Pro-gun myths busted

[einhander]

The founders did attempt to cannonize the principles that God bestowed on all man. The whole intent of the US government was to preserve individual liberty as God intended for all men, not "pacify men with specific enumerated rights so as to control them in all other facets of their lives."

Short of participating in the Republic, exercising my freedoms and rights and engaging assholes on internet forums, what do you expect people to do?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Your myth only works if you're a monotheistic US citizen.

I'm not saying there is anything more you or anyone could do - it's more of a philosophical debate than anything else.

[marshallnoise]

Your myth only works if you're a monotheistic US citizen.

I'm not saying there is anything more you or anyone could do - it's more of a philosophical debate than anything else.

That's why Adams said this government is wholly inadequate for anyone other than a Christian. The basic precept of inalienable rights comes from the first belief that God exists and endowed us with faculties that are our own.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[The Dark Side of Will]

That's why Adams said this government is wholly inadequate for anyone other than a Christian. The basic precept of inalienable rights comes from the first belief that God exists and endowed us with faculties that are our own.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Why does having minds of our own require them to have come from God, in the context of how people interact with each other and the authorities they delegate to any government they form?

[marshallnoise]

Why does having minds of our own require them to have come from God, in the context of how people interact with each other and the authorities they delegate to any government they form?

Independent third party who is responsible or granting right means another man can't take away those specific rights. Other men seek to subjugate his fellow man. When no third party is involved with superseding authority, men can deny other men anything.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[The Dark Side of Will]

Independent third party who is responsible or granting right means another man can't take away those specific rights. Other men seek to subjugate his fellow man. When no third party is involved with superseding authority, men can deny other men anything.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Appeal to the authority of God was used to take men's rights away under the guise of the "divine right of kings".

People have always and will always seek to dominate/subjugate others. Those who would subjugate have also always used trumped up claims of superiority.

I think claims of equality can have a broader base of support and seem less "quaint" in modern society if they can stem from an intellectual base that doesn't include God.

[marshallnoise]

Appeal to the authority of God was used to take men's rights away under the guise of the "divine right of kings".

People have always and will always seek to dominate/subjugate others. Those who would subjugate have also always used trumped up claims of superiority.

I think claims of equality can have a broader base of support and seem less "quaint" in modern society if they can stem from an intellectual base that doesn't include God.

It is only quaint to you because of your preference for the abolition of God in the discussion. I understand that, but it is condescending no less.
Use of "divine right" to grant one man power is the exact opposite of the granting of "divine rights" to mankind as in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is a shame you try to present them as a different side of the same coin when the two concepts are on different currencies entirely.

Remove a benevolent interceeding tertiary party from what man does to other men and you will quickly realize the relevance and need for God.

Either way, rights granted either in concept as you prefer or by God are not to be trifled with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

It is only quaint to you because of your preference for the abolition of God in the discussion. I understand that, but it is condescending no less.
Use of "divine right" to grant one man power is the exact opposite of the granting of "divine rights" to mankind as in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is a shame you try to present them as a different side of the same coin when the two concepts are on different currencies entirely.

No they aren't, they are exactly the same. "Divine rights", whether bestowed to one man or many men, are still "divine rights" by your definition, and require belief in a monotheistic deity. What about those citizens who do not believe in said deity? Do they get to share in the same rights?

Remove a benevolent interceeding tertiary party from what man does to other men and you will quickly realize the relevance and need for God.

Religion is what causes wars, not what prevents them. Millions of people have been killed over religious beliefs AND in spite of "benevolent interceeding(sic) tertiary parties". You're assertion is wrong on both levels!

Two men, if left to their own devices, will more often than not choose to get along rather than fight. If however you use religion to tell one (or both) men that the other is inferior and must be punished, you have now sown the seeds of conflict. And if one man believes his "nation" to be superior to the other, and that he has some right or duty to spread that "superiority", again you have sown the seeds of conflict.

If you believe God, or a belief in God, prevents conflict, you're not in contact with reality.

[ParsedOut]

Sure makes anarchy look pretty good when you put it like that.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It is only quaint to you because of your preference for the abolition of God in the discussion. I understand that, but it is condescending no less.
Use of "divine right" to grant one man power is the exact opposite of the granting of "divine rights" to mankind as in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is a shame you try to present them as a different side of the same coin when the two concepts are on different currencies entirely.

Remove a benevolent interceeding tertiary party from what man does to other men and you will quickly realize the relevance and need for God.

Either way, rights granted either in concept as you prefer or by God are not to be trifled with.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I think that the choice to believe and/or have a relationship with God is personal and not something that needs to be woven into a theory of governance. That's failed every time it's been tried throughout history (e.g. current Islamic extremists, as well as the aforementioned medieval theories that kings had the divinely given right to rule other people).

I was making the point that basing the discussion of human rights on God is considered quaint in modern society... IE, the idea won't get much traction when formulated that way.

The idea that all people have the same rights and that those rights are unlimited by anything except by the rights of other people is pretty easy to grasp and pretty hard to twist.

[CorvallisBMW]

Sure makes anarchy look pretty good when you put it like that.

Anarchy is a state of no laws or governance. I'm not arguing for that. I'm just saying that religion, more often than not, breeds conflict instead of cooperation. One need only look at the history of the world to see untold of horrors committed in the name of "God". And in cases where the state was a sponsor or at least sanctioned that "God", it only made things worse.

Thankfully, our founding fathers were acutely aware of this phenomenon having witnessed it in England before emigrating.

[ParsedOut]

Two men, if left to their own devices, will more often than not choose to get along rather than fight. If however you use religion to tell one (or both) men that the other is inferior and must be punished, you have now sown the seeds of conflict. And if one man believes his "nation" to be superior to the other, and that he has some right or duty to spread that "superiority", again you have sown the seeds of conflict.

Anarchy is a state of no laws or governance.

I know what anarchy is, not saying you're suggesting that...simply stating that based on your opinion anarchy might actually work. Lack of "nations", "superiority" and "men left to their own devices".

[einhander]

Hobbes probably wouldn't agree. Neither would Alfred Marshall. Mill might, but he saw the state as a tool to let people experience fulfillment through freedom from fear of others.

Great minds.

They don't post here.

[ParsedOut]

Great minds.

They don't post here.

Hahaha, I had to laugh. Thx man.

[marshallnoise]

There is a lot of point missing going on combined with rabbit trailing. Oh well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

There is a lot of point missing going on combined with rabbit trailing. Oh well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

That's all that ever happens in this forum. Points are made, points are missed, arguments ensue and insults are thrown. Might as well try to see some humor in it.