An excercise

[Quaere_Verum]

Sitting in a local coffee house I overheard some college students discussing the need for more gun control. So being the disrupter that I am I interrupted and asked 'Where do you think the right to keep and bear arms comes from?'. As I expected the answer 'From the Constitution' was the response. I won't go in to the discussion that ensued but I would recommend this:

Ask your high schooler or college student the same question and if they answer 'from the Constitution' realize you have much work to do!

[stumpy]

You could ask the same student if we are given separation of church and state in the Constitution, or if we have freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion

[RickRhetoric]

... and keep in mind that it's no longer your daddy's Constitution. It belongs to Obama, and he can, and is interpreting it to his personal liking.

[imme]

You could ask the same student if we are given separation of church and state in the Constitution, or if we have freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion

I will answer your question and tell you it is both. We are free to practice allmost any religion we choose to believe. At the same time, we are free to not have any religion forced upon us by our government. Once the separation of church and state is removed, this country will cease to be the united states of america. It is amazing to me how people can pick and choose which articles they support. How can you say plain and simple the bill of rights give us the freedom to own guns, yet the same bill of rights that lays out the separation of church and state: no that's not there.

[Haplo]

Ask your high schooler or college student the same question and if they answer 'from the Constitution' realize you have much work to do!Then where does the right come from if not from the Constitution?

[Haplo]

You could ask the same student if we are given separation of church and state in the Constitution, or if we have freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religionAnd what is the correct answer?

[Haplo]

... and keep in mind that it's no longer your daddy's Constitution. It belongs to Obama, and he can, and is interpreting it to his personal liking.
:liar:

[Haplo]

I will answer your question and tell you it is both. We are free to practice allmost any religion we choose to believe. At the same time, we are free to not have any religion forced upon us by our government. Once the separation of church and state is removed, this country will cease to be the united states of america. It is amazing to me how people can pick and choose which articles they support. How can you say plain and simple the bill of rights give us the freedom to own guns, yet the same bill of rights that lays out the separation of church and state: no that's not there.Careful...being corrected might hurt their self esteem

[Czhorat]

Ask your high schooler or college student the same question and if they answer 'from the Constitution' realize you have much work to do!

What do you think the answer should be?

[Quaere_Verum]

Then where does the right come from if not from the Constitution?

The right is a natural right. Everyone possesses it, and other natural rights, simply be existing. Natural rights are inherent in our being and cannot be taken away nor given away. This is what is meant by 'unalienable rights', it is how Jefferson understood it and that is why he chose the word unalienable. John Locke's theories on society and politics informed the Founders and their understanding of rights. Locke wrote of natural rights as life, liberty and (private) property. Implicit with ownership of private property is the right to defend it, hence the right to bear arms is a natural right, unalienable and may not be infringed upon.

[Haplo]

The right is a natural right. Everyone possesses it, and other natural rights, simply be existing. Natural rights are inherent in our being and cannot be taken away nor given away. This is what is meant by 'unalienable rights', it is how Jefferson understood it and that is why he chose the word unalienable. John Locke's theories on society and politics informed the Founders and their understanding of rights. Locke wrote of natural rights as life, liberty and (private) property. Implicit with ownership of private property is the right to defend it, hence the right to bear arms is a natural right, unalienable and may not be infringed upon.
I see... So how is it legal to have any kind of restrictive law or even one that infringes on these rights?

For that matter where does government get the power to decide what rights come from existence or some deity and what rights come from citizenship? Why can't I declare the unalienable right to any number of things that are illegal?

[Apatriot]

Then where does the right come from if not from the Constitution?


Granted to us by God as part of natural law.

To quote the Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Quaere_Verum]

I see... So how is it legal to have any kind of restrictive law or even one that infringes on these rights?


Through mutual consent. As noted above "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The theory of this is found in John Locke's writings.

From Locke's Second Treatise on Government:
MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

[Haplo]

Granted to us by God as part of natural law.

To quote the Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):
Since I don't believe in any god how does this effect my rights? Should Bush Sr. get his way, this would and should jeopardize my citizenship "after all we're one nation under god".

[Haplo]

Through mutual consent...And there you have both the real source of our rights and the reason government at any level has the authority and power to resend or curb these rights.

If they were given by nature or nature's god, then government wouldn't be able to put limits on them or take them away.

[Apatriot]

Since I don't believe in any god how does this effect my rights? Should Bush Sr. get his way, this would and should jeopardize my citizenship "after all we're one nation under god".

Well, regardless of what you think, you do have a Creator that has given you natural rights.

[Apatriot]

And there you have both the real source of our rights and the reason government at any level has the authority and power to resend or curb these rights.

If they were given by nature or nature's god, then government wouldn't be able to put limits on them or take them away.

Not legitimately. The only legitimate limit on your rights are more fundamental rights of others.
For example, I have a right to scream fire in my house. I can't do that in a crowded movie house, because that would cause a panic and harm others.

[Quaere_Verum]

And there you have both the real source of our rights and the reason government at any level has the authority and power to resend or curb these rights.

If they were given by nature or nature's god, then government wouldn't be able to put limits on them or take them away.

What you're saying is power equates to legitimacy. While the government has the power to effectively quash any and all free speech it certainly does not have the authority to do so and were it to do so we are not obligated to obey it. On the contrary we would be duty bound to disobey and fight against such tyranny for such a government would no longer be legitimate.

[Haplo]

Well, regardless of what you think, you do have a Creator that has given you natural rights.No, I don't...regardless of what you think

[Haplo]

What you're saying is power equates to legitimacy. No, I'm saying consent equates to legitimacy.

While the government has the power to effectively quash any and all free speech it certainly does not have the authority to do so and were it to do so we are not obligated to obey it. I disagree that it has the power but I absolutely agree we don't have any obligation. That is why I say consent equates to legitimacy. Government's power comes not from nature or nature's god but from the consent of the governed.

On the contrary we would be duty bound to disobey and fight against such tyranny for such a government would no longer be legitimate.Indeed and this is why I know I would've joined the Confederacy if I'd lived durring that time. Not to derail the thread but there was alot more to it then slavery.

[angelicmadrigal]

So you felt the need to interject yourself into a conversation where you weren't invited? Sounds like you need to brush up on your manners Mr. Know It All.

[Haplo]

So you felt the need to interject yourself into a conversation where you weren't invited? Sounds like you need to brush up on your manners Mr. Know It All.Don't know who you're talking to but it really doesn't matter. This is a discussion board. If you only want certain people to take part in a thread (and you're the thread starter) then put it either in the title or the opening post.

I don't claim to know it all but I don't pretend not to have an opinion on almost everything.

[mboncher]

The right is a natural right. Everyone possesses it, and other natural rights, simply be existing. Natural rights are inherent in our being and cannot be taken away nor given away. This is what is meant by 'unalienable rights', it is how Jefferson understood it and that is why he chose the word unalienable. John Locke's theories on society and politics informed the Founders and their understanding of rights. Locke wrote of natural rights as life, liberty and (private) property. Implicit with ownership of private property is the right to defend it, hence the right to bear arms is a natural right, unalienable and may not be infringed upon.
The second Amendment is most simply distilled by considering it the "right to self defense". A lot of people don't even know what that means, outside of suing someone they feel wronged them. They're so removed from danger to their lives as to forget that at one time, if you didn't shoot your attacker, you didn't survive because nobody would or could come to your rescue.