Guns As A " God-given Right"

[PhuturePriest]

Can someone explain this to me? I just don't see how guns are an inherent right as human beings. Life, education, proper medical care, these are human rights. How is shaped metal that shoots shaped metal a human right? I don't understand this line of thinking, and I've been led to believe that the only reason people say it is is because 'Murica. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I can't promise you'll change my opinion, but I am genuinely curious as to how this logic works.

[Not The Philosopher]

From the right to life comes a right to legitimate self-defense. I consider the owning, and, in certain cases, the use of firearms to fall under 'legitimate'.

[NotreDame]

What does "guns are  a god-given right" mean and who holds that point of view?

 

Also, explain what "Life, education, proper medical care, these are human rights" means, ie. what are "human rights" and why do these rights include the three things you've mentioned?

[PhuturePriest]

What does "guns are  a god-given right" mean and who holds that point of view?

 

Also, explain what "Life, education, proper medical care, these are human rights" means, ie. what are "human rights" and why do these rights include the three things you've mentioned?

 

This is a fair enough question. I know for a fact I've read in the Catechism that life, education, and proper medical care are human rights. However, I have not been able to find that section.

 

And I've heard many conservatives say that it's a God-given right to have guns.

Edited April 8, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[NotreDame]

This is a fair enough question. I know for a fact I've read in the Catechism that life, education, and proper medical care are human rights. However, I have not been able to find that section.

 

And I've heard many conservatives say that it's a God-given right to have guns.

 

So.... I'm not really sure you understood the questions that I asked, but your answer only makes me want to ask more.  You are conflating "human rights" with "God given rights" and now you are bringing Catholic teaching into it...  Although all three use the term 'right' they all mean different things and are usually arrived at in different ways.
 

Putting all the issues with your post aside, you are essentially just asking why one would believe citizens should have the right to own guns?

[PhuturePriest]

So.... I'm not really sure you understood the questions that I asked, but your answer only makes me want to ask more.  You are conflating "human rights" with "God given rights" and now you are bringing Catholic teaching into it...  Although all three use the term 'right' they all mean different things and are usually arrived at in different ways.
 

Putting all the issues with your post aside, you are essentially just asking why one would believe citizens should have the right to own guns?

 

Perhaps I am confusing terms. But this wouldn't be a proper FP thread without me confusing terms, other people, and myself, all at the same time. It's a talent I have.

 

I'm asking why some citizens believe that owning a gun is a right given by God.

[havok579257]

From the right to life comes a right to legitimate self-defense. I consider the owning, and, in certain cases, the use of firearms to fall under 'legitimate'.

 

 

self-defense is a given right.  although the use of guns is not a given right unless you believe self defense is impossible without guns.  

Edited April 8, 2014 by havok579257

[NotreDame]

Perhaps I am confusing terms. But this wouldn't be a proper FP thread without me confusing terms, other people, and myself, all at the same time. It's a talent I have.

 

I'm asking why some citizens believe that owning a gun is a right given by God.

 

well, "god given right" is usually used in the natural right/law sense.  I'd start on that subject by reading up on John Locke:

 

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property
 

[chrysostom]

If Abel had been informed of his rights, he would have had a .45 loaded and ready to raise himself some Cain (in self-defense).  But due to misinformation about gun rights and the Democratic Party platform, he was offed in a field.

 

  :crazyshoot:

[PhuturePriest]

If Abel had been informed of his rights, he would have had a .45 loaded and ready to raise himself some Cain (in self-defense).  But due to misinformation about gun rights and the Democratic Party platform, he was offed in a field.

 

  :crazyshoot:

 

He wouldn't have been offed in a field if he wasn't oft in a field.

[chrysostom]

He wouldn't have been offed in a field if he wasn't oft in a field.

 

And especially not if he had been often afield.

[Winchester]

Owning property is a human right. The owning of a firearm is not inherently evil, nor is the use of one inherently evil. 

 

Those who claim that gun ownership is not a human right generally claim that the use of violence to prevent others from owning weapons is their right, even if they must go through the process of supporting a an agent to act on their behalf.

[PhuturePriest]

Owning property is a human right. The owning of a firearm is not inherently evil, nor is the use of one inherently evil. 

 

Those who claim that gun ownership is not a human right generally claim that the use of violence to prevent others from owning weapons is their right, even if they must go through the process of supporting a an agent to act on their behalf.

 

I've never said firearms or the ownership of them are inherently evil. Guns are morally neutral. Saying a gun is inherently evil is like saying chocolate chip cookie dough is inherently sinful (though it is, however, inherently delicious.) I just question that the ownership of a gun is a God-given right like life, education, and medical care are, which is clearly stated in the Catechism passage that seems to no longer exist.

[polskieserce]

Sometimes guns are the only way to get rid of evil.  Could you imagine living in Europe and belonging to a group on Hitler's extermination list before the Allies invaded Europe?  Sometimes entire governments have to be taken down to force.  That is why guns, and other weapons for that matter, are a God-given right.

[PhuturePriest]

Sometimes guns are the only way to get rid of evil.  Could you imagine living in Europe and belonging to a group on Hitler's extermination list before the Allies invaded Europe?  Sometimes entire governments have to be taken down to force.  That is why guns, and other weapons for that matter, are a God-given right.

 

To elaborate on this, you believe it's the right of people to have weapons to defend themselves in the cases of tyrannical governments, ergo guns?

[NotreDame]

I've never said firearms or the ownership of them are inherently evil. Guns are morally neutral. Saying a gun is inherently evil is like saying chocolate chip cookie dough is inherently sinful (though it is, however, inherently delicious.) I just question that the ownership of a gun is a God-given right like life, education, and medical care are, which is clearly stated in the Catechism passage that seems to no longer exist.

 

when people speak of a god-given right to fire-arms, they are probably speaking of a "natural right" in the enlightenment sense of the term:

 

According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent. As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”   (not the best definition, but the shortest and most concise I could link to quickly)

 

The right to life would also then be a 'natural right' by this definition.

 

When you start talking about rights to education and health care these are probably not going to be understood as natural rights in the enlightenment sense.  In the secular sense they are "human rights" and people can arrive at that various ways.

 

Now as for the church, I'm not sure if and/or where they define these things as "rights" nor on what basis they define them as rights.  Please do go look for them and share them with us. 

 

As for the difference between "natural rights" and "human rights"...  Natural rights are generally things we have innately that some feel not be taken away from without; life and free-will (liberty) the most obvious examples.  These social 'Human rights' like education and healthcare are different.  These are things we don't have via 'nature', but some feel are necessary to enjoy our natural rights. 

 

As for guns.... We by nature have the right to property and the right to defend ourselves.  This would include the right to weapons.  Some enlightenment philosophers believe that we could as a people decide to cede that right to the government.  That's part of the reason why there was a bill of rights:  to set a minimum standard on freedoms that couldn't be infringed later on by majorities.  That's also why so much discussion today revolves are the 2nd amendment. 

 

So that is why people say it's a "god-given right". 

[polskieserce]

To elaborate on this, you believe it's the right of people to have weapons to defend themselves in the cases of tyrannical governments, ergo guns?

 

Even broader than that.  Tyrannical governments certainly count as a situation where people have the right to use guns, and even heavier weapons for that matter.  However, that is not the only situation.  If a person breaks into your house and tries to kill you, you have a right to defend yourself.  If there is a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and society temporarily (or permanently :unsure: ) breaks down, then the same principles apply.  In a lot of cases, it simply won't be possible for the average person to defend him/herself without a gun if 3 people with bats and machetes are after you.

[Socrates]

The means to self-defense, and defense of one's family, etc. is a God-given right, and the Church teaches that protecting the lives of those entrusted to one's care is in fact a duty.  (Maybe I can pull up the relevant Catechism passages when I get more time.)

 

Today, being able to defend oneself and family generally involves firearms.

 

If we ban guns, we monopolize lethal force in the hands of the state, and of lawless thugs, and leave everyone else defenseless.

 

The right to life implies a right to defend it against unjust aggression.

[Winchester]

Unless someone else is claiming there's a god-given right (whatever that is) to prevent others from owning guns, it doesn't matter. 

 

Assuming one believes in rights, at all. If there are no rights, then it's just a matter of force. But neither side uses that argument. It's always some kind of morality thing, although gun control advocates tend to be more shrill.

[NotreDame]

Assuming one believes in rights, at all. If there are no rights, then it's just a matter of force. But neither side uses that argument. It's always some kind of morality thing, although gun control advocates tend to be more shrill.

 

Actually, I don't think natural law theory involves morality to arrive at rights - at least not in the sense you are using it (although I could be wrong.)

 

I also don't think gun rights advocates use morality in their main arguments, do they?  Maybe I'm missing something.

 

On the other hand, 'human rights' (excepting those that fall under 'natural law') are, almost by definition, moral principles.  From where I stand they also seem pretty arbitrary, but that's my perspective - I'm sure some PHD somewhere has written a paper explaining why they're not.