Attended a Gun Owner's rights rally in Olympia

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

First you're all discussing and throwing opinions out about a set of documents written almost 250 years ago. Who knows what and why the words placed on parchment meant to them. The papers or letters written and mentioned are opinions of the writer, thats all they are.

My thing is this.  These documents were created by white, christian, men, most of whom had wealth. When they said 'all men are created equal' they literally meant white christian men. Not women, not slaves, not Indians. It took awhile for newer generations to get that fixed.

Freedom of religion meant, religions based on christianity. Islam, Buddhism, Hebrew, etc. weren't in the mix. I enjoy the irony of people getting tweaked about Muslim's and what they believe and saying if they can't fit in leave. Can't fit in as in we don't accept your beliefs. There's either religious freedom or there isn't.

And a god, any god, didn't "give" me anything. The Constitution gives me my rights, thats all.

Ike

[Hendo]

With my deepest apologies to Arkie...

Ike, you are wrong.

The Constitution gives you nothing.

As far as the rest of your statement above, let me ask this,

If our founding fathers were so narrow minded and short sighted, how is it that these documents written by old, rich, Christian white men had allowed the newer generations to "get that fixed" as you so sophmorically put it?

Might I suggest that you read an old white guy's musings in Federalist #10?

I really do mean no offense.

[Hendo]

Again, I apologize to Arkie and thank you for standing up for your rights and ours. I regret my part in having lead your post so far astray, it's not why I come here.

[Blackwater 53393]

8 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

I'm still waiting for the imperical and irrefutable evidence there is "God?"   

 

W.C. Fields was a confirmed atheist. Just before his death, several of his friends went to visit him.  When they walked in, they discovered him reading the bible, studiously.

 

One of his close friends asked, “Bill! What are you doing??”

 

Fields, who was a lawyer replied, “I’m looking for loopholes!”

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

Hendo, if my observations are wrong then why didn't women have the vote starting in 1776? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights give me my rights. These rights were fought for and continue to be fought for today by brave men and women. Not some Deity. I didn't say the founding fathers were narrow minded. Culture was what it was back then. But what they wrote allowed for change. At least they had the foresight for that.

Federalist #10 is an essay with Madisons opinion. And it's just that an opinion.

[Hendo]

31 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights give me my rights.

 

Last time and then I'm out.

The Constitution and the BoR DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS. It protects your inalienable rights from the government and the tyranny of others.

If it gave you your rights, it could take them away. Then it would be called a privilege. You know, like a driver's license.

 

Interestingly enough, the Constitution does not mention a right to vote. It is left to the states. Only in later Amendments is it defined who may not be denied the right to vote.

Up until 1807, women in New Jersey had the right to vote, provided they met the land ownership requirements. 4 states had free black voters, provided they met the same requirements. 

 

Know your history or be surprised by the future you get.

 

Be well Pard

[Raylan]

The foundational document of this country - the declaration of independence - states that individuals have inherent inalienable rights (endowed in them by nature, their creator, or God - take your pick) and that such rights are not created or granted by the government, but rather that men create forms of government to ensure that individuals may freely exercise those inherent pre-existing rights. And that when such governments become destructive to those ends then it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish such government. 

 

"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.--"

 

One may agree or disagree with the propositions expressed but the meaning and intent of the foundational document of our nations founding is clear - that our rights do not come from a government or a constitution, or a bill of rights - those are merely the mechanisms used to imperfectly attempt to allow individuals to live free and to exercise their pre-existing creator given/god given/natural rights. 

 

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

Wow, there sure is a need to do a little useful study.

 

Inalienable rights are inherent in us all. The Bill  of Rights simply delineates those deemed most likely to be abridged. The framers were sure prescient.  Just look at the chipping away and false understanding of the 1st, 2nd and 10th. My favourite, of course is the Third.

 

It is sadly apparent that a few of us have never read the Federalist papers  nor the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et.al.

[Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663]

By golly, I believe there should be a SASS approved Baptist Category!!  

[Subdeacon Joe]

11 minutes ago, Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 said:

By golly, I believe there should be a SASS approved Baptist Category!!  

 

 

Danbury Baptist?

[Subdeacon Joe]

[Ozark Huckleberry]

In 1776, many free/white/over 21 men couldn't vote either -- they didn't own property. It was generally considered that someone who owned property were more likely to have good judgement and would have more interest in good government than someone who didn't own property, and therefore voting was, prior to the 1830's, generally restricted to property owners.

 

Jefferson's 'all men are created equal' phrasing goes back partly to Locke and partly to the Scottish Enlightenment, and refers to equality under the laws of nature. Jefferson was not making a reference to equality under laws created by men, he was rejecting the idea that monarchs rule by right of birth.

 

The Federalist papers were written by the same men who wrote the Constitution and give insights into the reasoning that went into the decisions. 'Just and opinion' on the Constitution, written by the man known by his contemporaries as the 'Father of the Constitution,' seems pretty solid to me.

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

Hendo, a good debate is one without the falling to making disparaging remarks about the person you're debating. It's a sign for lack of confidence in what you're espousing.

Also, you choose to attack words rather than debate the intent of what  I said. So the Constitution and the BOR didn't give us our rights. But they did define what those rights are. The Judicial system and the 2nd amendment protect those rights. Yeah, in theory so does Congress, the Senate, and the President.

 

My original position wasn't about the intent or opinions on what all of those documents may say. Mine was those rights were not granted or given to my by a God. Unless now you want to embrace all Gods since the USA is no longer a single religion nation. All their references to "God" are based on the religion of Christianity. And I'm not sure which one of the many, mines right, version of Christianity they were referring to.

 

And it did take a Constitutional Amendment to give women the right to vote. Big Government interceded where the States couldn't figure it out. Also the Constitution defined how the President and Vice President were to be elected. So the Constitution did address some aspect of voting.

 

On another note, no one pushed back on my comment about "freedom of religion" was about all the facets of Christianity.  Todays culture now needs it to be all inclusive. Which it's not. Otherwise you're free to worship in whatever way you want as long as it's Christianity.

Ike

[Sixgun Sheridan]

I'm sorry guys, but "rights" are merely what others give you. If you don't believe me ask the North Koreans. If they offend their government they lose the right to breathe air.

 

History is full of examples of various groups being forcibly oppressed and being denied even the most basic of human rights. The Second Amendment is meant to assure that doesn't happen here.

.

[Ozark Huckleberry]

1 hour ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

My original position wasn't about the intent or opinions on what all of those documents may say. Mine was those rights were not granted or given to my by a God. 

 

1 hour ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I'm sorry guys, but "rights" are merely what others give you. If you don't believe me ask the North Koreans. If they offend their government they lose the right to breathe air.

 

Whether you want to place the source of rights as God, or as being endowed by a non-deity, or as originating in man in his natural state, the idea of where rights originate follows the concept of power in any political system.

 

The U.S. government is based on the concept that political power resides with We the People, and is allotted to the government through law and our elected representatives. In keeping with that, a central concept in our system of government is that the origin of rights therefore resides with The People who have charged the government, through the Constitution, with the duty of respecting and safeguarding them. On a side note, it's a pet peeve of mine when someone says something like, 'The police have the 'right' to do so-and-so.' No. No one representing the government has the RIGHT to do anything. They might have the authority. They could have the power. They may even have the responsibility. But they do not have the RIGHT. Only people have rights, not the government.

 

In contrast, in a theocracy, monarchy, thugocracy, or dictatorship, (North Korea, for example) political power is considered to reside in the government or in an authority, to be distributed as it sees fit. Thus so it goes with 'rights' in those type of government as well. But really, 'rights' aren't really rights when they can be allotted or denied on the whim of the government. Those are privileges. 

 

1 hour ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

And it did take a Constitutional Amendment to give women the right to vote. Big Government interceded where the States couldn't figure it out.

 

There were states that recognized women's suffrage prior to the 19th Amendment in 1920. Women in New Jersey had the right in 1790 (but it was ended). Women in Wyoming had it in 1807. State-based efforts towards women's suffrage were spotty and inconsistent, and it did take the 19th to recognize the right nation-wide. Another example of how the Framers understood that they might not have all the answers when they wrote the Constitution.

 

1 hour ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

On another note, no one pushed back on my comment about "freedom of religion" was about all the facets of Christianity. 

 

Consider Washington's 1790 letter to the Tuoro Synagogue, in which he assured them Jews would, in his words, ". . . possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship."  Christianity might have been the lens through which the Framers viewed the world, but 'freedom of religion' is not solely a Christian issue. Trying to judge people of two centuries ago by the standards of today is an ineffective approach to history that is almost guaranteed to produce either frustration or arrogance. Even though they were predominantly Protestants, the Constitution the Framers created provided the latitude to protect the right to freedom to worship in all religions. The failure comes not from the document, but from the imperfect application of it.

 

By today's standards, the government that was built on the foundations of the Constitution left many flaws -- slavery and women's suffrage being two of the most glaring. But the document itself has stood the test of time and become the model for other countries to emulate as well.