Governments Are Instituted Among Men To Secure Our Rights...

Yes, just as our Declaration of Independence states, governments are instituted among men to secure our rights (or "freedoms", if you will). One of those rights, given to us by our Creator and guaranteed by our Constitution, is the right to bear arms. Our government SHOULD secure and guarantee that right, not attempt to take it away. What kind of Nazi-like state are we living in when our government is permitted to infringe upon our freedom?

If the people no longer desire the right to bear arms then they, through their representatives, will change the Constitution. Until then, keep your hands off our rights! How dare people like this even think of infringing upon our rights! People like this belong in Germany circa 1933, not America in the twenty-first century:

View attachment 1246

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/democrats-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban/

 

View attachment 1247 ​

 

"given to us by our creator," what a joke, did you speak with him personally?

(not capitalized on purpose, I don't believe in imaginary beings)

 

Even if you bought into the whole invisible white guy.....He wants to make sure that I have a gun? That might just be a self-serving interpretation of the good old holy spirit which has to be the greatest sin of all. Lying in the name of God.

 

I like this A-hole's statment from the article:

In a statement, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said the proposal would have done "nothing" to prevent the Newtown tragedy and vowed to fight to defeat the bill.
"Washington politicians shouldn't be taking advantage of recent tragedy to try to push an aggressive gun control agenda. Real assault weapons -- machine guns -- are already functionally illegal, and they have been since 1934," he said.

Yes, if we have a tragedy, we shouldn't do anything about it or try to prevent another one.

 

I never mentioned "God" or "an invisible white guy" (just WHERE do you come up with this crap?). I repeated the term that the Declaration refers to as [our] "Creator" from which all our rights are endowed. I don't believe there is any dispute about the Declaration stating that our rights are endowed by a "Creator", is there?

Thankfully, the Founding Fathers had the foresight to make a list of many of those rights that are "unalienable". Among those rights is the right to bear arms. You aren't disputing that, are you?

 

The rights referred to in the Declaration of independence are "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Bill of Rights is a separate document, which makes no claim to be divinely inspired.

Preamble to Bill of Rights:

For being "the party of the constitution," and the party of "strict reading," you Republicans sure do make a lot of misinterpretations and outright errors with your precious documents.

The BOR does not claim to be derived from "god," and the only "rights" claimed to be derived from "god" are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," which T.J. pretty much directly ripped verbatim from John Locke's Two Treatises:

and again in chapter 2 of same volume:

 

The Bill of Rights is not listed in the document that claims "inalienable rights." (The drafters apparently didn't know their Latin, as "unalienable" is improper mixing of root languages, but it is what they used, not inalienable.) That document is the Declaration of Independence and was composed over 10 years earlier.

 

Boy Themistokles! That is ripping him a new one with extreme prejudice. This is how he'll respond if at all.

Change subject, tangent, nit-pick, or strawman. Take your pick.

 

Sorry, I can't see what he's written. I have him on IGNORE.

 

Too bad, you may have learned something. Though you seem to enjoy your smoke-screen of ignorance.

 

never mentioned "God" or "an invisible white guy" (just WHERE do you come up with this crap?). I repeated the term that the Declaration refers to as [our] "Creator" from which all our rights are endowed. I don't believe there is any dispute about the Declaration stating that our rights are endowed by a "Creator", is there?

Thankfully, the Founding Fathers had the foresight to make a list of many of those rights that are "inalienable". Among those rights is the right to bear arms. You aren't disputing that, are you? The rights referred to in the Declaration of independence are "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.​

The Bill of Rights is a separate document, which makes no claim to be divinely inspired.

Preamble to Bill of Rights:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLESin addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.​

For being "the party of the constitution," and the party of "strict reading," you Republicans sure do make a lot of misinterpretations and outright errors with your precious documents.

The BOR does not claim to be derived from "god," and the only "rights" claimed to be derived from "god" are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," which T.J. pretty much directly ripped verbatim from John Locke's Two Treatises:

“Man... hath by nature a power... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men.”​

and again in chapter 2 of same volume:

all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions..."​

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/governments-are-instituted-among-men-to-secure-our-rights.50018/#ixzz2J0YphyQ3​

 

there....

 

Thanks for posting that, Little Joe.

Let's start with the tangential argument concerning the "Creator". The Creator is open to one's own interpretation. It could be mother and father. Sperm and egg in a test tube. The God of Abraham. Zeus. Whatever. I've never said the "Creator" was "God" or "an invisible white man". You're the one who is referring to it as God. Regardless of what the "Creator" is, the Declaration states that we have certain unalienable rights endowed by it and governments are instituted among men to secure those rights.

Themistokles480 said that among our rights are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". There's no question about that. However, the key word here is "among" which implies there are other rights we are endowed with and, indeed, the Founding Fathers enumerated ten of them right off the bat in the Constitution. Among those rights is the right to bear arms.

No one here said the Bill of Rights was "divinely inspired" or "derived from God"; it simply lists ten of the rights (among others) to which we are endowed.

Since we are endowed with these rights and our government is instituted to secure those rights, shouldn't the government do its job by actually securing those rights?

And, yes, I'm very happy that Jefferson took inspiration from Locke. Had "liberty" not been the keystone of our foundation, we might be living in an oppressive society where our government could indefinitely detain us or keep us from bearing arms.

 

In regard to your first point, God, Creator, whatever you want to call it/him/her/monad, cannot be used as the basis for any argument because that leads to the naturalistic fallacy, as God is not a tangible thing, it cannot generate anything tangible that can be reasonably discussed excluding theology. You merely echoed the point I was making and didn't even realize it.

Secondly, that semantic argument holds almost no weight, and it in no way implies connection to the BOR, which was composed over 10 years later. He could just as easily have been referring to the right to fly fish or ice skate in your underwear.

Third, you said the BOR was divinely inspired when you said that the "creator" gave "inalienable rights," and attempted to include the BOR in those rights, when that is not expressly stated or even implied.

Fourth, there was much debate between federalists and anti-federalists as to whether or not a BOR should even be drafted, in fact, most were not in favor of it. See Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (specifically Fed. 84). It was not "right off the bat" as you claimed, but was a later addition to the already drafted constitution.

Fifth, If the constitution and bill of rights were intended to be "set in stone," why would an amendment process be included in the preamble. By your logic, the 3/5 compromise would still be legal because it was written into law prior to slaves being freed - your argument is absurd.

Sixth, since the government is the guarantor of rights as well as the drafter and arbiter of those rights, does logic not also dictate that they can amend those rights if those rights are contrary to the health or well-being of the people?

Seventh, yes we are the beneficiaries of a strong anti-intellectual tradition of plagiarism that extends back to the 18th century, how wonderful.

 

Here's some liberal hypocrisy for ya:

View attachment 1257

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/illegal-guns-david-brock-media-matters/