The Founding Founders Did Not Believe in Natural Rights....

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I can clear that up right now. I have the right to do anything I want so long as it does not restrict someone else from enjoying their same rights.

Well kind of....

In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people implicitly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's because they don't. Many of the founding fathers were Deists.

This is urban legend.

 

[johnny45]

I think it is. However, we're back to determining how we define marriage. If it's a natural right endowed by the God of the Bible, then He has a specific definition about what that means, and we don't have a "natural right" to discard the definition from the Person who gave us the right.

This conversation could quickly go in circles but my main point for those advocating natural rights is - where do we get our definition (or list if you will) of those rights?

I will go with life, liberty and property.

Others may disagree and are free to do so right up to the point it infringes on my right to life, liberty and property.

 

[88GT]

So let his opinion differ so long as it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket..

Do you not see the fallibility in that?

That definition is not consistent with our rights coming from the God of the Bible.

Just because you believe something to be true does not make it true. The use of Christianity to justify the concept of natural rights does not make it so. In fact, for the majority of Christianity's history, such a concept did not exist.

 

[CarmelHP]

Lol, ok... sounds a lot like firearm registration, to me. If you wish to call something a lie, feel free to disprove it.

I just did. You're making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Is that how you operate, officer, just go up to someone, slap on the cuffs, and make them prove they didn't do it. All you have to do to disprove your muck is to read the damn statute, it says for the officer to report the type and number, nothing about registering who they belong or going to their house, and it only applies to a meeting of the militia in actual service. You continuing to insist upon something so easily disproved simply shows the depths you're willing to go to attack the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Glocker 400]

This is urban legend.

No. It's not. Given the rules here, though, I won't argue the point. All I'd get is revisionist history and self righteous chest thumping.

Anyone who actually cares about the truth can Google it. (And of course, ignore it when it doesn't support their point of view)

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. It's not. Given the rules here, though, I won't argue the point. All I'd get is revisionist history and self righteous chest thumping.

Anyone who actually cares about the truth can Google it. (And of course, ignore it when it doesn't support their point of view)

Yeah, I know what you mean about a bunch of unsubstantiated revisionist history.

 

[Glocker 400]

Yeah, I know what you mean about a bunch of unsubstantiated revisionist history.

I'm sure you do. That's the problem with the world. The stupid are so cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt.

I'd change my mind if presented solid evidence. I doubt that people like you would.

 

[Liberty1911]

Do you not see the fallibility in that?

Just because you believe something to be true does not make it true. The use of Christianity to justify the concept of natural rights does not make it so. In fact, for the majority of Christianity's history, such a concept did not exist.

You're missing my point.

I'm saying to the people who claim that our natural rights come from our Creator, can't arbitrarily decide to ignore what the Creator has said and define those rights for themselves.

If their argument is that our rights do not come from God, fine, then my question is - What external source can they point me to, to find the definition.

Claiming we have "natural rights" but then saying that their definition comes from within themselves, is not a workable system. If that's the case, then each of us can define "rights" as we see fit, and no one's definition is any better or more "moral" than anyone else's.

That's where I think we are though. People may agree on multiple points, such as we have a right to defend our property from thieves, but still, if that definition of rights is something that was decided within themselves, it's still arbitrary even if you can get 99% of people to agree.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm sure you do. That's the problem with the world. The stupid are so cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt.

I'd change my mind if presented solid evidence. I doubt that people like you would.

You seem pretty "cocksure"...if the evidence you can easily read in the founders' writings is not enough to provide doubt in your progressive inspired, deist tripe, I doubt anything I could Google for you would change your mind.

 

[2A_Tom]

Totally useless argument.

 

[Glocker 400]

You seem pretty "cocksure"...if the evidence you can easily read in the founders' writings is not enough to provide doubt in your progressive inspired, deist tripe, I doubt anything I could Google for you would change your mind.

Fine, since you are pressing the issue.

Who first uttered the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state?"

What does the Treaty of Tripoli say about which religion this nation is founded on?

Here is a link for you, if you are truly interested in the subject. I'm sure that you won't click on it, since you probably think that a talking snake will burn you forever and ever if you see something that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. But for those who care about what the founding fathers actually DID say and write, it's there.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

 

[CarmelHP]

….And now to the juicy stuff.

We are all in agreement that registration is a bad thing right? I sharethat sentiment, what I’m not exactly sure about, is whether this opinion was sharedby our founding fathers. For instance, in order to make sure that citizenry was abiding by the Militia Act of 1792, door to door surveys were conducted of andarms cataloged and documented.

Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowinggovernment not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them toreport for a muster or face stiff penalties. Regulations governing the storageof gun powder were also common." States prohibited the use of firearms oncertain occasions and in certain locations.

(FordhamLaw Review pg 505 Vol 73, Issue 2:3)

Yes,you read that right, early American law allowed for the government to come toyour home, and compel a resident to “declare” the firearms they had in their possession.This was occurring prior to 1792, but was enacted into law that year. 1787,that’s when the Constitution was written, 1792, 5 years later. Are we to believe that the noble ideas set forth in “most” of the Constitution, were disregarded a paltry 5 years later? Or are we to believe that our, still living, founders had no issue with suchpractices? And what of these “new” Americans, after fighting a war against tyranny does one believe that they would allow themselves to have their “natural rights” infringed upon again? Or perhaps, maybe they did not believe that thiswas tyranny, at all, nor that their rights were being infringed upon.

The funny thing is that “I” would view ANY of these actions as an infringement. Iwould not allow the government to catalog my firearms. I would not allow them to conscript me into an army. I would not allow them take my possessions, as atax in lieu of military service. I have always been part of the so called “gun culture,” and am not old enough to have seen America in any different way. However, the more I research about the laws our Founding Father’s set forth, and how they we’re observed, in practice, the more I am inclined to believe that the “rights” we call “natural” haven’t always been considered as such.

Intrigued by Kutnupe's baseless falsifications, I went to my Lexis account and downloaded, “Well Regulated: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” Fordham Law Review 73 (2004), 487-528 Cornell, Saul with Nathan DeDino. Not surprisingly, p. 505 does not say anything about the militia act of 1792 requiring the registering or cataloging of anyone's guns. Even the veteran anti-gunner Cornell wasn't about to make this ridiculous, and easily refuted, claim. It seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. By the way, this edition of the Fordham Law Review was the result of a notorious "2nd Amendment" symposium funded by the radically anti-gun Joyce Foundation and from which all those whose previous scholarship was deemed "pro-gun" were excluded. Even though this volume of anti-gun rant doesn't even support the extreme claims of Kutnupe, his choice of sources is quite telling. Is this the best hatchet job the Democratic Underground could do?

See, Of Arms and the Law: Saul Cornell responds re: Joyce Fdn buying law reviews

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Fine, since you are pressing the issue.

Who first uttered the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state?"

What does the Treaty of Tripoli say about which religion this nation is founded on?

Here is a link for you, if you are truly interested in the subject. I'm sure that you won't click on it, since you probably think that a talking snake will burn you forever and ever if you see something that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. But for those who care about what the founding fathers actually DID say and write, it's there.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

Sorry. I've read these sorts of sites before and they do not pass the laugh test. They are more like Alex Jones conspiracies or MSNBC spots where they take half truths and things out of context to arrive at their desired conclusions. And your rather bigoted insults seem to be common among those that find those of faith unenlightened or downright stupid.

Here is a link that you may find interesting. And I won't even cast any aspersions on you daring you to read it.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Sample Letters to the Editor

 

[Glocker 400]

Sorry. I've read these sorts of sites before and they do not pass the laugh test. And your rather bigoted insults seem to be common among those that find those of faith unenlightened or downright stupid.

Here is a link that you may find interesting. And I won't even cast any aspersions on you daring you to read it.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Sample Letters to the Editor

I provide you with a link to their actual words and writings, with sources. You provide me with an unsourced op-ed piece.

Thanks for helping.

Thinking about it further, what else would I expect from you, except assertions without evidence? Silly me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Intrigued by Kutnupe's baseless falsifications, I went to my Lexis account and downloaded, “Well Regulated: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” Fordham Law Review 73 (2004), 487-528 Cornell, Saul with Nathan DeDino. Not surprisingly, p. 505 does not say anything about the militia act of 1792 requiring the registering or cataloging of anyone's guns. Even the veteran anti-gunner Cornell wasn't about to make this ridiculous, and easily refuted, claim. It seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. By the way, this edition of the Fordham Law Review was the result of a notorious "2nd Amendment" symposium funded by the radically anti-gun Joyce Foundation and from which all those whose previous scholarship was deemed "pro-gun" were excluded. Even though this volume of anti-gun rant doesn't even support the extreme claims of Kutnupe, his choice of sources is quite telling. Is this the best hatchet job the Democratic Underground could do?

See, Of Arms and the Law: Saul Cornell responds re: Joyce Fdn buying law reviews

And this link:

The Militia Act of 1792

...purports to be the Militia Acts of 1792. Maybe I missed it, but in reading quickly through them, I did not see anything about registering guns of the citizens. They did appear to require certain firearms among those in the militia and that the militia would be inspected 2x per year.

 

[Liberty1911]

I provide you with a link to their actual words and writings, with sources. You provide me with an unsourced op-ed piece.

Thanks for helping.

Thinking about it further, what else would I expect from you, except assertions without evidence? Silly me.

I'm only commenting on John Adams since I've read the most about him of the 7 FF's mentioned.

I do consider him to be an orthodox Christian. Most of the quotes on your web site are pulled out of context and have to do with his criticism of Catholics.

Keep in mind, most orthodox Christians don't consider Catholics to be true Christians, since they advocate works based salvation.

So, your web site does contain some accurate quotes, but it is clearly biased and is intentionally misleading people about the nature of those quotes.

As to the other 6 FF's mentioned, I'll withhold comments for the time being.

 

[jkershner]

Agreed.

Is marriage a natural right? I have not thought about it much but it is a good question. Anything I have gathered, including from the Bible, would seem to indicate marriage is more about law than a natural right.

Man's natural rights are endowed by his creator.

Agreed about the marriage bit. Natural rights are by definition a product of nature. They are ingrained behaviors resulting from millions of years of evolution and cannot be taken from you by a piece of paper or another man's word. You may be (wrongly) told they do not exist, or you may be (wrongly) punished for exercising them, but they do exist.

It is the first right of every living thing to defend itself.

It applies to humans, apes, fish, dragonflies, venus flytraps, mushrooms, whatever. Some are better at it than others as a result of their specific evolutionary path, but the right exists, nonetheless.

 

[Glocker 400]

I'm only commenting on John Adams since I've read the most about him of the 7 FF's mentioned.

I do consider him to be an orthodox Christian. Most of the quotes on your web site are pulled out of context and have to do with his criticism of Catholics.

Keep in mind, most orthodox Christians don't consider Catholics to be true Christians, since they advocate works based salvation.

So, your web site does contain some accurate quotes, but it is clearly biased and is intentionally misleading people about the nature of those quotes.

As to the other 6 FF's mentioned, I'll withhold comments for the time being.

And your mention of the 2 groups (Christians vs Catholics) who supposedly worship the same god, yet are at odds with each other, clearly illustrates why public policy based on supernatural criteria is doomed to failure in a society populated with people from many different backgrounds.

I never said that ALL of the founding fathers were not Christians, nor did I say that there was no influence from Christianity. To say that would be to ignore history. But it is a fact that this nation was NOT founded on Christianity, as so many like to assert. Many were very skeptical of religion and religious institutions. That is crystal clear.

And for the record, although I am agnostic myself, I don't consider religions people to be stupid. I simply disagree that so many have found the answers to the mysteries of the universe based on nothing but what boils down to tradition and legend, without evidence. There are certainly some brilliant people who are believers. One would have to admit, though, that they do not apply the same logic and reason to that particular part of their life that they do to other parts of their life.

 

[Glocker 400]

Agreed about the marriage bit. Natural rights are by definition a product of nature. They are ingrained behaviors resulting from millions of years of evolution and cannot be taken from you by a piece of paper or another man's word. You may be (wrongly) told they do not exist, or you may be (wrongly) punished for exercising them, but they do exist.

It is the first right of every living thing to defend itself.

It applies to humans, apes, fish, dragonflies, venus flytraps, mushrooms, whatever. Some are better at it than others as a result of their specific evolutionary path, but the right exists, nonetheless.

If your rights came from above, would they not be supernatural rights? And if natural rights flow from the god of the Bible, what of the rights of humans before the bible was written? Man predates the Bible.