It is Never "The Time" to Talk About Gun Control

[Glenn E. Meyer]

All the Constitution and Bill of Rights does is recognize, in writing, in an official document, God-given Rights each and every human being is naturally endowed with by God.

The actually use of the deity is not that useful. The basic point is that certain rights are thought to be inherent in a decent society.

The Constitution did not recognized initially the rights of African slaves or women. In fact many evoked God as a rationale for these groups having restricted rights.

It is better to argue that rights are inherent for reasons that make society decent and function well. Just using the "God" cliche has little power if you are actually evoking a deity.

If Wayne LaP. says you have right to have an AR because of God, contrast that with a young woman who took two rounds and has a face torn up by gun fire. She says: I have a God given right not to be massacred in school as I sit there as a child.

I know this will offend some but the quote is a choir argument and only for a subset of the choir. It may get contributions but won't change opinions.

Our view of rights has changed over time despite various theological views. I can find quotes from senators way back when fighting for laws against miscegenation as God's will.

[zukiphile]

The locution that a rightis "God-given" is not an invocation of a deity as an authority for the right.

Instead, it speaks to the right being a quality with which the individual is endowed. To attribute that endowment to the creator of the individual is not a prominently theological assertion. You and I may argue that the right to arms inheres in individual and sidestep the issue of why a person would be created with that trait, but the assertion that the trait is inherent is no less a metaphysical assertion that the assertion that an individual has a creator.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

It is better to argue that rights are inherent for reasons that make society decent and function well.

It is even better to disentangle two distinct arguments before leaning them up against one another.

There is social utility in widespread arms ownership. There need not be any inherent right in order for that social utility to exist.

On the other hand, if we are endowed with these rights, i.e. they are inherent, we have them even in the absence of any social utility whatsoever. In fact, we have them even when they do a great deal of damage to the society. If a group of odious people had actually followed through on their permit to march through Skokie, the results certainly would have been painful and ugly and quite likely divisive. Yet, they had a right to do it.

Both arguments can also be true and complementary. There can be social utility in protecting the expression of the traits with which we are naturally endowed, and a society that functions best will recognize that.

[Don P]

It is talked about after a shooting like what has just happened because it fits the lefts agenda. Its always on their agenda. They keep a lid on it until a mass shooting happens and then they rip the lid off and let the narrative run wild. Here is something to ponder. The infamous Senator Dianne Feinstein is NOT FAR ENOUGH LEFT so the California democrats will not endorse her. Strange tides in politics.

[Tom Servo]

Guys, just a reminder of this subforum's rules: let's stay away from partisan right/left liberal/conservative discussion.