone our rights come from God. We live in a secular age where people are moving from faith in God to faith in their technology....secular religion.....that's what I call it. Global warming, liberalism, new age progressivism, etc, it's all part of the secular faith or "secular religion". That's how I see it. Just my opinion.

Lots of people like to think we are moving away from religion but the way I see it there have always been a large number of people who did not believe and the believers have always been "a remnant".

What is true is that there have been periods where more people claimed to believe but their belief was actually so shallow as to be non-existent. These periods have ebbed and flowed throughout history.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Defend ourselves" is a very VAGUE concept!

Do you REALLY think that God gave us the right to "defend" our I-Pod from thieves by taking the life of those thieves away?

I don't think so!!!!

Do you think God would not want people to stop others from committing injustice? Isn't it self-evident that injustice should be opposed on some level and in some manner?

My own answer is that we are always to oppose the injustice but only sometimes with the use of force and only sometimes on our own behalf.
When the Ipod belongs to oneself one might very well decide that we can learn humility by letting it go.

When it is the last meal of a defenseless and innocent person the strong might decide that they were given power specifically to help the weak.

 

[GenSeneca]

You say that it is self-evident and then those to whom their has been such revelation will understand it to be so. But others will have to conclude that those who wrote the Const thought it was self evident and wrote the rights into the highest law - for them it is unproven that they are God given but it is proven that the const recognized them.

With all due respect, if they do not believe our rights come from God then they will conclude that rights come from government. For people who believe that rights come from government, there is absolutely no limit to what can be considered a "right".

 

[Openmind]

Do you think God would not want people to stop others from committing injustice? Isn't it self-evident that injustice should be opposed on some level and in some manner?

My own answer is that we are always to oppose the injustice but only sometimes with the use of force and only sometimes on our own behalf.
When the Ipod belongs to oneself one might very well decide that we can learn humility by letting it go.

When it is the last meal of a defenseless and innocent person the strong might decide that they were given power specifically to help the weak.

You are correct, God wouldn't want men to commit injustice. . .but there is obviously a lot of subjectivity to the term "injustice!"

For what I am concern, "injustice" is to coddle the wealthy at the expenses of the poor, allowing the wealthy to gather enough power and money to drive the poor into dire misery.

For you injustice is for the poor to ask that the very wealthy contribute to the community well being by foregoing a minor part of their "income!"

I wonder which (the poor or the wealthy) Jesus would support. . .

Or do we KNOW that through the many paraboles the New Testament has given us?