Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: William Tell
It's flippant to say that you're right and the government refuses to recognize that fact. I can apply that to anything -- that's no argument.

I can say the first amendment protects my free speech right to slander you ... but the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right. I can say the police have the right to search your house without cause and without a warrant ... but the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right.

What's off limits with that as an argument?

The courts have ruled that the right to life is an inalienable, God-given right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it.

The inalienable, God-given right to self defense does not include a gun. IF IT DID, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one. THEY DON'T.

You say they do but the government refuses to recognize that. As I said, and as I demonstrated, that's no argument. Can you find anything anywhere to support your statement other than "the government's wrong"? Which I consider to be a flippant statement.

298 posted on 10/11/2007 10:56:20 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "The courts have ruled that the right to life is an inalienable, God-given right that man cannot take away."

You make the argument that some people (the insane, minors, etc.) are routinely denied the right to keep and bear arms and argue that this means that their unalienable rights do not include the right to a gun.

But in the quoted sentence above, you state that the right to life has been ruled an "inalienable, God-given right that man cannot take away".

Yet convicted murderers are routinely denied their right to life as a man-made consequence for anti-social behavior.

According to our Founders, unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, they are not created by man. Whether the government infringes a right is irrelevant to the meaning and scope of the right.

YOU stated that my unalienable right to self-defense does not include a gun. What the courts or the government of the US or any other nation says about my unalienable right to self-defense is irrelevant.

The Constitution of Kalifornia states that they recognize my unalienable right to self-defense. That document does not mention guns. I want to know how YOU determined that my unalienable right to self-defense does not include use of a gun. Further, I have asked you to tell me what that right DOES include.

299 posted on 10/11/2007 10:56:02 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson