Post by The GunnerThe right to keep and bear arms is a right given by God.
Actually, the Right to Keep and Bear arms is a Right Endowed by our
Creation as Sentient Beings. While a "God" can not be proven or
disproved, Creation certainly can be objectively proven, and can not
be reasonably denied. If you wish to believe it was a "God" that
Created us, or not, that changes none of the following.
Being Created as a Sentient Being, we are Endowed by Creation with the
Power of Consent. Every Sentient Being has the Power of Consent.
When we give our Consent to something done or proposed, we are
claiming that with our Consent that thing is Right. When we deny our
Consent to something done or proposed, we are claiming that without
our Consent that thing is Wrong. Therefore, by the exercise of our
Power of, the giving or denying of, our Consent, we are witnessing to
the existence of Right and Wrong.
Therefore, claim of Ignorance of Right and Wrong is NO EXCUSE.
There is Rightful Consent, and Wrongful Consent. Rightful Consent may
only be given to that for which one has a Right to. Wrongful Consent
is given to that which one has no Right to. Only I may give another
Rightful Consent to enter my home. Only you may give another Rightful
Consent to enter your home. If I give Consent to another to enter
your home without the Right to do so, I have given them Wrongful
Consent.
To secure Rightful Consent, Creation endows all Sentient Beings with
certain Inherent and Inalienable Rights, among these being the
Inherent Right to Innocence, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness. An Inherent Right may only be to a behavior which the one
can exercise. An Inherent Right may only be to that which only
obligates others to not obstruct or deny the one's exercise thereof.
An Inherent Right may only be to that which does not obligate others
to provide for the one.
Inherent Rights are unchanging, inclusive, and infinite, but not
without bounds. Inherent Rights simply are what they are, much as the
laws of physics are what they are, to be discovered, tested, and then
Enumerated.
Enumerated Rights represent our best guess of what are truly Inherent
Rights, they are therefore neither absolute nor infinite, and are
subject to change as we either better understand what are truly
Inherent Rights, or begin to forget what are truly Inherent Rights.
The Right of Innocence is the Right to do as we please so long as we
do not Violate the Rights of any others. This is a behavior which the
one may exercise, and therefore passes the first part of the test
above. This is a behavior which only obligates others to not obstruct
or deny the one's exercise thereof, and therefore passes the second
part of the test above. And, this is a behavior which does not
obligate others to provide for the one, and therefore passes the third
part of the test above.
The Right of Life is the Right to Live. This is a behavior which the
one may exercise, and therefore passes the first part of the test
above. This is a behavior which the one may exercise, and therefore
passes the first part of the test above. This is a behavior which
only obligates others to not obstruct or deny the one's exercise
thereof, and therefore passes the second part of the test above. And,
this is a behavior which does not obligate others to provide for the
one, and therefore passes the third part of the test above.
The Rights of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness also pass all the
portions of the test above. And, so does the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms pass all the portions of the test above.
Now, let's wrongly presume that Murder is a Right. Would such a Right
pass the test above? Well, Murder is a behavior which the one may
exercise, so it passes the first part of the test. One might even
argue that Murder only obligates others to not obstruct or deny the
one's exercise thereof. But, Murder does obligate others to provide
for the one, specifically a Life for them to take. Therefore, a
presumed Right to Murder DOES NOT pass all three portions of the test
above, and is therefore not a Right.
Let's also wrongly presume that we have the Right that others NOT Keep
and Bear Arms. Would this presumed Right pass the test above? Right
off the bat, it fails the first portion of the test, in that "others
NOT Keeping or Bearing Arms" IS NOT a behavior which the one
exercises. Although, it might be argued that a Right that "others NOT
Keep or Bear Arms" is a Right that is obstructed or denied when others
do Keep or Bear Arms, this is still not a Right that the one is being
obstructed or denied the exercise thereof as it failed the first
portion of the test. This presumed Right also fails the third part of
the test in that it does indeed obligate others to provide for the
one, specifically that they provide the behavior of not Keeping or
Bearing Arms.
If you believe you can trick the test above, have at it.
Post by The GunnerWhy does the American gun lobby refuse to support
the God given right to keep and bear arms by the peace
loving people of Iraq?
Crime is soaring in Iraq. If the citizens were allowed to
own guns, it would be like here in the USA. Crime
would vanish.
I detect a facetious tone in your words.
The American gun lobby is primarily concerned with the Rights of
American citizens, therefore it's name.
Also, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not, as you would try to
suggest, make Crime simply vanish. Instead, it empowers Citizens to
be able to defend themselves against Crime.
I would go so far as to say that Innocent Citizens of Iraq have as
much a Right to defend themselves against Crime as do Americans.