Unalienable rights endowed by the Creator/God are as simple as 1, 2, 3.
For example:
A free American has a right to his own life. That right to life is given to each American by God.
Since an American has a right to his own life, it then logically follows that he must also have the inherent right to protect his own life - i.e., the right of** self-defense**.
The Founding Fathers could clearly see that if citizens had the rights to their own individual lives, and if citizens must also be free to protect themselves, then naturally it necessitates that individual citizens MUST have the means to protect themselves - ergo: citizens MUST have the Right to Bear Arms.
================================================================================
(If the individual means of self defense(guns) could be denied by some other foreign government, then it would mean that the government could prevent those people from defending themselves and it would then mean that those people were not free and did not have a right to their own lives. It is typical among other countries that slaves and other peoples with less or with little freedom are prohibited from owning guns by their governments since un-free peoples are subject to the goverment )
Let’s get back to the original point of disagreement-- your statement that:
That is simply not correct. The constitution is silent on the source of our rights.
“We the people” created the constitution, and the constitution is meant to secure rights from encroachment by the government, but those rights existed, in the abstract, before the constitution existed. That is how that document is constructed.
The Founders didn’t sit around and say: OK, let’s make a list of all the rights we have. They assumed that we retained all rights, unless we decided to give up some of those rights to the government. The BoR is explicitly a partial list of our rights. It doesn’t create rights. It recognizes that those rights already exist.
Again, that’s not my own philosophy. I’m just not willing to project that philosophy onto a document that was not written with that philosophy in mind.
So, unless you can point me to the part of the constitution that says the people are the source of rights, it’s simply incorrect to claim that it does.
Just because you say something doesn’t make it so. God no more grants American rights than he grants winning lottery numbers.
The very idea is illogical, why doesn’t God grant American rights to people in the Middle East? Are we his chosen people? Silly, as I say and it doesn’t stand up to a second of actual reasoned thinking.
If society says you have the right to defend yourself you do. If we lived in some sort of pacifist commune where there was no right to self-defense, you wouldn’t have one. You could complain about how we should (in Pacifist-Topia) have the right to self-defense, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherent. It means that society says it’s not.
Any jerk with a two by four can remove your “right” to life. It’s only kept in place because society conditions people to respect them and punishes, to the best of its ability, transgressors.
At least unalienable rights anyway. That’s what the phrase means.
“A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.”
You can’t prove it. You don’t need to evoke God to justify its existence. It is just accepted as true.
Take Euclid’s postulates and a whole belief system follows. Take the human rights that we accept axiomatically and a different sort of belief system, and with it a certain sort of society, follows.
**“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.”
**
Nonsense. First, there is no God; and even if there was he’s dead silent. He isn’t in a position to give anyone anything. And second, having a god (and which god?) hand down rights does not make them unalienable, since he could just decree them invalid the next day or declare an entirely different set of “rights”. And third, gun ownership doesn’t make people safer, nor does it prevent tyranny. Gun ownership was legal and common under Saddam Hussein or in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Your claim is wrong on all levels.
There’s a difference between preventing someone from exercising a right, and eliminating that right. A slave in the antebellum South, for instance, had a right to freedom. He was not able to exercise that right, but he still had the right. If it were not so, then we would have no basis for saying that slavery in the antebellum South was unjust (it was certainly legal).
If a person does not have the right to defend himself, then he doesnt have a right to his life. Therefore, a free person has a right to defend himself.
In order to defend oneself, one MUST have the means to defend oneself. For a government to deny a person the means to defend himself would mean that the person does not have right to his own life.
The Founding Fathers clearly saw that it was self-evident that pure logic dictates that if a free person has a right to his own life, then he has a right to defend himself, and of course he has a right to the means of self-defense.
Hypothetically you could get a bunch of lawyers and politicians to make a million different laws or amend the Constition a hundred times but it still wont change God’s unalienable right to life (and the means of self-defense) that all Americans have.
Again, that’s nonsense. You’ve just declared freedom to be impossible, because no one has the ability to defend themselves, gun or not. Individuals are weak and easily killed; owning a gun makes them no more durable. That’s what armies and police are for.
And again, the opinion of your nonexistent god is irrelevant.
The color of ones skin does not negate the unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. It was wrong to deny any American his unalienable rights.
No matter how many stupid laws you pass, a black American still has just as much unalienable rights to self defense, free speech, etc as an American white man.
The basis is philosophical not religious. Plenty of atheists see people as born with rights that we have to respect. Plenty of religious people think they are special and other religions are lesser religions and their religious rules are not valid. Ask a few catholics about muslims today and see how it comes out.
Do you feel it would be right for someone to enslave you? No? Then if you don’t agree that the slave has the same right to freedom you do, you are being hypocritical. That’s what rights are largely about; forbidding things that no one wants to happen to them. And to the extent they have an objective basis, our shared human nature that causes us to all have certain needs and desires in common is that basis.
There’s no more gods in your world than there are in mine, since they are the same one. And again; it doesn’t matter. If a god shows up and declares something to be a right, that doesn’t make it one.
