Discussion:
Sorry, Sen. Booker, 2nd Amendment is God-given, not government-granted
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2019-05-15 23:35:52 UTC
Permalink
from
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/13/sorry-sen-booker-second-am-god-given-not-governmen/
Sorry, Sen. Booker, 2nd Amendment is God-given, not government-granted
ROTFLMFAO
snip
Who do you think gave you the right to freedom of speech?

Or, who gave you the right to freedom of religion?

Who gave you the right to self defense?

https://www.conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights

Unalienable rights

Recognition of the source of rights
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once
and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments
could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is
recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the
Declaration of Independence:

"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness."
It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the
fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they
are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then
any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's
will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are
called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood
this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting,
for the first time in history, a government specifically established to
protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The proper role of government is to secure rights, as in a perfect state
of nature our unalienable rights are very insecure. ----

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would
probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the
courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not.
Nonetheless, some philosophers[Citation Needed] have identified the
following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding
on these themes:

To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).
To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the
nation remains free.
To own and control private property (land, money, personal items,
intellectual property, etc.)
To earn a living and keep the fruit of one's labor. ----

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century,
people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern.
Monarchs claimed that God gave kings the right to govern, and the king
would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people. To the extent
that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because the King of
England had signed the Magna Carta. Because rights did not inherently
belong to each individual under that current framework, English society
accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as
slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

The concept of unalienable rights in America extends as far back as
1620, when the first Pilgrims arrived on the shores of what is now
Massachusetts, in search of religious freedom. According to Governor
William Bradford, it was the unending attack on the rights of religious
minorities in Britain which convinced the Pilgrims that leaving England
was the only way to secure their liberties: ---

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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.

If you can not protect your life, you have no rights.
Baxter
2019-05-16 02:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Recognition of the source of rights
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation,
once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights,
governments could not take them away.
And if god existed and if inalienable rights actually existed, they could
not be taken away by anybody. But goverments through history and around
the world have indeed taken away those rights you call "inalienable" (or
"Unalienable"). We may *call* them "inalienable" and perhaps treat them as
inalienable, but that is fiction, not reality.
Snit
2019-05-16 02:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
Recognition of the source of rights
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation,
once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights,
governments could not take them away.
And if god existed and if inalienable rights actually existed, they could
not be taken away by anybody. But goverments through history and around
the world have indeed taken away those rights you call "inalienable" (or
"Unalienable"). We may *call* them "inalienable" and perhaps treat them as
inalienable, but that is fiction, not reality.
Right. There are certain rights almost all people agree on -- the right
to not be murdered, for example. But it is just that, an agreement. If
this right could not be taken away then murder could not exist and there
would not be a need for a law about that.

And there are gray areas -- the law does not grant rights to a fetus, at
least not more than that of a women, so women have a right to abort
(even if several states are working to take that right away).
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-05-16 12:08:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 May 2019 19:38:11 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
Recognition of the source of rights
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation,
once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights,
governments could not take them away.
And if god existed and if inalienable rights actually existed, they could
not be taken away by anybody. But goverments through history and around
the world have indeed taken away those rights you call "inalienable" (or
"Unalienable"). We may *call* them "inalienable" and perhaps treat them as
inalienable, but that is fiction, not reality.
Right.
And of course Baxter's extreme unintelligence attracts Snit like a fly
to a fresh, steaming pile of shit.

Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-05-16 12:07:40 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 May 2019 02:23:20 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
Recognition of the source of rights
Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation,
once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights,
governments could not take them away.
And if god existed and if inalienable rights actually existed, they could
not be taken away by anybody. But goverments through history and around
the world have indeed taken away those rights you call "inalienable" (or
"Unalienable"). We may *call* them "inalienable" and perhaps treat them as
inalienable, but that is fiction, not reality.
Poor Baxter doesn't know what the word means. Typical of leftists not
to know about rights, since they hate them so much.

LOL

What a fucking dumb ass.
Loading...