The Fallacy of Being Above it all

This is a discussion on The Fallacy of Being Above it all within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 9MMare I didnt even read all that. The minute you bring up God in any discussion about the Const or our Rights, ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43
Like Tree65Likes

Thread: The Fallacy of Being Above it all

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I didnt even read all that.

    The minute you bring up God in any discussion about the Const or our Rights, you lose a huge part of the American citizenry. Hence the failure of the Republican party (even if it's only people's perceptions). Because it is obvious from many conservative statesmen's platforms and STATED beliefs that it is indeed about God.

    So I prefer to try and make a more realistic distinction.
    If you didn't read all that - then you don't understand my argument, or why "God" is even mentioned. Please don't dismiss an argument before reading it. You'll find that here, I focus SOLELY and ONLY on founding documents and American law. Anyone who wants to dismiss "God" in that sense, must also dismiss our founding documents in the why I've argued it.
    1MoreGoodGuy and zacii like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749

    Re: The Fallacy of Being Above it all

    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I didnt even read all that.

    The minute you bring up God in any discussion about the Const or our Rights, you lose a huge part of the American citizenry. Hence the failure of the Republican party (even if it's only people's perceptions). Because it is obvious from many conservative statesmen's platforms and STATED beliefs that it is indeed about God.

    So I prefer to try and make a more realistic distinction.
    The belief in God is an intrinsic part of our founding documents.

    Even if one doesn't believe in God, it is foolish not to acknowledge that.

    And in order to understand the Constitution, we must understand the thinking of the men who wrote it.

    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,917
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    You are stretching things...altho maybe there is historical perspective (not one I'm aware of but I'm not a historian).

    I however, was clearly talking about God (you brought up some 'higher power' and then decided to define that in the next post as ..."not of man") and GUNS and I made the distinction for gun rights because I also referred to other methods of self defense (I think I said hundreds or used some other very large term).

    The right to life as inherent? Sure. Specifically using a gun? (Which is what I wrote). Not so much, as you just agreed.
    First, to the part in bold: I did not agree at all and if you think I did, you are mistaken.

    Not a stretch at all. You should study history...especially if you are going to discuss it and try to refute it.

    Let's get something straight...I was discussing the Right to keep and bear Arms...words and their meanings are important. You then (in a post that you wrote in response to a post I wrote) want to change the discussion to "God never bestowed any gun rights on anybody."

    Since you changed the subject, I further explained that I was discussing "Arms" not guns and tried to explain to you the difference in the uses of the two terms.

    I was also discussing that Rights don't come from government, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and that all Rights are inherent.

    You then replied with the following statement:
    Our Founding Fathers...men, perhaps part of a govt body you want to consider a 'higher power?'....chose to preserve our gun rights thru the 2A to enable us to retain Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
    This again is an attempt to change the subject since I never considered the Founding Fathers as a "higher power" and I never considered the government a "higher power". Those are inaccurate assumptions on your part. Further more, I never claimed that "gun rights are "preserved" thru the 2nd Amendment. This again is an inaccurate statement. The word "preserve" implies that the document is responsible for keeping the Rights in existence. I tried to explain to you that Rights are inherent and existed before the documents were written and that the documents give the reader a place where they can reference the inherent Right in a written form.

    I was also discussing that we are born with Rights, that they are not given to us, they are inherent Rights.

    I also stated this:
    These Rights come from a higher power than man, government and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Some people call this higher power "God".

    Rights are not given to you...we are born with Rights...Rights are INHERENT...
    I also addressed that there is a difference between "higher powers" and, men & governments that are "more powerful" than others. You may not believe in a "higher power" than yourself and that is fine. Your Rights are still inherent to you. All Rights are still inherent to you. You always have them, they can't be separated from you. They are a permanent and inseparable quality which people retain possession of. Through use of force, some one or some government can force you into a position where you are temporarily prevented from exercising your Rights...this is called slavery. Once that force is lifted/removed, you are free to exercise your Rights. Your Rights didn't go anywhere...you had them all along...you just couldn't freely exercise them.

    For you and anyone else who is reading this, please take a few minutes out of your day and look up the word "inherent" in the dictionary...study the meaning...learn and memorize the meaning. Then do the same with the word "unalienable" or the more common "inalienable". Then say the following: "ALL RIGHTS ARE INHERENT AND ARE UNALIENABLE"...in other words...ALL RIGHTS ARE EXISTING IN SOMEONE AS A PERMANENT AND INSEPARABLE QUALITY OR ATTRIBUTE AND ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE OR CAPABLE OF BEING TAKEN AWAY.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    I did not change the subject. I was very clearly discussing the right of gun ownership as a God-given right. And I see no reason to reiterate what I wrote. No one else has to accept it....it stands there for any that wish to read it.

    There is a very clear definition for "gun" and a very clear definition for "God" as used by Christians. Introducing broader interpretations to 'win' an argument on the Internet...well feel free if you must. *I* was not discussing 'inherent' rights...I understand the distinction...yes, there is one.... between that word and the word God.

    (Btw, not all the FF's were Christians)
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,917
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I did not change the subject. I was very clearly discussing the right of gun ownership as a God-given right. And I see no reason to reiterate what I wrote. No one else has to accept it....it stands there for any that wish to read it.

    There is a very clear definition for "gun" and a very clear definition for "God" as used by Christians. Introducing broader interpretations to 'win' an argument on the Internet...well feel free if you must. *I* was not discussing 'inherent' rights...I understand the distinction...yes, there is one.... between that word and the word God.

    (Btw, not all the FF's were Christians)
    Then why did you quote my post and write a response to my post in which you changed the subject? If you had meant for your post to stand on its own, you shouldn't quote someone else's post. But your post is clearly a response to my post because you not only quoted my entire post but you also quoted me within your post.

    Yes, you were trying to discuss the right of gun ownership as a God-given right and I was explaining that "God given Rights" and all Rights are "inherent Rights".

    There is a very clear definition for "gun" and a very clear definition for "God" as used by Christians.
    What's your point?

    Introducing broader interpretations to 'win' an argument on the Internet...well feel free if you must.
    Sorry for explaining that the 2nd amendment is about the Right to keep and bear Arms and not just about guns. And sorry for explaining that "God" also means "higher power" and that Rights are inherent.

    *I* was not discussing 'inherent' rights...I understand the distinction...yes, there is one.... between that word and the word God.

    (Btw, not all the FF's were Christians)
    Not quite sure what word you mean by "that word" but I think you mean that there is a distinction between "inherent" and "God", which is true. But "inherent" Rights and "God given" Rights are the ways people with different beliefs express the same thing...Rights don't come from man or Governments.
    Sorry to tell you, but if you are discussing "Rights" you are by default discussing "inherent Rights" because all Rights are inherent.

    I'm assuming the last part in parenthesis is directed at someone else since I never made that claim.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,133
    I think the word you guys are looking for is "natural rights". Philosophically, they are the same thing as "inherent" or as some like to call "God given" rights. As stated many times, they exist independent of any government or written set of legal statutes. They are the basic freedoms that all people in the world inherently possess. Given the power, any entity will abuse it's ability to control the masses for it's own profit/preservation/continuation and attempt to deny the people of their natural rights. America is so great because the constitution was created to protect those natural rights of the people from themselves (and others) from tyranny and oppression. I just hope this country isn't too far gone to realize the path it is heading. America has had wars with England, a civil war amongst its own people, and many wars overseas to fight for natural rights - and yet this country is eroding it's own freedoms away faster than we can fight to protect other people around the world. Couple these problems with our representatives outrageous spending problem and the future is looking really rough...
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array Sweatnbullets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotus222 View Post
    I think the word you guys are looking for is "natural rights". Philosophically, they are the same thing as "inherent" or as some like to call "God given" rights. As stated many times, they exist independent of any government or written set of legal statutes. They are the basic freedoms that all people in the world inherently possess. Given the power, any entity will abuse it's ability to control the masses for it's own profit/preservation/continuation and attempt to deny the people of their natural rights. America is so great because the constitution was created to protect those natural rights of the people from themselves (and others) from tyranny and oppression. I just hope this country isn't too far gone to realize the path it is heading. America has had wars with England, a civil war amongst its own people, and many wars overseas to fight for natural rights - and yet this country is eroding it's own freedoms away faster than we can fight to protect other people around the world. Couple these problems with our representatives outrageous spending problem and the future is looking really rough...
    Very good post!

    I find that many topics of debates are nothing more than debates on semantics.

    I know that many people are not going to relate with the term "God given rights" and if that is the case please go with "natural rights."

    I think this stuff is important enough to not be side tracked with a religious debate.

    "God given" is just a term that I use, but to each their own. The main thing is that we are on the same side and we should not let semantics or differing religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) divide us.
    JD, Bill MO, 9MMare and 1 others like this.

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweatnbullets View Post
    Very good post!

    I find that many topics of debates are nothing more than debates on semantics.

    I know that many people are not going to relate with the term "God given rights" and if that is the case please go with "natural rights."

    I think this stuff is important enough to not be side tracked with a religious debate.

    "God given" is just a term that I use, but to each their own. The main thing is that we are on the same side and we should not let semantics or differing religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) divide us.
    I like your idea of "natural rights," and it does fit with the "rights bestowed upon us by God," as written in the D of I, since it was a humanist/enlightenment document. The problem I have with it however, is that if we focus on "natural rights" rather than "God-given rights," we miss a concept more implicit than explicit: if rights are God-given, then the U.S. Fed. Govt. is not the final authority. They are working in relation with a "god of nature" (D of I phrase) and therefore must temper each and every decision with the understanding that they as the fed. govt. will be held accountable by a god of nature. If we go strictly with natural rights, current academics and politics have reduced natural law to meaninglessness. Thus, they could argue, there is very few natural rights, if any, because all constructs of "what is natural" are created via culture. Therefore, those in government don't have to worry about "natural rights" anymore since that line of reasoning has been disavowed through gender-studies, intercultural studies, etc.

    In short, one makes the govt. the final arbiter of what is or is not a right, the other makes them accountable for understanding what is or is not a right. I'd prefer the latter to the former.

    That's not to say your argument, or using your phrasing doesn't have merit. I think in the beginning stages of debate it's a great idea, but it needs to be expanded upon once the basic premises are argeed upon, so that the rights aren't lost to a govt. that thinks of itself as arbiter.

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array nontechguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    In The Middle
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    The Nazi's did the same thing with all rights.
    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    Martin Niemoller
    Hoganbeg and Sweatnbullets like this.

  11. #40
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,415
    Great OP, and has everybody on this thread written to their representatives yet? If not, how about getting to work on that instead of discussing where our rights come from!

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,637
    Feinstien will tell you flat out , she would like "all guns" prohibited, and they have been using the "mandatory confiscation " of ALL guns in Australia as their "example". So, what does that tell us all ........ they want them all.

    If you "READ " what they are saying .... and not "reading INTO" what they say.... the are NOT using words like Assault Rifles , or even "Rifles " now...... it's "weapons". And, Feinstien herself has said recently, this includes shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

    The "mag" ban , is not just on AR rifles... it's ALL GUNS .. period.

    pay attention to the fine print ......
    "any weapon used or designed to use by the military " ....... would include a 1911, 92FS, etc.
    "any weapons with a rail " ...... includes Glocks, XD's, PF9's, FN7's, etc....handguns.
    " any weapon CAPABLE of holding more than a 10 round magazine" ----- includes handguns.
    then... the best one.... that's been mentioned here and there ... "all semi-automatic weapons".
    Hoganbeg and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    5,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    Great OP, and has everybody on this thread written to their representatives yet? If not, how about getting to work on that instead of discussing where our rights come from!
    I have written letters to all my elected officials and I will be writing more often.

    Please take a moment out of your day and write letters to your elected officials and tell them how you want them to represent you and your State.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array Sweatnbullets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by nontechguy View Post
    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    Martin Niemoller
    I knew there was something significant from history that was in line with what I was trying to say, but I just could not put my finger on it.

    Thank you for this, because it has been driving my nuts.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

first they came for fallacy

,

reader suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of congress fallacy

Click on a term to search for related topics.