Debate Magazine

How Are Gun Rights God-Given And Inalienable?

Posted on the 13 May 2012 by Mikeb302000
How Are Gun Rights God-Given And Inalienable? Our friends over at Ammoland have the explanation.
And the short answer is that part of the foundation for keeping and bearing arms rests in laws that lend order to nature. These are laws that God ordained and implemented just as certainly as he implemented and ordained the moral law (the 10 Commandments). This point is worth explaining because it’s fundamental to an understanding of how our inalienable rights flow to us from God rather than from government. As such, the foundation of those rights transcends government, which is why the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
There are two sets of law authored and maintained by God: Divine Law, consisting of the 10 Commandments and the outworking of those commandments in the New Testament, and Natural Law, consisting of the order intrinsic to nature and the universe around it. We know Divine Law from reading the Bible, and we know aspects of Natural Law because it is written upon our hearts and consciences. The Apostle Paul indicated this in Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”
My response:
  • This is one of those “If you agree no explanation is necessary, if you don’t agree no explanation is possible” kinda things.
    The way I look at it is this.
    1. right to life
    2. right to self-defense
    3. right to own and carry a particular inanimate object called a gun.

    The absurd jump from number two to number three takes the kind of spinning and justifying you gave us in this post.
    Bravo.
  •   What's your opinion? Do the Christian fundamentalist gun owners who push this nonsense have no concern for their atheist brothers-in-arms, or their Jewish friends?
    What about that "shall not be infringed" nonsense? Isn't raising that to the level of "god-given" a bit silly when infringements already abound? Didn't the god-inspired Supreme Court already rule that "reasonable restrictions" are acceptable?
    What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

    Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog