I’m a non-believer and a former Catholic. Therefore, I think it’s unfair when folks say that “God gave you _____.” I’ll tell you why I think it’s unfair. It’s not because I think they’re wrong. Heck, they could be right for all I know — which is exactly the point.
See, we don’t really know whether (a) God exists and (b) what, if anything, he’s responsible for creating. Moreover, there’s no empirical way to prove one’s case either way. If there was, if one could definitively prove the existence of God, everyone would become an adherent of one religion depending on the extent of the evidence presented.
Given our uncertain reality, it makes no sense to bring God into debates regarding public policy and matters that concern all citizens, not strictly the devout. Yet, just last week, Arizona lawmakers were foolishly arguing that God gave us gun rights.
“The Second Amendment says that we have a right that’s God-given to us to defend ourselves,” said Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, while discussing two pro-gun bills, according to Phoenix New Times. “Now the Second Amendment doesn’t apply against the individual. I don’t get to decide to take a gun into your business or into your home because that’s against the private sector. The Second Amendment applies against government.”
“God” doesn’t appear in the Second Amendment. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There’s no mention of “God.” Yet, of course, I’m also aware that the framers of the Constitution had a God-centric view of the world. Many believed that a Christian God created the heavens and the earth and the natural order and drew upon this belief when drafting our founding documents.
“In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator,” wrote Samuel Adams to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1794, an apt summation of the prevailing view of the times.
But still, just because many of our framers believed in God doesn’t make what is a fundamental right — the natural right to defend oneself, one’s family, one’s property, one’s country from evildoers and tyrants — the product of a deity. As mentioned, even if it were, it’s impossible to prove.
So, again, why bring God into the debate? Why suggest that God gave us the right of self-defense when there is widespread disagreement on exactly who or what God is and whether God even exists?
Democratic Rep. Sally Ann Gonzalez shot back at Farnsworth by saying, “Twice on this floor I’ve heard members say that ‘I have the God-given right to bear arms’ and since I know that God didn’t write the constitution, I just wanted to state that. And I vote no.”
The debate between the lawmakers continued, with others entering the fray.
“Humans, great humans — founders wrote the constitution, founders wrote the Second Amendment. And the founders an the people give us the right to bear arms. That is inalienable and it is a given right. Human beings have done this. Great courageous human beings,” said Democratic Rep. Bruce Wheeler.
“I’m very proud to be living in a country where my God-given right or freewill is still guaranteed — guaranteed by the Constitution that laws will not take that freewill away from me,” said Republican Rep. Sonny Borrelli.
For any well-functioning and just society to not only exist but to endure the fundamental right of free people to defend themselves has to be embraced. This is a truth that exists independent of the belief in God or religion. Thankfully for us, the founding fathers of this country chose to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution to protect our natural right of self-defense. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter to me why they felt compelled to do it — whether they were following God’s will or because it’s common sense — just so long as it’s there.
So, my conclusion, until we can prove God’s existence I don’t think we need to have a debate on who or what gave us the right to self defense and by extension, the Second Amendment. It’s a waste of time.
Maybe you feel differently? What are your thoughts?
There are no Atheists in fox holes.
Has been my experience that most folks come to The Lord one way or the other sometimes on there death beds.
We are drawn to the light some more than others.
God Bless
With or without referencing God, the most fundamental right possible is the right to protect your own physical integrity. In other words, the right of self defense.
Without the right of self defense AND the means to carry that out, you have no other rights at all, you have only the privileges granted you by the biggest bully around.
This poor individual obviously has no faith in anything, including religion, so he doesn’t deserve to be bothered with.
I am not going to get mired in word games that is going on in this board.
I love the USA, it is my only home in which I have great many admiration for.
I hunted with my friends, I learned to shoot in pistol and rifle matches with many fine
competitors and champions. I love the freedom to keep and bear my fire arms.
I support the NRA as best I can.
I grew up in a military family. My father gave his life to this great nation.
I will not be mislead by the people of lesser American experience.
I believe in the American process. I am one of them.
No need to stumble over semantics. Whether we regard it as a “God-given right” of self defense, or the secular term “human right” of self-defense, it is still an unalienable right, independent of any government or law. The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right that supports the human right of self-defense.
PeopleofArms.com
READ IT;
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable 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 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.” –Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
READ ALL ABOUT IT; http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0100.htm
wow. it is amazing how many people in this comment section either cannot read, or just completely misunderstood what the author of the article was saying. many of you in the comment section are making the same points the author did! he is not saying that our rights are granted by the government. he is saying that the bill of rights ACKNOWLEDGES our rights. he is just saying that some people unnecessarily attribute these rights to god, and only complicate the matter, and bring another level of complication into the discussion. the author completely agrees with all of you religious people that the right to self defense/self preservation is a fundamental right, whether the government grants it or not.
i, for one, agree with the author. it does sort of bother me when “pro gun” advocates speak of “god given” rights, as it is not only unnecessary, but as the author points out, turns people off. especially the people on the other side, who are often democrats/liberals, and who are constantly hearing about the religious right’s religious beliefs, and having to fight against their insistence on basing public policy off of their personal religious text/tenets(i.e. teaching creationism in schools, attempting define marriage their particular religious text, abortion, assisted suicide, the right to not provide medical treatment to their children in favor of prayer, teaching abstinence only sex education(which has been proven to be an utter failure, giving texas the highest rate of REPEAT teen pregnancy in the country)denial of global warming because “god is in control, and humans could never affect the entire planet(plus god is going to destroy the world soon anyway) basing foreign policies in the middle east around belief that the state of israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, trying to pass legislation to make homosexuality a crime like they helped do in africa, taking funding away from science and science education because it contradicts their particular interpretation of their holy text, wanting prayer back in schools, etc.) bringing god into a discussion, especially one about politics/government, is almost never a good idea, since not only are we a secular country, but because(as the author stated) everyone has a different god concept, even two people sitting next to each other in the same pew on sunday. our arguments should be able to stand on their own, based on logic, reason, and evidence, and we should not have to rely on the god card to make our point.
The issue is, since everyone (except Kelly Lee apparently) agrees that our rights do not come from government and that these rights are unalienable, then by what authority are they unalienable? What is the source of these rights?
Now you created a list of things that you find intolerable in your post. I agree that these are intolerable, but those engaging in these intolerable attacks are from those who wish to remove God from their worldview. So the blame should be placed upon the ones trying to remake the world according to their own image. Every item in your list is a direct assault against God. It is engaged by those who despise God. Yet you wish to assign the blame to those who react against this relentless assault. That is irrational behavior.
If unalienable rights have no source then they cannot be unalienable. By attacking the very source that supports the rights which mankind has been given, the argument in favor of those rights is weakened. This is done when people refuse to acknowledge the source of these rights. With rights come responsibilities. You do not get to attack the rights giver while attempting to hold on to the right that he has given you. That is irrational behavior.
Amennnn…..
Whether you believe in God or not, whether you think the 2A is a God given right or natural one, it really is the government that gives us whatever rights we have through the Constitution and legislation and they can be expanded, or restricted, with the stroke of a pen. If not, then why would we need to fight the anti-gunners so much? This is the reality, not ideology, of our rights. If a Constitutional convention were to be held, any one of our so called rights could be taken away by the majority. Yes, we can rebel if we don’t like what our rights legally are and then write a knew Constitution. However, once again, it would be a matter of law and not natural or God given rights. Majority rules, even in a republic.
So, IMO, there is good reasoning for leaving God out of the 2A discussion. By leaving God out of it you don’t potentially alienate those who do not believe in God from the 2A fight and thereby reducing the numbers joining us. We all know, we need more people to get involved in activism, or at least at the voting booth, to help protect our 2A rights. It really is that simple. Is it really that hard for some of you to treat others with respect even though they don’t believe the way you do? So many claim to believe in America yet have totally forgotten what it means to be a part of it. Both sides need to take their moral and/or intellectual superiority and stow that crap.
The author of this article contradict himself and lack common sense and knowledge.
quote
“The Second Amendment says that we have a right that’s God-given to us to defend ourselves,” said Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, while discussing two pro-gun bills, according to Phoenix New Times.–
The rep never said that is a God given right to have guns. He said to “defend ourselves”. If you had common sense and apply it to present day technology , you would know and come to terms that owning a gun is the best way to defend yourself against someone that is coming to you with a gun.
I dont know anymore if gunsamerica is pro gun or just a leftist outlet trying to cover themselves as 2a supporters.
This are the titles of the latest 3 discussion in gunsamerica:
Graphic Footage of Dallas Police Fatally Shooting Mentally Ill Man with Screwdriver: Justified?
Are Opponents of Constitutional Carry Anti-Gun?
Memo to Arizona Lawmakers: God Didn’t Give Us Gun Rights!
They all suggest a leftard agenda and not a pro 2A projection .
“The rep never said that is a God given right to have guns. He said to ‘defend ourselves’. If you had common sense and apply it to present day technology , you would know and come to terms that owning a gun is the best way to defend yourself against someone that is coming to you with a gun.”
Good lord. If you have a right to “defend yourself” and “owning a gun is the best way to defend yourself,” then, by extension, you have a “right to have guns.” (This is the foundational principle of our right to arms.) Also, in context, the remarks were made during a debate about personal firearms ownership. The representative wasn’t talking about a right to baseball bats or other self-defense tools. In context, he was speaking about guns!
Hang in there, Mr.Blannelberry! It was apparent you’d take a huge load of crap for stating the obvious. Be assured there are many gun-toting, conservative, non-believers (Atheists!!!!) out here who agree with you. The hate and anger released by knee-jerk believers is actually amusing, but it can be costly. Btw, Mahatma Muhjesbude, you’re obviously very well read and a critical thinker. Thanks for your comments.
God given or natural rights – same thing.
This is a dumb article, an argument looking for an issue.
The point is all living things have a right to defend themselves and humans as sentient biengs have the right to use means beyond their teeth and other body parts in that defense. This article is little like – it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.
Ya BRASS, I’m sure you know by now, he puts on these fight starters more than not.
S.H BLANNELLBERRY specials.
The Universe we live in is made of three separate parts, the physical one we know made from the periodic chart atoms, ten percent, dark matter twenty percent and seventy percent unknown matter/some king of something we know absolutely nothing about. So where dis it all come from, how as it created, exactly? It had to have been created , and if the creator of all this is not God, then what is it?
This is where all of this anti-God movement has been leading since the liberals got really going in the 60’s. they are trying to erode the whole constitution by saying there is no God so the founding fathers wrote laws that are no longer relevant. If there is no God, then the God given rights really come from the state, and it can change its mind and rescind just like prohibition. We are letting them brainwash our kids by not letting them be home schooled, then teaching them only one side of an argument, now you are moving towards a majority that no longer believes. And in todays thinking, what is right or true? whatever the majority says, not what God says.That is morality. Ethical is a term used synonymously today, but its not the same thing, it means what is really right or wrong naturally, not what is 51% doing? I know i have a right to defend myself without the need of castle or stand your ground laws. That is the natural God given right i am evident of, like in the bill of rights. We started as a biblical nation, so lets look at what the bible says: Jesus said, if you have no sword, sell your tunic and buy one. He therefore believed in armed citizens for the purpose of defense, but not overthrowing the govenment, since he told Pilate that if his kingdom was of this world, his followers would fight to free him. If we open and study the bible, we would have the answers, but instead we let people with an agenda tell us its outdated, wrong, evil, archaic, so dont even read it. And so we have people now who say you cant prove there is a God. If they would read the prophecies that came true, they would believe. Instead they believe in the other option, evolution, which has been more disproven than proven, yet they are ok with that. to end this rant, if we want to see any chance of getting our rights back, we need to embrace the foundational groundwork the founders started, and stop letting liberals tell us we are offending them with politically incorrect hate speech and such nonsense. Let me now get off my soap box, thanks for listening.
Well spoken…..
First off, I’m not religious person and even though many mention God or, even a creator, it’s just another way to describe that it’s a natural right to own something that gives you the best chance to protect your life ….In which, the government can’t give you but can take it away….I think you are reading more into it than need be….
well said. inclusion of ‘god’ talk cheapens any debate except those wholly within the realm of religion.
‘god’ didn’t ‘give’ me one solitary thing. laws are an expression of group identity, whether clan, tribe, nation, whatever, and are no better than the collective wisdom of the group and the language skills of those who craft them. the last thing you want is fantasists writing the rules, especially monotheists with their reductive binary worldview, which rationalizes tyrannical thinking since they regard nonbelievers as outsiders – ‘sinners’ and ‘heretics’ who are inferior and therefore unentitled to the rights they would afford themselves.
if and when government comes breaking down your door, that guy with his boot on your neck will most likely be a religionist.
religionist? It appears to me that the US government is being taken over by people that, not only don’t believe in God but have nothing but contempt for those that do. They are trying to destroy a constitution that has stood head and shoulders above all others. I fully expect (as a believer in Jesus Christ) that it is probable that I will be the one with the boot on my neck for proclaiming what God has said is sin in the King James Bible. The Colonist were blessed of God in mighty ways. Do you really think they could have defeated the greatest army and navy on earth if God hadn’t intervened. They knew where all their rights and protections came from and acknowledged it. I find it sad that the atheist belief system / religion is growing. Ones denial of God does not negate his existence. But this I know from reading his Word and his spirit abiding within me, EVERYONE will bend the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Christians on this side of the second coming, non believers at the great white throne judgment. But then it will be too late for the non believers. As far as what God didn’t give you. A planet that is the exact distance it needs to be from the sun to sustain life. The right distance from the moon that the tides do exactly what they’re supposed to do. An atmosphere to breathe. A body that is so complex science could never duplicate it. A soul that makes you who you are and a dead spirit that will allow you to communicate with God when quickened. He is sustaining all that and more waiting for you to accept his Son’s sacrifice for your sins. I hope and pray you do accept Jesus as your saviour, but if not, I look forward to hearing you tell the creator of EVERYTHING he didn’t give you anything.
*** The Colonist were blessed of God in mighty ways. Do you really think they could have defeated the greatest army and navy on earth if God hadn’t intervened.***
it wasn’t miraculous, it was circumstantial, and to a large degree logistical. the colonists had short supply lines, the british had hugely long ones. the colonies were an enormous amount of ground the british would have had to occupy in force. the colonies’ ability to supply themselves, and the fact it was primarily a land campaign, negated much of the british naval advantage. the colonies also had excellent and, most importantly, unified leadership; the british generals squabbled. british resolve was weakened by political considerations, the decision to attack rather than negotiate further was seen as largely as a tory position. the seven-year war had left the government with debt.
*** He is sustaining all that and more waiting for you to accept his Son’s sacrifice for your sins. ***
the great con of christian dogma is the notion of salvation. its power to manipulate lies in the cleverness of its approach, equal parts carrot and stick. the carrot is that i will be rewarded with negation of death if only i buy the bill of goods. that’s an attempt to push my fear button. the stick is that i’m an ungrateful heel, a welcher, by not ‘repaying’ my ‘savior’ – by buying the bill of goods. that’s an attempt to push my guilt button. advertisers have paid close attention to this strategy, effective as it is. they attempt to sell me beer and insurance and jewelry and such with it. i’m not buying that either. since i don’t need saving, these products can’t save me any more than some fantasy notion.
*** I hope and pray you do accept Jesus as your saviour, but if not, I look forward to hearing you tell the creator of EVERYTHING he didn’t give you anything.***
i’ll no longer exist to talk to beings real or imagined. i’m ok with that. i don’t fear death or miss my dead loved ones so much that i have to prostitute my intellect just to buy a little respite from uncomfortable emotions.
Loring Loding ;very well said! It’s refreshing to hear the truth spoken amiss the noise of the self significant verbal masturbation!
Your wrong about God not giving anything, he gave you life….
The Founders understood it. We are endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.
Kudos, Eddie. Finally someone got the word right. It’s UNalienable, not INalienable.
There is a startling difference between inalienable and unalienable. While Black’s Law dictionary does not currently suggest a difference between inalienable and unalienable, Black’s 2nd edition (and earlier) DID, in fact, mark a difference, way back in 1903.
Inalienable: Not subject to alienation
Unalienable: Incapable of being aliened
The difference has profound implications: One “not subject” to losing their rights may eventually be subject to a loss of rights if laws or the person’s legal status changes. But if one is deemed INCAPABLE of losing one’s rights, then there is no legal method available for removing those rights, which any reasonable person would agree was clearly the founders’ intention.
I don’t think anyone would like a government that has the ability to remove one’s “God-given” rights, and the fact that the founders saw fit to explicitly include this viewpoint sets our rights as the highest pinnacle — one that even government is subject to, rather than vice versa.
As a ‘Deist’ I believe in a higher, transcendent ‘God’, than the one that the three, supposedly ‘revealed’, religions refer to. The mind of man is incapable of comprehending the totality of that, which is ‘God’. Those so called ‘gods’ and angels’ were, in all probability, an ancient extraterrestrial race, that visited earth in the remote past and whose technology was misunderstood to be ‘miracles’. There is an innumerable amount of evidence to attribute to this view, if only one is willing to look past their upbringing and conventional beliefs.
Having said that, you all are welcome to believe in whatever you wish. I’m not seeking to make converts.
When discussing our rights to defense, I normally use the terminology that is better suited to the discourse, than the one demanding any religious beliefs, ie; The right to defense of self, family, home and community far predate any form of government ever devised by mankind, for his own rule. I use the terms ‘pre-existing’, ‘naturally occurring’, & ‘inalienable’ rights to defense of self and others, by whatever means available, the most efficient and most commonly available. In other words modern firearms. Some time, in the near future, we may be defending ourselves with ‘light sabers’, for all we know, so it’s best to leave the categories open, to that extent.
When evolutionists hear the imposible odds of life forming by itself by having chemicals sit around long enough with maybe some lightning thrown in to make DNA too complex to be random chance, then they go with plan B. Some alien race started earth’s life forms with a jumpstart of this DNA. Sure, that sounds plausible. Except we didn’t answer the question of where all this building-block information come from, we just moved to another level. Where did these aliens come from? Millions of years of evolution. Oops, not enough time for such complex alien DNA to form. Well maybe aliens formed aliens who formed us. See the circular logic? If the universe isnt old enough to evolve us, how did it form the aliens?
I am a 100% Christian. The whole nine yards. But as I understand things, our Constitution says we are given rights by “Our Maker”. This I can say with certainty, the federal government did not make me. Therefore they cannot, will not take my rights away. Not without a bloody fight. This is the highest law of our land. It will continue to remain in effect on my watch. I have my own problems with the legislature of my beloved home state of Arizona. Most of the legislation these dimwits are proposing is based on the notion that one must have a concealed carry permit to enjoy the protections they seek. In Arizona, there remains provision for concealed carry permits, while at the same time concurrent legislation has nullified the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. If our maker gave us the rights delineated within our 2nd Amendment, then we do not need a permit to keep and bear arms, concealed or otherwise, period. And the written word of the law needs to reflect this simple fact. My “maker” is God. The God of Abraham. The one true God. If you feel differently, more power to you. Maybe you’re a monkeys uncle? But we can all agree that our Constitution affirms our 2nd Amendment rights, and limits the rights of governments. Not the other way around. If this simple, basic concept of the contract between government and citizens is too tough to grasp, whether you’re a legislator, president, or citizen, you need to go back to school, and you definitely don’t need to be making law.
Hi K. D.
I think like you, so take no offence to me helping you out with the wording.
“endowed by their [Creator] with certain unalienable Rights”
No worries Russ. If we can’t help each other out once in a while what good are any of us? I was searching for the right words and they would not come to me. You pegged it. Thanks.
Leaving aside some of the poorly conceived quotes by lawmakers (who should know better than to ascribe rights as coming from government) that you seemed compelled to add, thinking that it adds to your argument in some misguided way…I shall focus on what you have typed as being the summation of what you believe is support for your argument:
“For any well-functioning and just society to not only exist but to endure the fundamental right of free people to defend themselves has to be embraced. This is a truth that exists independent of the belief in God or religion. Thankfully for us, the founding fathers of this country chose to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution to protect our natural right of self-defense. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter to me why they felt compelled to do it — whether they were following God’s will or because it’s common sense — just so long as it’s there.” – S.H. Blannelberry
Without God, there can be no just society. Without God, there can be no natural rights. Without God, there can be no freedom. Without God, there can be no liberty. Without God, all that there can be is the coercive force of men enforcing their wills with power against the freewill of others.
Our fundamental right to self-defense would not go away even if the 2nd Amendment had never been written. It is not the source of that right, it is simply an expression of the right we already had. Once we forget the source of our freewill then we become fodder for those who desire to enslave us. This is the true understanding of the American Revolution and lessons that we so desperately need to glean from the writings of the founders of our Nation.
Post-modern societal thinking is dedicated to removing that source and is leading the masses headlong into their own undoing. This is why you are wrong. This is why humans have inalienable rights whereas animals do not.
I’m not religious, nor am I an atheist. I’m very opinionated on many things (such as our Constitution), but whether or not a higher power exists is one that I leave alone; it doesn’t matter much to me. I have the right to any personal freedom, as long as I’m not impeding someone else’s right to the same.
Regardless of how we all ended up here, from the moment we were born, we had the right to defend ourselves. To say one does not have that right is to imply that one can easily and objectively distinguish between an “important” life and an “unimportant” one, which, obviously, nobody gets to do. I agree with the author’s overall premise, in that the gun debate should proceed under the assumption of the right to self defense, without getting hung up on precisely where the right came from. I have to say he must have known he was kicking the hornet’s nest with this one.
Mr. Blannelberry: First, I’d like to thank you for being courageous enough to bring the question of faith into a forum of redneck voodoo-worshippers. As a fellow Atheist (or Humanist), I have managed to liberate myself from superstition and myth and live my life as an honorable, self-respecting and law-abiding citizen, free of the guilt-inspiring tenets of blind faith. As a gun owner and shooting sports devotee, I firmly believe in our natural right to self-defense and applaud our Founding Fathers’ foresight and fear of government excess for our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thank you for laying the cards of reason on the table!
Well done, congratulations on avoiding the pitfalls of using the tool of guilt to fine-tune your character…………you get to join that collective group of zombies who lick the icing off the cake , prepared for us all by GOD and the effort and lives of go many great men before us , who carried their guilt close to their heart and mind , realizing the special precision of it’s use in their own transformation of character!……………The Happy People !!!!
Wow, the comments here make me think we aren’t that dissimilar to the crazed Islamists in the Middle East. You guys are practically spitting fire at this guy.
All he’s saying is we can fight for our second amendment rights without turning it into a bible study session.
I argue the 2nd am with my liberal family all the time and don’t bring God into the equation once.
Kyle. And that’s the whole point of the author’s point. As exemplified here in the comment section. I’ts never a simple existential level of enjoying your Constitutionally guaranteed right to fantasy, delusion, or ignorance. for Religionists. That’s never enough for god fearing holier-than-thou people of faith.
They’ve been trying to subvert the 1st/A since they first read the part where it said “…congress shall make no law respecting any religion…”
But, as we all know by now, that’s what theocrats do. Which is what most, if not all religions are.
Why would you misquote the 1st Amendment? It begs the question of who has been trying to subvert it from the beginning.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
In case you missed the point of the history of this nation, America was designed specifically to disallow a theocracy (specifically per the 1st Amendment I might add). Christians, above anyone else, have strong reasons to resist the imposition of a theocracy. But of course you knew that already.
Although it must feel good, or it is done out of habit these days, ad hominem attacks against Christians only serve to expose ones lack of substantive argument where reason and logic would be better supports. It is considered as rude behavior as well.
1. Anything granted by the government isnt a right, its a privilege.
2. Proving God exists is not difficult, its been done millions of different ways. I guess you havent heard of descarte, or aristotle.
Well one might well remember History! The Pilgrims, the Mayflower etc…. Our founding Fathers believed in a God a Deity and therefore fully understood that man himself is born with rights in which no government should be in control of! You don’t have to believe in god to understand that this country was founded by those seeking religious freedom! I also might add it depends on what does someone mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often insufficient evidence for another. A court of law can provide innumerable examples of how two parties that have the same collection of information and data, they can even use same logic and reasoning, yet they will argue for completely different interpretations of all the information and data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.
Excuse me, you are wrong!! The Constitution was founded based on a former document called the Magna Carta – which did believe that GOD gave his rights to the people, and they in turn, gave some rights to their politicians. It used to be the belief that kings were given power from God and they gave some of that to the peasants. We reject that, and personal gun ownership ensures that right.
Just because you don’t believe in God does not mean you can make up the rules of debate and determine what is relevant!! I refuse to accept your premise. Typical liberal, starting a debate with a false premise and limiting the scope based on your own world views.
Typical “Conservative”, always debating with a false premise and limiting the scope based on “YOUR RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEWS”!
Why dont people with a hatred for religion move to countries where it is outlawed and let the religious live in their religious country, rather than try to change this country to what the majority of the world is, an oppressive and freedom robbing tyranical mess. Those who were tired of being told by their king their christian religion is wrong moved here so they could live how they wanted. Now it the cool thing to undo that dream in the name of looking smarter and more educated than those fable believing fools. Just wanna fit in with the crowd, right?
I think you sir, are much like any group who has an axe to grind, or a flag to waive in order to express your opinion. You could just as easily be talking about Gay rights, Abortion rights whatever. The point is, your contention has nothing to do with the existing of God, or faith based laws etc. It is clearly a veiled attack on GOD, and your desire to attack Him or anyone’s faith in Him, and it has nothing to do with your attempt to sound like you are on OUR side. You are trying to make this all about YOU. Not the second amendment, nor the existance of God. For someone who says they claim to be an athiest, you sure seem to be committed to renewing your faith in yourself every day and spending a great deal of time on something you claim doesn’t exist. Interesting Paradox isn’t it? Thank GOD we live in a land where we all get to choose and form our own opinions, and ignore those we feel are wrong.
The 2nd Amendment actually does identify an individual right to keep and bear arms. The use of a word throughout any document must be consistent. If it changes meaning at some point, it is expressly redefined to maintain proper context. The SCOTUS has stated before that the term “people” within the context of the Constitution means all of us individual folks referred to as a group as opposed to, say an armed force/branch of the military or the police or any other unique group. So, it’s an individual right that is inalienable regardless and not dependent on affiliation.
You actually hit on something in your article that no one else seems to have picked up on:
“But still, just because many of our framers believed in God doesn’t make what is a fundamental right — the natural right to defend oneself, one’s family, one’s property, one’s country from evildoers and tyrants”
So you acknowledge that the right to defend yourself is a “natural right”, meaning a right that you’re born with. I’m a devout Christian, but if you want to believe that your right to protect yourself was brought by the stork, I don’t have a problem with that. The whole argument about where “natural” rights come from seems silly to me.
If you’re an atheist, just think of “God-given rights” as a synonym for “natural rights.” In either case, the point is that the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense and to the tools for self-defense — like the 1st Amendment right to speak your mind even in opposition to the government — came before it was codified in our Bill of Rights, and that any government that doesn’t respect such rights is at least verging on tyranny, if not by definition a tyranny. While there is a weakness in that argument given that increasing numbers of people don’t believe in God, there is also a weakness in the concept of natural rights, as increasing numbers of people don’t believe in any moral absolutes, largely for the same reason (i.e., they don’t believe in God).
Pretty good comment, David. But I’m NOT an atheist and I’m not a religionist. And i don’t see the similarity in a faith based religionist belief system’s proprietary ‘DEITY’ (god) as having anything to do with universal ‘NATURAL LAW’. Which was the foundational premise upon which our Constitutional ‘LAW of the LAND (where humans are sovereign proprietors) is based?
As for moral relativism v. moral absolutism I can recommend to you a couple texts to peruse if you wanted to learn the truth and reality of ‘morality’ in society? Just because there are Universal Laws of Nature are rather simple and pure doesn’t mean that religionist ‘holier-than-thou levels of agenda based behavior control from their self created power base of ‘moral higher grouind’ are automatically any better, morally speaking?
Perhaps this will shed some light on the mind set of the Founding Fathers as they sat down to frame the Constitution: “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights….” Mankind derives “rights” naturally. They are not given by any form of Government. To clarify this, the first 10 amendments were added to the original.
The primary purpose of the Constitution is NOT to list the Rights of the People. Rather the Constitution’s original intent to list and limit the powers of the Government.
You’re certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs, so there’s no need to be a jacka** and comment negatively regarding them. Please understand that the framers of our Constitution/Bill of Rights all believed in a “higher power”… call it what you like, that benevolently guided them when they felt personally unsure of their actions and needed more inner fortitude. I don’t see our founding fathers’ belief that certain human rights went far beyond any monarch’s power to grant them somehow lessening your rights because you don’t share and accept the same beliefs.
Call this benevolent higher power “God” or whatever you wish, or call him “non-existent”. This is America. Your choice. The point is… you have to agree that, God or Godless, you have certain rights that are not to be constricted by any government or ruling power/diety.
I’d like to call readers’ attention to the Gospel of Luke chapter 22 v. 36, where Jesus Christ gave direction to His followers in light of His imminent physical departure from the earth: “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Swords were the deadly sidearms of the day, and must have been concealed under their robes because they checked and reported to Him (in verse 38): “And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough.” Did He say it was sinful? No. He had just given instruction for individuals to BUY them, because He wouldn’t be physically present to protect them from personal dangers. Further, He placed the priority of ownership of the weapon above ownership of a garment.
First of all Blannelberry, you can’t find God if you don’t look for him. 2nd, there is coming a time when you will be looking for him with vigor, its better to look now than wait.
3rd, what God has given me no man can take without his permission. Our Government seeks to enslave us everyday not free us in anyway. I’m surprised by your ignorance…….God gives me the right to my guns and the Constitution backs that up by putting restrictions on the Government. When the Government in their infinite wisdom declares gun ownership illegal that declaration does not override the Freedom God has given me. Manmade rights come with strings attached, hoops to jump thru and are revocable on a whim.
This comment section is a joke, you’ll print what you see fit, and nothing else?
I thought that this was the GunsAmerica website, Not an athiest.point of view site. hey commentator,stick to evaluating and showing us new and collectable firearms., and let your readers believe or not believe on their own without your questionable point of view or articles. I thought that the ide was to bring us news abou new weapons and ammo, and not whether or not we each believe in GOD. the asshole that was speaking infront of the members of the state or what ever body did not ave to bring the wuestion of GOD into the conversation.Now you probably wont print this because I said asshole, and that is your right, but you shoule if you want your readers to who feel the same, Hey its your call do what you think is best. But I have bee a member of and have bought several firearms from GunsAmerica. It would be a shame for me to unsubscibe and buy from someone else because you don’t like what people write. Remember the first amendment or do you?
This is easy one since you are a lost soul and atheist you have no 2nd Amendement Rights is that what you want.But when the shit hits the fan don’t ask to use mine!!!!!!!!
Wow! This level of ignorance has me wondering why I came here to read the articles. Commenter “Nate” pretty much sums it up. The writer of this article hasn’t/can’t/won’t grasp that? Because he’s so proud to be a non believer, he’s blind to what is inalienable due to it’s grant from our Creator.
BASICALLY it is the truth, it not a god given right to carry or to own a gun,,GOD didn’t have anything to due with it…IF jesus had a gun,he wouldn’t have been nailed to the cross..
“If Jesus had a gun”..?
He could have summoned, at an instant, legions of angels to his rescue to thwart his arrest at Gethsemane, etc.
Soon enough, either from Heaven or earth, mankind will witness the unbridled power and fury of He who CHOSE to die on the cross for mankind’s sake.
Have a nice day!
While I understand the idea of your point. I can’t help but think…you could have come up with something better to write about. I have read quite a few of your articles….and found them very interesting….and thought provoking. But I think this article was a waste of your talent and time. So now that you have written something you thought you needed to write about….let’s move on to something else please. NEXT!!
/facepalm
My dear foolish atheist.
If Rights did not come from a creator… then they came from man… that is to say… they came from government.
What rights a government grants… a government may take away.
Rights don’t come from government. They come from the creator. That is why governments cannot take them away… and its why went governments pass laws that do so… they are evil and rebelling against them becomes just.
I see the moderator is playing god,only certain comments are coming thru,ONLY the ones he see fit.
Only one of mine. And it was moderated for quite sometime,before it was published, I guess the joke is on me. I thought this was a forum, not a I’ll print it if I feel like it site, and this small line won’t get published either?
And what happens when believers in god become the minority? Although conservative, libertarian atheists may agree with you when you assert your rights, progressive atheists almost certainly will not. And now you have no foundation for your rights except for a god in whom fewer and fewer people believe – and you’ve never developed the tools necessary to make your argument without god (or without the 2nd Amendment, for that matter).
Making your argument for your rights without reliance upon god is confounding to people who expect you to make god the foundation of your arguments. It sets them back immediately, just as an argument in support of your right to arms is confounding to people who are expecting to argue with you about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Give them their interpretation of the amendment – and then tell them why it doesn’t matter it only guarantees a right to a militia (as foolish as you and I know that to be). You should be able to argue for your rights without appeal to the Bill of Rights. Give them their disbelief in god, and make your argument for your rights without an appeal to god – don’t allow the argument to become about god, it’s an argument you’re not going to win! If you can’t do these things, then you don’t know as much about your rights as you think you do. And you’re going to find yourself crippled someday, for instance, when another bench of SCOTUS justices declare that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says. If you figure out NOW how to argue for your gun rights no matter what the courts say about the amendment (and no matter what the majority might think about god), you’ll be ahead of the game.
Good 1 Nate.
Sometimes, you should just push away from the keyboard and think about an article before you press the button. This is likely one of those scenarios, I anticipate that your opinion on this matter is going to be met with quite a bit of frustration and disagreement. On whole, gun owners are God-fearing, law abiding, salt of the earth folks and some things are just best left unsaid. I will not insult you, because you are entitled to your opinion, but I have to shake my head at your decision to share this POV in this manner on a subject that IMO does not really need to be discussed in this way. Why debate the existence of God as a basis to argue gun rights?
Yeah, my intent wasn’t to offend anyone. If I did, I apologize. Looking back, perhaps the title of the article is too strongly worded.
But my mission was to point out exactly what you said, “Why debate the existence of God as a basis to argue gun rights?” Right. Why bring up God? Doesn’t make much sense considering God’s existence is open for debate. Plus you run the risk of alienating those gun owners who worship a different God or prefer a different belief system.
I should also mention that many of my coworkers and friends are devoutly religious people and we all coexist quite nicely because we are tolerant of each others perspective on religion, politics and a range of other issues. Tolerance is key.
To your point about “better left unsaid,” If we can’t talk openly and honestly about our beliefs and opinions here — amongst friends and fellow gun owners — where else can we express ourselves?
As an atheist, you should be particularly in favor of rights granted by God, or the Easter Beagle, or the Great Pumpkin, or anyone but America or its founding fathers. You may be in a religious minority in your community and someday need the guarantees more than someone in step with the potentially tyrannical momentum of the masses.
God isn’t going to form a quorum and vote to repeal your rights. The worst America can do with God-given, American-guaranteed rights is welch on its obligation to protect you against tyranny. Bad enough, but the distinction is important.
Put another way, we don’t enjoy an American right to free speech, or an American right to keep and bear arms. What we enjoy are rights pre-existing the formation of America and under warranty by the might and justice of the USA. You are not granted a right to free speech, rather America has pledged that “Congress shall make no law” requiring or restricting your religion, or restricting your free speech. The right to keep and bear arms is not just nice for putting bounce in your step, it’s acknowledged as necessary and America guarantees to keep its mitts off – we shall not infringe that right.
We don’t beg politicians for our rights. They may not be faithful to their obligations, but all we ask is they make good on America’s guarantees.
The current sad state of certain civil rights is an ideal example of why rights come from God, not country. It will be much easier to correct the bad interpretation we currently have of our guarantees than it would be to reinvent and relegislate our rights. Or, at least, so I hope.
Whether or not God means anything to you, we need the authority granting our rights to be outside the jurisdiction of American law. God works well enough.
Mr. Blannelberry,
You should of known better than to say you are an Atheist on a bible thumping Republican site like this. Christians can be just as bad as Muslims when it comes to their beliefs and how they react to nonbelievers. And yes I am a skeptic when it comes to religions. Anyone that can read and can apply just a tiny bit of critical thinking would see the error of their ways. Lesson learn I hope. Other than that the gist of your commentary was half bad. Flame suit on cause I know what’s coming my way if the moderators print this. Have a good day.
Ron, I wouldn`t worry about getting toasted here. Most believers, more than likely won`t waste their time to respond to your ridiculous post as I did. Have a nice life Ron, or should I say “existence” as short as it may be, at least according to you, since it involves no after-life.
John, you sound like a pretty reasonable fellow, for a religionist. And you obviously are more intelligent and educated than me,
So would you have the decency to answer a question for the enlightenment of a humble ignoramous?
Why is it always so intransigently necessary for believers and people of faith to ‘Fear God’?
Ron, historically The Christian based religious invention and its operating manual, the Holy Bible, has been the cause of and Never the cure of all the world’s most serious evil. .ever since it was first ‘invented’ by Constantine and his cohorts around 320 AD. Historically the Catholics and their Christian knock-off cults were far worst than Muslims until the reigns were pulled in on them by the great Secular Country of America and they actually were ‘persuaded’ to officially ban private religious torture of heathens and atheists and gentiles by Vatican Decree. Otherwise those now sealed and locked dungeons deep in the sub basements of some of the world’s most famoous cathedrals and churches, would still be ‘open for Business’.
There are serious accomplished historians and Academics who understand all this but were always censured if they tried to tell the truth until only recently when the ‘tide’ is turning and religions are now called before the ‘court’ of reason and truth to prove they are valid.
Some of my colleagues have evidence that Islam– is just another knock off of Cahtolocism–which anybody can determine if they just read the Bible and the Qu’ran side by side. (most Christians never read even the Bible in its entirety!) And that the Vartican insiders actually created it for their agenda at the time. But the plan ‘backfired’ on them, lol!
I have empathy for all these ‘true believers’ and persons of Faith. And not in a condescending way. Most are good people despite their fantasies. And if it helps them do good, then it IS good. It’s just the other manifestations of such a state of mind that mitigate the potential worth at a higher level. Like my buddy Bigmag47 here. It seems like just because they have a faith in a god, they simply are superior to you or anybody else who is not trapped in the same mental prison? Observe how he even ‘KNOWS’ that there IS an afterlife, even though he can’t prove it or identify anyone whose ever been there? AND he even knows that YOU are not going to be in it, LOL!
Anyway, for deep pensive emancipation, if anyone cares, lol! Consider this wise old philosopher’s aphorism::
“It ain’t that people don’t know so much…It’s just that so much of what people ‘know’…just ain’t so.” Mark Twain.
Your position weakens the rights of me and every other American. Your atheism does not change the fact that our country was founded by men who believed that we do have god-given rights. The Bill of Rights does not give us those rights, but protects those rights from those in government who would take them away.
If you, and other non-believers- want to deny that any of our rights come from anywhere but government, then our Constitution is sorely lacking in protection of our rights. We then need an immediate constitutional convention to amend our constitution to state that the rights we have are fundamental, and are essential pillars of our national identity.
The Founders did not put those words into the Constitution, as they saw no need for it. Sadly, today that is a question.
You have the right, thanks to our Founders, to your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, just as I have my right to my beliefs. I have to wonder, though. When you’re alone at night, and doing some serious soul searching, should you perhaps be asking yourself “do I actually believe I’m smarter than America’s Founding Fathers?” I’m certainly not nearly the man that they were. I’m also not naive and vain enough to believe I know more that Paul, and Augustine, and other Founders of the Catholic Church.
If my right to keep and bear arms is not a natural, inalienable right, but is only mine at the pleasure of government, I am in big trouble, as are you.
Mark, GOOD POINT! I also must ask myself, if he doesn`t believe in God….can he actually “soul” search?
Yes, the 2/A does NOT say it is a ‘god-given’ right. It does NOT say it’s a Man created right. It says ‘THE’ RIGHT, [to bear arms shall not be infringed]. which historic documents like the Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Indepence, and letters from the Framers determined to be established by NATURAL LAW which is different from the subjective faith based belief systems involving deities, otherwise personified, or specified as known. Any body who maybe read one or two books on the topic should comprehend that?
Natural Law is derived more from Universal physics and Natural Science. It is the foundational ‘Law of The Land. It is based in fair and honest reasonable objectiveness in an egalitarian outline with the specific goal of liberty and justice for all in a peaceful society, WITHOUT control or influence from proprietary theocratic holier-than-though morally vexed sexually psychotic sociopaths with control freak obsessive compulsive dominance plans.
As Robert said, these are ‘inalienable’ rights which means humans are born with these otherwise they cannot truly be humans and experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a species in higher consciousness without these or if they are subverted and infringed upon. But since the ‘god’ of Abraham, Moses, or Krishna, or any other one based in delusional myth and fantasy cannot be proven or verified, or even remotely identified, it is more than ‘wrong’ to say “god-given-rights” It makes the person saying such stupidness sound no better than an an igno-imbecilic Islamist whack job.
But religionists in America insist upon saying ‘god-given’ rights to further their theocratic agendas. They also have been fabricating interpolative history and even proprietarily redact historic truth whenever they are in a position to. Such as claiming that this nation was founded on the Ten Commandments and ‘Judeo-Christian’ principles…when it was NOT. If it was, we’d all be wiped out by now as the the ‘theocratic government’ would have launched an all out nuclear Holy War’ crusade against the Islamists a long time ago.
Its no use talking to lefies or athiests, you could’nt convince them if they were hit by a bolt of lightening, some people are just ,Well their just, OH hell, ignorant of the majorities ways. It always comes down to what the minority believes and not what the majority knows. That just life with these people,and yes I said these people. Now if the powers that run this board will print my rebutal,They just don’t seem to like what I say,they like that I spend my money on their site but not what I say!
“Your position weakens the rights of me and every other American.”
No, it does not. In fact, it arguably does the opposite. If you can argue for your rights without mention of god (or without mention of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights), you can (possibly) convince someone who doesn’t believe in god (or who may argue with you about what the BOR says or means) of the existence of your rights. These arguments may be based upon universally accepted principles. For instance, very few people would fail to acknowledge that you have a right to your life. That is why we have laws against murder and slavery. If you have a right to your life, you must also have a right to defend your life, otherwise the “right” Is meaningless. Following that, you must also have a right to means to defend your life, for without the means, the defense may not be effectuated, and therefore your right to your life is essentially non-existent for being indefensible. There’s an argument for the right to arms in a nutshell – no god and no 2nd Amendment needed.
“Your atheism does not change the fact that our country was founded by men who believed that we do have god-given rights.”
You said it yourself, “founded by men who believed” we “have god-given rights.” The author acknowledged this (did you miss it?), but the belief of the founders doesn’t make it a fact. The fact that the founders believed in god, and in god-given rights, is just history – history made at a time when there was general agreement on the existence and nature of god, at least among the citizens of the new nation. This general agreement no longer exists, so if your rights are upon a foundation that relies upon god (or a particular “god”), then your rights are in peril should the general consensus ever become antagonistic to the belief. Again, avoiding “god” when discussing rights strengthens the argument because it avoids the potential for disagreement about god and his nature, or even his existence.
Here’s how I make a distinction between “natural rights” (rights to life, liberty, arms, expression, religion, etc.) and “civil rights,” which are those held by the nature of the society (right to petition government, trial by jury, voting, etc.). If you need the government’s facilitation, assistance, or existence to exercise a right (voting, trial by jury, right to petition government, etc.), it’s a civil right. If you don’t need the government’s facilitation, assistance, or existence to exercise a right (rights to one’s life; to property; to freedom of religion, thought, or expression; to be secure in your papers, person, and effects; to arms, etc.) then it’s a natural right. A society without civil rights (anarchy – a state of no government) would be acceptable if the individual’s natural rights were respected and guaranteed. But, because such respect is never maintained, and such a guarantee is not possible, governments are formed so citizens can defend their natural rights through the exercise of, and their insistence upon, their civil rights.
As Napoleon is alleged to have asked, “Where is God in all of this?”
To which LaPlace is alleged to have replied, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
LaPlace (if he actually said this) meant that his explanation of the orbits of the planets didn’t require god. Nor do our rights. You can believe they came from god, but when you’re arguing for your rights with the godless, you are digging yourself a hole out of which you must extract yourself. It’s far better to just not get into the hole.
Well, moron, the Constitution doesn’t GRANT rights; the Constitution enumerates certain unalienable rights and restricts the State from infringing upon and usurping them. So it doesn’t matter whether or not God personally wrote the Constitution, because the phrase “God given rights” refers to the rights everyone is born with, not privileges granted by men in the form of government.
Robert Sweeney…Nobody could have put it any better than you did!
Bigmag47, “Robert Sweeney…Nobody could have put it any better than you did!” On the contrary, anyone could have put it better simply by not starting their opinion with “well, moron.” How hard is that for you to understand you wee, wee, pee, pee, do-do.
WELL STATED GT. I’ve never heard it stated with that kind of wording. WHOO HOO ! Good on ya.
I can.
To be more concise; Nowhere is it written that God gave us these rights.
The Constitution states;
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.
It is stated this way because we have a freedom of religion, and because no man has power over another.
It’s real easy to understand, the words mean what they state.
Russ: Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence — which does not convey any rights, but merely states the case for Independence — not the Constitution.
The preamble to the Constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Your right CGI, sorry for that mistake in Writing “Constitution”.
You can’t edit these posts once you hit the submit button.
To be more concise about my point, (where God or [Creator] is written)
I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson’s words, explaining inalienable rights.
http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0100.htm
Praise Your Comment Semper FI .This Politico Fool,will get his if he denies US ! and he has No Clue and probably never cared to try to Educate himself,about Tyranny in England,or read the Declaration of Independence. or read the federalist papers ,and defense for the Common Good and to Protect our Right with a firearm of choice to Hunt and Recreate with Fire Arms too.
When Janet Napalatano Was D-Gov God I lived in AZ for 1 year and Had to leave. But The good Patriot’s in AZ Prevailed, I bet this misinformed missed the boat Smokin the green monster and Protest all wars. This DemoRAT must have,Growing up in a Liberal House of cards ! We call these types,outsiders who come to AZ and NV, carpetbaggers,Infiltrators of the left Wing Kind !
you want me to take you seriously, then learn to quote the 2A accurately. It has only one comma in it. What you and so many others quote is the “proposed” version. So to help you out, here it is: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Mr. Blannelberry,
It seems to be fashionable to be offended by the mere mention of God these days. If I were an atheist, I would surround myself with unenlightened Christians. They believe that things like murder, stealing and lying are wrong and that they will be held accountable if they do those things to a higher power- even if they get away with it in “this life”. I would also wholehearted advocate that we have God given rights, since those rights were not given by men, they can’t be taken away by men, only by God. These God people make for a more secure society for those of you who don’t believe in a god (but you do believe in a number of little G gods.) The dead and gone gentlemen who gave us the Constitution and Bill of Rights don’t exist either- they won’t preserve these rights for you.
Yes…well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!