If yes then...

Should illegal "aliens" be allowed to "own" guns in the US?

Maybe at one time it was thought it was ,long ago before any gun laws even existed.
but now I would say no because they must be regulated somehow.
You would not want a person that just got out of jail for a violent crime to be able to buy a firearm
by just walking in a gun shop. At least make it a little harder.
And illegals are already breaking the law so no.

As a Christian I'm not going to say "it's a God given right" because I doubt God cares much about what we defend ourselves with.

The right to defend ourselves I believe is a God given right, and I choose to do that with a firearm.

Not a god given right but a founding Fathers Right, hence the 2nd.

ANd God / religon is a tough topic IMHO

Self Defense is an inherent right.  I don't think God has anything to do with it.

All creatures use the best method available to defend themselves against a predator's attack.  Humans are no different.

I'm not religion, but I certainly think every animal, including humans have the right, the reflexes, and the basic instinct to preserve themselves. I don't blame a bull for goring its handler, and I don't blame a man, woman, or child for protecting their lives by any means necessary. Guns are the modern tools of defense. The only reason why someone would deprive another of having a proper defense is to control them or run over them. I'd feel the same way if I was a caveman, if mother fuckers said I couldn't have a spear I'd be fucking their shit up.

It is a God-given right to those that wish to be US citizens.  The Constitution isn't a "pick and choose" document, one must believe in ALL of it in order to become a citizen.

Quoted: Not a god given right but a founding Fathers Right, hence the 2nd. ANd God / religon is a tough topic IMHO

I disagree, scholars of the constitution seem to have reached a consensus that the constitution is NOT want grants us our rights, they are innate rights that we have put forth in the constitution as a guide to governance. Most constitutional scholars that I've heard lecture (not that many but still), have all said that the constition derives its power from the people, people don't derive the rights from the constitution, they are simply innate. Now that I think about it, I can't remember if they were referring to the Bill of Rights (Ammendments 1-10) specifically or the constitution as a whole.

Every creature was created by God, that implies that every creature has the right to exist.  By extension, every creature has the "right to self defense".   That right is meaningless without the means to self defense; be it sharp teeth, claws, or firearms.

I think that is about as specific as it could get in relation to "firearms as a god-given right".

Indeed, "rights" come only from God.  Applying the term to anything that "man" creates is just silly and utterly meaningless.  That would be a "privilege" at best, which can be revoked at a whim.

Quoted: Every creature was created by God, that implies that every creature has the right to exist.  By extension, every creature has the "right to self defense".   That right is meaningless without the means to self defense; be it sharp teeth, claws, or firearms. I think that is about as specific as it could get in relation to "firearms as a god-given right". Indeed, "rights" come only from God.  Applying the term to anything that "man" creates is just silly and utterly meaningless.  That would be a "privilege" at best, which can be revoked at a whim.

No, I don't think it is.  The means to self-defense are every bit as important as the general right to self-defense, or the right is rendered ineffective.  That means, one has a right to the types of weapons which are necessary to defend onesself against all reasonably anticipated threats, so long as one does not inordinately threaten a lawfully instituted civil society.  Given the current state of technology, that requires at a minimum self-loading firearms.  When we invent phased plasma rifles in the 40w range, then they will be what is required for self-defense, and the right to firearms will no longer be a right.  

Edited to Add:  Actually, the interrelated relationship between the means to self-defense and the right to self defense is the precise reason why, in my opinion, the founding fathers worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did.  If they had just said that everyone has a right to self-defense, a tyrant (or liberal) would simply declare that said right is separate and apart from the right to own firearms, and that you could only defend yourself with your fists, which would of course entirely defeat the purpose of the right.  Therefore, the founders wrote the 2nd to specifically mention ARMS, which is a term that generally covers whatever is the current standard for individual weapons, whether it be the lance, the bow, the gun, or the phased plasma rifle in the 40w range.  

Yes

I saw the other thread and decided to stay out.

But on topic here: Yes.

An "inherent" right and a "God given right" are essentially the same thing. It is my (xxxxx) right to defend myself. Thus it only stands that I have the right to use the most efficient means possible.

The same with even illegal aliens in this country. They have the same (xxxxx) right to defend themselves. Even to the extent of using the most efficient means possible. Does that mean they should be able to walk into a store and purchase a new gun? In a perfect world yes. Because there would  be no such thing as background checks and such. In this imperfect world, no. They can buy them on the second hand market.

No rights were ever "given" to anyone.  Every society that has built a government based on the rights of the people have EARNED those rights, usually through spilled blood.

Quoted: As a Christian I'm not going to say "it's a God given right" because I doubt God cares much about what we defend ourselves with. The right to defend ourselves I believe is a God given right, and I choose to do that with a firearm.

+1

There are no God given rights. The only rights we have as humans are the rights that we preserve, protect, keep and enforce for ourselves. If you think you have God given rights, parachute yourself all alone into the middle of the Amazon jungle and see how long your "God-Given-Rights" protect you against the forces of nature.

Is firearms ownership a "God" given right?

Personally, I think so.  But that has no legal bearing in this country.

Quoted: If yes then... Should illegal "aliens" be allowed to "own" guns in the US?

That depends on how we answer the question about lawbreakers owning guns, period.  If felons were to be allowed to have them, then I see no reason why illegal aliens shouldn't/couldn't have them.*

Jake.

* That's not to say we should "allow" them to have them (which is the follow-up question you really asked).  When we say that we "allow" them to have them, that presupposes that we're "allowing" them to stay in the country [illegally], which we obviously shouldn't do.

I voted "no".

Gun ownership is not a "God-given" right, but the ability to defend oneself and one's property is... from foreign invaders, run-of-themill criminals, and the "king's men".

Now if the best way to defend yourself is by arming yourself better than your antagonist, well; you do the logic.  IMHO, this is a basic human right, and applies to non-citizen immigrants as well.

Quoted: It is a God-given right to those that wish to be US citizens.  The Constitution isn't a "pick and choose" document, one must believe in ALL of it in order to become a citizen.

I think what he was getting at, however, is that the Constitution doesn't GIVE us those rights, it merely recognizes them.

Quoted: Maybe at one time it was thought it was ,long ago before any gun laws even existed. but now I would say no because they must be regulated somehow. You would not want a person that just got out of jail for a violent crime to be able to buy a firearm by just walking in a gun shop. At least make it a little harder. And illegals are already breaking the law so no.

Why not?  Our CJ system is designed and applied to be rehabilitative is it not?  If you cannot trust someone with a weapon then why is that person set free?  

Quoted: There are no God given rights. The only rights we have as humans are the rights that we preserve, protect, keep and enforce for ourselves. If you think you have God given rights, parachute yourself all alone into the middle of the Amazon jungle and see how long your "God-Given-Rights" protect you against the forces of nature.

Just "having" a right doesn't purport to protect you from the world.

You still have the right; but it's obvious to most/all that you can easily perish by merely "having" it.

Even Sarah Brady, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Gandhi, etc had this right.  Whether they choose/chose (or ever choose) to *exercise* it is another story entirely......

Has nothing to do with god, rights are innate.  They exist whether you exercise them or not, whether there is a god or not, whether the gov't infringes on them or not.  The right to keep and bear arms is an extention of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Constitution derives it's power from the people, not the other way around, as it is now done in the halls of justice.  You have the right to defend your life.  These rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are products of human existance..

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.
~ John Adams

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?  
~Thomas Jefferson


Both the American and French Revolutions stated a belief in the "rights of man". The American Revolution attributed these rights as coming from the hand of God, the French however claimed they came from the State. Which turned out better? Where would you rather live?

 I don't give a rat's ass about illegals as far as their rights are concerned...they ain't citizens and they don't count......

BUT JESUS SAID I SHOULD SELL WHAT I HAVE TO BUY A SWORD IF I DON'T HAVE ONE!!!

Well, since the firearm has replaced the sword....I am goin' with that!!!!

No, to keep and bear ARMS is a God given right.  Our Constitution doesn't extend its protection to foreign invaders.  In fact, according to the Constitution, the President is supposed to protect us from them.

Shok

The ability to defend one's life and health is a God given right.  That means that a person has a God given right to use whatever tool or method necessary to defend his/her life from anyone, anything, anyplace, at any time.  The tools part extends to firearms in this day and age, IMO.

Yes, God gave us the minds to device & use tools

It's a human right, like freedom of conscience.

SELF DEFENSE is a God given right.  If the badguys can have guns to hurt people, then people should be able to have guns to hurt criminals.  

That's the way I see it.

I don't recall anything in the FSM's teachings about owning a gun, but it certainly is a right.

The Founders of the US believed we were endowed by our creator with "unalienable right" to life.  That implies a right to defend that life.  All basick Lockean/Enlightenment period natural law stuff.  

IMO a fair reading of the Constitution and contemporary documents like Federalist Papers supports an individual (as opposed to collective) right to bear arms arising from the god-given right to life (and implicitly self-defense).  There was a Senate study of meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the '80s which concluded more or less the same thing (don't ask me why we needed a study).  In 1787, "arms" meant what the military used, but then again the Founders didn't believe in standing armies and weapons technology has advanced a lot since then.

There's a whole "collective right" argument arising from the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment that muddles things up.  IIRC the Supreme Court case upholding the restriction on short barreled shotguns (Miller?) was based on the argument that such weapons were not suitable for militia use.

The right to defend yourself isn't the same as the right to bear/own firearms. You have the right to learn self-defense and use it, the right to walk/run away from a potentially life threatening situation, the right to submit to the demands in order to preserve your life, etc. It doesn't state "you have the right to blow someone's head apart if you determine they are a threat to your life". If someone points a gun at you and then you in turn point a gun at them, who's life is being threatened? At that point it's both people and both have a right to defend themselves. Logic would say, both shoudl walk away, but since we seem to have a penchant for taking the most extreme measures we woudl rather shoot it out.

I'm playing devil's advocate here on both of these threads... mainly because it seems like the responses in this one and the other one are pretty much polar opposites.

Not all rights outlined in the Constitution are "God-given" rights (aka "Natural rights").

"Constitutional rights" come in at least two flavors - Civil Rights and Natural (or "human") Rights.

"Civil Rights" that are protected by the Constitution are far more "infringible" in that they are actually CREATED by the Gov't. These include things like sufferage, various "licenses", right to speedy trial, right to counsel, etc. These are rights that some entity OTHER than you must provide to you or be involved with in order for you to exercise them.

"Natural Rights" (i.e. "God-given" rights) require NO other entity for you to exercise these rights and, by themselves, AFFECT no other entity. They include things like the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to be secure in your person and possessions, etc. These rights are far less "infringible" - or as in the case of RKBA, should be far less infringible than they are nowadays. These are the "sacred" rights that many call "God-given". No one calls the right to vote in a Democratic or Republican Primary election a "God-given" right - but the RKBA, free speech, worship and privacy ARE called "God-given" rights.

For the most part "Natural Rights" apply to almost every free person in this nation, citizen or not, and very well SHOULD apply to everyone because, in order to exercise these rights, they require absolutely NOTHING from you or me or the Gov't.

It is the "Civil Rights" that non-citizens - and especially illegal aliens - should NOT be automatically provided. Civil Rights should ONLY apply to citizens because these require the cooperation from the very gov't to which illegal aliens do not belong.

I believe that a non-citizen legal resident, or even illegal alien for that matter, retains their Natural Rights  no matter WHERE the are because in exercising those rights, they infringe on no one ELSE'S rights and they require NOTHING from anyone else in order to exercise them.

As far as illegal aliens, yes they do have the right to keep and bear arms. HOWEVER, if and once they are discovered and caught - because they are by definition "criminals", they should be printed, DNA sample taken, interrogated then dropped off at the border with a message that they'll be shot as a criminal trespasser if they try to get back in.

Wodan, maybe. I don't think Vishnu.

Quoted: Not all rights outlined in the Constitution are "God-given" rights (aka "Natural rights"). "Constitutional rights" come in at least two flavors - Civil Rights and Natural (or "human") Rights. "Civil Rights" that are protected by the Constitution are far more "infringible" in that they are actually CREATED by the Gov't. These include things like sufferage, various "licenses", right to speedy trial, right to counsel, etc. These are rights that some entity OTHER than you must provide to you or be involved with in order for you to exercise them. "Natural Rights" (i.e. "God-given" rights) require NO other entity for you to exercise these rights and, by themselves, AFFECT no other entity. They include things like the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to be secure in your person and possessions, etc. These rights are far less "infringible" - or as in the case of RKBA, should be far less infringible than they are nowadays. These are the "sacred" rights that many call "God-given". No one calls the right to vote in a Democratic or Republican Primary election a "God-given" right - but the RKBA, free speech, worship and privacy ARE called "God-given" rights. For the most part "Natural Rights" apply to almost every free person in this nation, citizen or not, and very well SHOULD apply to everyone because, in order to exercise these rights, they require absolutely NOTHING from you or me or the Gov't. It is the "Civil Rights" that non-citizens - and especially illegal aliens - should NOT be automatically provided. Civil Rights should ONLY apply to citizens because these require the cooperation from the very gov't to which illegal aliens do not belong. I believe that a non-citizen legal resident, or even illegal alien for that matter, retains their Natural Rights  no matter WHERE the are because in exercising those rights, they infringe on no one ELSE'S rights and they require NOTHING from anyone else in order to exercise them. As far as illegal aliens, yes they do have the right to keep and bear arms. HOWEVER, if and once they are discovered and caught - because they are by definition "criminals", they should be printed, DNA sample taken, interrogated then dropped off at the border with a message that they'll be shot as a criminal trespasser if they try to get back in.

Best answer so far.

Even though it seems that "God" given or natural rights are only rights of Americans... This goes a little beyond the question but I think you could probably make sense or it more than most.

What's the difference between The_Macallan, the American, exercising his "God" give right to buy/own/use a gun vice The_Macallan the Britain or Australian, who apparently doesn't have those same "God" given rights, even though they are not "created" rights.

It seems like it's a "God" given right because MAN said it is... kind of plays against itself if it isn't the same across the world.

And if they are God given then why can the government take them away, either in the case of a convicted felon... or a Kalifornian.

Quoted: Quoted: Not all rights outlined in the Constitution are "God-given" rights (aka "Natural rights"). "Constitutional rights" come in at least two flavors - Civil Rights and Natural (or "human") Rights. "Civil Rights" that are protected by the Constitution are far more "infringible" in that they are actually CREATED by the Gov't. These include things like sufferage, various "licenses", right to speedy trial, right to counsel, etc. These are rights that some entity OTHER than you must provide to you or be involved with in order for you to exercise them. "Natural Rights" (i.e. "God-given" rights) require NO other entity for you to exercise these rights and, by themselves, AFFECT no other entity. They include things like the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to be secure in your person and possessions, etc. These rights are far less "infringible" - or as in the case of RKBA, should be far less infringible than they are nowadays. These are the "sacred" rights that many call "God-given". No one calls the right to vote in a Democratic or Republican Primary election a "God-given" right - but the RKBA, free speech, worship and privacy ARE called "God-given" rights. For the most part "Natural Rights" apply to almost every free person in this nation, citizen or not, and very well SHOULD apply to everyone because, in order to exercise these rights, they require absolutely NOTHING from you or me or the Gov't. It is the "Civil Rights" that non-citizens - and especially illegal aliens - should NOT be automatically provided. Civil Rights should ONLY apply to citizens because these require the cooperation from the very gov't to which illegal aliens do not belong. I believe that a non-citizen legal resident, or even illegal alien for that matter, retains their Natural Rights  no matter WHERE the are because in exercising those rights, they infringe on no one ELSE'S rights and they require NOTHING from anyone else in order to exercise them. As far as illegal aliens, yes they do have the right to keep and bear arms. HOWEVER, if and once they are discovered and caught - because they are by definition "criminals", they should be printed, DNA sample taken, interrogated then dropped off at the border with a message that they'll be shot as a criminal trespasser if they try to get back in. Best answer so far. Even though it seems that "God" given or natural rights are only rights of Americans... This goes a little beyond the question but I think you could probably make sense or it more than most. What's the difference between The_Macallan, the American, exercising his "God" give right to buy/own/use a gun vice The_Macallan the Britain or Australian, who apparently doesn't have those same "God" given rights, even though they are not "created" rights. It seems like it's a "God" given right because MAN said it is... kind of plays against itself if it isn't the same across the world. And if they are God given then why can the government take them away, either in the case of a convicted felon... or a Kalifornian.

Because the gov't has MORE guns.

Quoted: What's the difference between The_Macallan, the American, exercising his "God" give right to buy/own/use a gun vice The_Macallan the Britain or Australian, who apparently doesn't have those same "God" given rights, even though they are not "created" rights. It seems like it's a "God" given right because MAN said it is... kind of plays against itself if it isn't the same across the world.

I'm not sure if you're being rhetorical or asking a real question. I'll take a crack at it again anyway.

If you were absolutely ALONE on an island with no other human around - you could still exercise your "God-given" rights because they are not CREATED by anyone and require no one else to be there with you for you to exercise them. Just by the fact that you exist, as a sentient individual person, you are endowed by your existance with these rights, (right to worship, speak, bear arms, live freely, pursue happiness, etc.).

And if they are God given then why can the government take them away, either in the case of a convicted felon... or a Kalifornian.

In the case of the convicted felon, a "crime" is the infringement of someone else's rights (stealing, assaulting, etc.). The only way to deter and punish such crimes (short of "frontier justice" whereby the injured party doles out retribution on the offender themselves) is for the state to punish the offender. ALL forms of punishment, by defintion, require an infringment on the offender's rights. It is "legal" because the society (to which the offender voluntarily belongs) agrees upon these punishments against the guilty as being MORE "just" than letting the offender go unpunished (which allows MORE innocent rights to be infringed).

In the case of Kalifornia.... fuck it, all bets are off there.

Quoted: Because the gov't has MORE guns.

I'd be willing to call BS on that one... The government has enough guns to equip all of the employees that use them. There are way more guns NOT owned by the .gov... The government just doesn't want us owning them because then they'll be seriously outgunned.

Not to mention, for the people that don't own any guns there are people like "us" that own enough for them (look at some of the photo threads on here... some people here could equip a small army).

NO.....they have NO rights to weapons ownership in THIS country because THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.  No problem with them owning guns in their own country.

Quoted: As a Christian I'm not going to say "it's a God given right" because I doubt God cares much about what we defend ourselves with. The right to defend ourselves I believe is a God given right, and I choose to do that with a firearm.

What he said.

Quoted: NO.....they have NO rights to weapons ownership in THIS country because THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.  No problem with them owning guns in their own country.

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about being a citizen?

Quoted: Quoted: Because the gov't has MORE guns. I'd be willing to call BS on that one... The government has enough guns to equip all of the employees that use them. There are way more guns NOT owned by the .gov... The government just doesn't want us owning them because then they'll be seriously outgunned. Not to mention, for the people that don't own any guns there are people like "us" that own enough for them (look at some of the photo threads on here... some people here could equip a small army).

I meant that the gov't has more guns than the individual in these cases.

Quoted: Quoted: NO.....they have NO rights to weapons ownership in THIS country because THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.  No problem with them owning guns in their own country. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about being a citizen?

Again... pretty much the whole point to this and the linked thread...

What "god"?

I prefer the term "god-given" because it recognizes the eternal nature of man to opt for self-preservation, much like any other creature on this earth.  The right to own a firearm flows from the right to self-defense.  I think it is a fairly obvious argument that doesn't need any explanation if you deal in reality.

The answer, at least according to the Founding Fathers, is a simple "Yes".

But I'd like to address this quote, (no personal offense to the author):

Quoted: Not a god given right but a founding Fathers Right, hence the 2nd.

I can tell you that if it were possible for the Founding Fathers to read this statement, they would turn over in their graves.  They would not believe that it was even possible for modern Americans to so absolutely misunderstand where our rights come from.

Rights such as these were said by the Founding Fathers to be "Unalienable Rights", meaning "Given By God".  They were not given by the Founding Fathers or any other men or government.

And these rights were not given to Americans only, but to all men.  Some governments have crushed these and other rights, but they do so against the will of God.

Of course, the Founding Fathers also understood that only Christian men could be trusted to enjoy these rights without limits.  It was unnecessary to say that we have the right to Free Speech and then add, "But you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theater".

No such limiter was needed, as Christian men would not do such a thing.

Likewise, limits on types and number of firearms are unnecessary for Christian men.  A true Christian man will not harm innocent neighbors with his firearms.  No one except criminals needs fear a Christian man with a firearm.

There you go boys.  Some of you will now have a stroke.

Quoted: The answer, at least according to the Founding Fathers, is a simple "Yes". But I'd like to address this quote, (no personal offense to the author): Quoted: Not a god given right but a founding Fathers Right, hence the 2nd. I can tell you that if it were possible for the Founding Fathers to read this statement, they would turn over in their graves.  They would not believe that it was even possible for modern Americans to so absolutely misunderstand where our rights come from. Rights such as these were said by the Founding Fathers to be "Unalienable Rights", meaning "Given By God".  They were not given by the Founding Fathers or any other men or government. And these rights were not given to Americans only, but to all men.  Some governments have crushed these and other rights, but they do so against the will of God. Of course, the Founding Fathers also understood that only Christian men could be trusted to enjoy these rights without limits.  It was unnecessary to say that we have the right to Free Speech and then add, "But you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theater". No such limiter was needed, as Christian men would not do such a thing. Likewise, limits on types and number of firearms are unnecessary for Christian men.  A true Christian man will not harm innocent neighbors with his firearms.  No one except criminals needs fear a Christian man with a firearm. There you go boys.  Some of you will now have a stroke.

Well stated, Old_Painless.

i think it is a right and a right that cant and shouldnt be infringed on no matter what any politition thinks,

if they took the "RIGHT" away every civilian would be unarmed or breaking the law, and even if they were legal or not the bad guys would have them so they nise well let the good guys keep em too

Self defense is God given, the right to own arms is guarnteed by the Constitution.

Quoted: Not a god given right but a founding Fathers Right, hence the 2nd. ANd God / religon is a tough topic IMHO

The Founding fathers didn't give right's, they only acknowleged those given by God.