JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
This is not a religious argument on my part. Believe what you wish.

For those who believe there is no God, then it seems to me that it would be hard for them to accept the idea the there are "inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator."

IMHO that leaves the rights subject to man, probably a government. It seems to me that makes the rights permissive rather than inalienable.

Again, not an argument for or against, just an observation.

$.02

I would assume that inalienable rights would be easy to understand for most. For example, is breathing something that should be a right? Or is it a permission granted by the government? Religious or not, I would guess that most would understand that breathing is a basic right not controlled by the government regardless of weather they believe in a god or not. I would argue that self preservation is along the same lines.

I get what you are saying about the religion part of things. My use of "God given" was more taken from the founders mouths rather than a concious thought about religion. That being said, about 92% of people in the U.S. still believe in a god or a higher power of some kind. That leaves a relatively small percentage that wouldn't understand god given right. I guarantee that the small percentage of people who don't understand a "god given" right would quickly understand it if their family was under attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html
 
I think one of our God given right is to carry a firearm, knife, mace, fists or what ever is legal to carry in Public to defend ourselves.

Can you provide chapter and verse where that's stated? Sounds Old Testament, and I'm just not familiar with most of the content in that section outside of the usual stories.



Edit: Ah, I see you're referring to the Founding Fathers and the language they used in the DofI. I guess I struggle with that because, unless they were otherwise appointed directly by God himself to speak on his behalf it seems more like posturing to put an emphatic stamp on their words vs. being anything of actual substance.
 
Maybe I should say it like this then Sonic.

Any person has the right to defend himself or herself from being hurt or killed.

Any person should be able to use force and even deadly force if needed to defend his or herself. Be it a firearm, a knife or just your limbs, you have a RIGHT to protect yourself!!!

No person should be made to just stand there and die.

That is a God given right!
 
I appreciate the clarification of your position. It conflicts with what I remember of biblical studies and that's the guidance of "turn the other cheek" in New Testament which still keeps a bit more conflict in my head as to the statement.

But maybe it's more a statement that there's a belief that the Creator endows humans with free will, and we exercise our free will by actively choosing to protect ourselves.

I get a little concerned when people bandy about "God said" or "God given." It's degrees of difference from, "Allah wants me to blow up a marketplace" but the degrees of separation aren't as great as many of us are comfortable with.

Again, I appreciate your clarification so I could understand what you meant.
 
I guess that I am more like Peter in the New Testament. I talk too much and will use the sword to protect myself and my friends. But on the other hand just because someone belittles me or even slaps my face doesn't mean I can't turn the other cheek. Yes we do have free will. If i let everyone kill me then who would be there to protect my family?

Before there was a Constitution, there was self preservation. I believe it to come for GOD!
 
Turn the other cheek?

A better christian the me would turn the cheek from someone bad mouthing them, making fun of them, and maybe even killing them.

I am not a perfect christian! I have problems I deal with. Turning the other check is one.
 
I guess the term "god given" is getting too much attention and detracting from the general idea. I would imagine that pretty much everyone on a pro-gun site such is this one would agree that people have the right to protect themselves. Maybe that is a far fetched assumption on my part, but I am willing to take that leap. Of course just as it seems to be the case in our nations political scene, the loud minority seems to make enough noise that people confuse them with the majority.

It doesn't matter if self-preservation comes from a higher power, or just simply from us being. It is a very strong, deep seeded, basic instinct in most all of us. If you don't believe that and instead believe that everything that we do is only done, because the government gives us permission, you are on a different side than I am.

If the latter is the case, then our forfathers fought to make sure that all generations of Americans down to ours are free. I'll be damned if it is going to stop with my generation. I am the last person that wants things to erupt into violence, but there is a time and place for everything and my children will not be slaves to their government with nothing being done about it.
 
I appreciate the clarification of your position. It conflicts with what I remember of biblical studies and that's the guidance of "turn the other cheek" in New Testament which still keeps a bit more conflict in my head as to the statement.

But maybe it's more a statement that there's a belief that the Creator endows humans with free will, and we exercise our free will by actively choosing to protect ourselves.

I get a little concerned when people bandy about "God said" or "God given." It's degrees of difference from, "Allah wants me to blow up a marketplace" but the degrees of separation aren't as great as many of us are comfortable with.

Again, I appreciate your clarification so I could understand what you meant.

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21

There is a difference between guarding your house, yourself or your goods than there is in committing Jihad. wouldn't you agree?
 
First, I do not like the term "constitutional carry" since I believe it sets the in favor argument up for failure right off the bat by making it sound that we believe the constitution addresses carrying a firearm in public...which it does not.


I disagree the right to Constitutionally carry firearms is clear.

Bill of rights

Second Amendment




A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Oregon Constitution/Article I

Section 27

Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
Washington Constitution ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
 
Peter was crucified upside down. I'd probably avoid wanting to be like Peter ;)

He refused to deny that Jesus was God (this would be long after the crucifixion). His wife was tortured and killed in front of him in an attempt to get him to abandon his integrity and recant. When this didn't work (his wife also would not change her beliefs), they started setting up to crucify him. He requested that he be crucified upside down citing that he wasn't fit to die in the same manner as the one he called Lord.

A situation like that is a horrific test of the sincerity of one's beliefs. I have no desire to be tested in that manner, but I very much want to have that kind of integrity and sincerity. Being like Peter is no bad thing, being tested like Peter however is nothing that I would look forward to.
 
I disagree the right to Constitutionally carry firearms is clear.

I do not agree that the US COnstitution guarantees the right to carry a concealed handgun. However, some state constitutions do seem to convey that right. So maybe I would be okay with calling it "State Constitutional Carry" is some instances. :)
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (except in the area of concealed carry.)" :)
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (except in the area of concealed carry.)" :)

LOL. That must be the version that I have been missing! I don't get how"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow get's twisted to mean that it shall not be infringed, except for all of the many laws that we are going to make to limit it.
 
My turn.

Do we, as human beings, have a right to defend our lives- be it divined by God or earned through natural selection?

Yes. I think we do.

Then why do we need to seek approval (from a government) as to which manner we choose to defend ourselves?

Not to seem too simple but...........I don't need a permit to carry a baseball bat or a hammer (both of which are devastating weapons) but the State mandates that if I choose to carry a firearm I must have their approval first?
 
some may argue that the context of the 2nd amendment was focused against foreign invaders and tyranny and that it has no application today for whatever reason...open carry, concealed carry, gun ownership in general, "assault" rifles. however if we're gonna be redrafting the 2nd amendment with...amendments I don't see how the argument of taking away concealed carry, open carry, gun ownership, or detachable high capacity magazines makes any more logical sense with the concern that our personal safety concerns in our daily lives (theft, muggings, assaults, home invasion) is still prevalent. I like to think that the concept of "home" and "self" is largely expanded to the communities we live in rather than national and state borders. Protecting these communities and our families are what the Bill of Rights has adapted to protect in my mind. My guns, locked up safely, not doing harm to anyone in my community or yours unless someone wants to tread on my neighbors. I do believe a standing militia is something people are allowed to have. Just like CERT programs around the state are made to help get responders and people with know how.

The Bill of Rights to me entitles law abiding citizens rights set in stone. Anyone messing with ANY of those rights whether its mine or another American citizen should be scolded and properly dealt with. When the conditions of context are superimposed on Constitutional rights, they should enable citizens the capacity and potential to grow and be stronger not fear the potential responsibility of error.

So yes, I do believe concealed carry is covered by the bare arms clause of the 2nd amendment.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top