Posted on 10/07/2017 2:19:46 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This makes twice in 10 days that a host on MSNBC has openly marveled at the idea that many, many Americans believe their rights come from God and are recognized in the Constitution rather than derive from the Constitution itself. How can it be that this idea is so inexplicably foreign, even accounting for MSNBC’s left-wing bias? They know the percentage of the country that’s religious; they’ve read that not-unimportant bit in the Declaration of Independence about men being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; they’ve read a treatise or two on natural law while in college; they’ve maybe even glanced at the Ninth Amendment now and then and puzzled over what it could possibly mean. I sympathize with their mystification only to the extent that I’m not a religious believer myself, but the idea of God-given rights is as mainstream as mainstream American political theory gets. And it serves a practical function. If free speech is purely a creature of the First Amendment, well, amendments can always be amended. If free speech is a creature of God then you’ve got a valid complaint if it’s taken away, no matter how by-the-book the First Amendment’s repeal might be from a constitutional standpoint.
I’m willing to cut Matthews a bit more slack than I cut Todd because, admittedly, the idea of God proclaiming “Thou shalt have AR-15s” is ridiculous. But gun-rights supporters don’t view the Second Amendment so narrowly. It doesn’t guarantee “arms” so much as it guarantees the right to defend life and liberty through force if necessary. Matthews is a man of the left *and* of the media and therefore feels pressure to signal his disdain for gun rights in theatrical ways, but for fark’s sake, at least nod at a basic understanding of the political culture of your own country.
Oh, and what the hell’s he talking about at the end here where Republicans supposedly insist on the right to bazookas and tanks? The GOP leadership has spent the past few days talking about banning bump stocks, precisely because they make semiautomatics too closely resemble another category of banned weapons, automatics. This is what Republicans get for backing down on a proposed gun-control measure for once.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
The 2nd Amendment is designed to protect Americans from Demonicrats.
Would our forefathers want us owning AR15s? You betcha.
I don’t believe in these rights just because they’re in the Constitution. They’re in the Constitution because we believe they are “God-given and preceding the Constitution.”
Bump
Our government is in place to serve the people. Once our government removes our tools of protection, our government immediately becomes our master.
DO NOT BE AFRAID OF YOUR GOVERNMENT. Let your senators and representatives know exactly how you feel.
Freedom from tyranny is our God given right and guns are the means to protect that.
Dunno Chris, perhaps maybe guns gave us the Constitution? Maybe?
The God given rights are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The firearm, as an individual liberty bestowed to all citizens in the Constitutional Republic we call the United States of America, provides protection to the same.
JoMa
Not at all surprising, from the crowd who believes themselves to be the highest moral authority.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You should post this on every gun control or anti-Trump thread.
Dangerous Freedom..
Or
Peaceful Slavery.
Well, Chris, it all starts way before Black’s Law, which merely codified personal weapons.
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), in a 5-4 majority opinion (and where the dissenters didn't explicitly reject this part), the Court said:
6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
...and...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes...
Perhaps some feel it antiquated, but St George Tucker may have nailed it (without the internet or a Whole Foods!!) in 1803 when he wrote:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature
Would George Washington go a Colt or a DPMS?
"If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun"
Yeah, “gun” rights are NATURAL rights, and by NATURE they “precede” the Constitution.
One does not “grant” rights. They are part of nature. The Constitution/BOR only RECOGNIZES and ACKNOWLEDGES those NATURAL rights. To be clear to anyone that indeed, they will not abridge what comes naturally.
In other words, it is a lot worse than just the comments on your list.
Oh yes it does. Because indeed, defending oneself is NATURAL as is surviving by finding food.
Yes, it was also recognized that groups of people might defend themselves against their own government, but that does not preclude enshrining basic criminal defense or hunting.
These are all natural rights, and the point of the BOR was to ensure they were recognized and not ignored/violated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.