- Status
R
Rau
Guest
He has a say too Jon. The people, in the approved manner, have the final say. Not the framers.
R
Rau
Guest
Jon, the people established those rights, and the people can revise them. It is wrong to suggest this isn’t so.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That does not mean the right to own a gun is one of those which it is among.
R
Rau
Guest
And yet the society, the “people”, not each individual established rules, and we mostly accept that. How strange a position you now argue! “You have a right by right”
Who gave you the right to own a gun, but not a tank? Can you give yourself a right to own a tank?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Due process is also not an inherent right. Did Solomon render “due process” in his decision about the disputed child?
There are some rights that are inherent, such as the right to life. That we know from our moral teachings of the Church. But other rights - that’s up for discussion.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Sometimes examining extreme cases can point to flaws in an argument. If the right to bear arms were inherent and unlimited, it would apply to an M16 as well. The fact that very few people have them now is beside the point. It shows that the right is up for reasoned limitation. Who decides how that right is to be limited? The people, acting through their legitimate authority, acting in the common good, just like it says in the catechism.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Some rights are yours by right. Not all.
Why? Why is the right to life inherent? Some are arguing that a parent should have the choice to end a child’s life up yo a certain age!
naturalnews.com/041398_post-birth_abortion_infanticide_Melissa_Harris-Perry.html
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I know the Bill of Rights says this, but it’s just the Bill of Rights. It is not a sacred document.
If the scope of what you are saying is limited to US law, then the Bill of Rights becomes a foundational document, and worthy of being referenced to support the points it supports. But if the scope of what you are saying is universal, and you claim it applies to all people, then the Bill of Rights is just the thoughts of one group of men.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, they are obviously wrong. But if you want a more complete “why” for the right to life, I’m sure the Church has a lot more resources to justify this right than I could possibly provide, so I will just defer to them, just like you deferred to Jefferson.
R
Rau
Guest
Well, the sheep get to decide where to live. And the wolves cooperate to decide where to hunt.
Right given by the people are decided by the people. Rights given by God can only be justly denied by God. Guns in society is in the former set.
R
Rau
Guest
Great. A document of men, of mortal man’s intellect alone. As Lucy said, it’s not holy scripture. Why do you pretend otherwise?
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Protection of my individual freedoms is the only reason I am interested in being part of any community.
Follow 3 simple rules. 1. Do not initiate violence or dishonesty against other people. 2. Do not infringe on the property of other people. 3. Do everything you have agreed to do.
Anything less is pernicious and anything more is superfluous.
Jefferson spoke of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are useless if we are morally defenseless against other people who would initiate violence against us. Thus, if you accept the right to life, you must accept the right to self-defense. Any right is practically useless unless we have the means to implement it. Weapons are the most efficacious means of self-defense. To attack my right to own a weapon is an attack on my right to self-defense which ultimately weakens my right to life.Come again?Which inalienable rights was Jefferson speaking of? Anything I feel is a right? Anything the framers declared a right?
Rights expand as technology evolves. Your right to free speech extends to the internet even though the Founding Fathers had no idea that such a thing could be invented. The 4th Amendment protects telephone conversations from the police. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment protects my modern firearms.I’m pretty sure owning an M16 wasn’t what he had in mind!! I’m even surer that one was not on the Creator’s mind.
The sanction of others does not justify a violation of my rights.
That is quite literally what the concept of rights denotes. If your rights come from the sufferance of others, they can be taken away by others. To call them rights makes a mockery of the term.How strange a position you now argue! “You have a right by right”
Who gave you and other people the right to decide my rights by majority vote?
If it is not mine by right, to call it a right is disingenuous. If you want to argue that bearing arms is a privilege granted by society, fine. However be open about what you really stand for and prove it.
R
Rau
Guest
And yet by being a part of a community, you surrender many freedoms in exchange for other benefits.
By any and all means, regardless of consequences? No, that is contrary to Catholic moral theology.
which is how you support your “right” to own fully automatic weapons, tanks, grenade launchers and so forth. Got it!
You forget that the right to guns in society was bestowed by man. It did not pre-exist, as though from God.
True of all rights established by man.
There is clearly great misunderstanding about the nature of rights, and their status according to their source. Had the Bill of Rights explicitly addressed the rights of women to terminate their unborn child, would that mean that murder of the unborn is now an absolute right that cannot be questioned? Would society be “not permitted” to re-think that particular right? Has God been ‘snookered’ by the Bill of Rights? What say the Catholics here?
Clearly, rights bestowed by man are subject to review by Man and cannot be taken to be absolute as those from God.
- Status