Seeing as how religion/God is mostly, if not completely man made,
where does it say in any religious text anything about guns
or weapons being a god given right?
Seems like the right to bear arms is a man giving right,
not a God given one, right?
Also, the 2nd Amendment was written by older men, not
God, right?
Weasel McWeasel
Favorite Answer
You are indeed right. In fact, almost all religions, have "Thou shalt not KILL" as one of their primary tenets.
and the founding fathers were NOT infallible. They considered slaves to be "2 thirds" of a person, for *property tax* assessment purposes......(so doubly wrong there) , and they denied the vote to more than half the population.......(women and blacks)........so it's not like their every idea was pure Genius.
And what they wrote having the right to own a gun, pertained to the TIMES, and "militia's" and the need to defend , should the BRITISH come back and invade again .
It didn't mean every putz should own an AK-47 with armor piercing bullets, and store his house up for the coming Zombie apocolypse . It meant you had the right to pick up arms and fight for your country..........against invading enemies.
The 2nd amemdment is long overdue for a re-write and an UPDATE......as wars are no longer fought with MUSKETS and bayonets..........
we have things like NUKES now, and nuclear submarines.......and your little pea shooter isn't going to change a damn thing in the next war.
Philip H
Let's see, most well known religious philosophies were formulated Before guns were invented so I don't think any will have written passages that include guns in them.
Do you know of any exceptions?
Still we know that at least one of Jesus's Apostils carried a sword and that was acceptable.
Self Defense is a good idea even in the eyes of God. Only a fool would venture into a group of Swine unprepared for any outcome.
?
If God had "given" the "right" for guns, wouldn't he have given the Israelites M60s? The Israelites wouldn't have had to wander around in the desert for 40 years. With automatic weapons, they would have been able to slaughter every man, woman, and child in the Promised Land. They did slaughter everyone in sight, but it took longer with swords. Moses and David are both guilty of genocide.
Sorry - I digress.
There's no "God-given right" to anything. The US Constitution was conceived by human beings who were interested in preserving their property, rather than sending their gold to King George to finance his wars. But to listen to some people, you have more of a right to own the means to take another life, than you have the right to food - which preserves life.
Mike W
There's one major flaw in that argument. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to keep and bear arms, it protects it from the government. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed that our rights were unalienable, not given to us by a government. The Bill of Rights was a compromise between them. It doesn't give us rights, it restricts the government.
?
Nowhere, nor has anyone asserted it as such, except in a rhetorical context. The phrase "god-given" is usually meant as a replacement for inherent or natural rights, which have a long and respected history in legal and philosophical discourse. The idea of a natural or inherent right to bear arms is derived from the idea that we as individuals have a right to defend ourselves from unlawful or improper coercion by another person or entity. This covers the right to defend oneself from a murderer, a robber, a thief, or an illegitimate government. This idea, expressed quite well in Locke's 2nd Treatise on Civil Government, formed the basis for the Declaration of Independence, that government is formed by people's willing sacrifice of pure natural law (anarchy) for the sake of securing life, liberty, and property. Where a government impedes that trinity of rights and fails to correct its behavior, it has violated the "social contract," and thereby loses its legitimacy and those under it have the right and obligation to dissolve that government and form another.
Weasel, I can't tell if you're intentionally obtuse or just cherry-picking what you read, but the Federalist Papers describe the need for a right to bear arms as being for (1) defense of the nation from invaders, (2) defense of the citizenry from outlaws and raids, and (3) defense of the people from their own government. Also, Federal law includes every able-bodied male over the age of 18 in the "unorganized militia" rendering your remarkably narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment almost entirely moot. I would agree that the Constitution is in need of an update, but if only to insulate militias (National Guard) from Federal control. There's no point in having a militia or organization intended to provide defense against a tyrannical government when that same government can usurp the militia and turn it against its own people. It amazes me that the same people who don't trust police and want extensive oversight with respect to our other rights (religion, speech, search and seizure) would seek to take away our last and best defense for those rights. It also amazes me how people who want to extend protections on speech and searches to include internet, cell phones, and other modern devices due to a changing technological world would suddenly go Originalist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. As to whether a .308 or .30-06 "pea shooter" would make a difference, look up two things: Shay's Rebellion and war of attrition.