Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/19/2004 10:38:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:11:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 12:11:43 PM EST by Old_Painless]
Well old buddy, I'm glad I looked all the way on page three to see this. Looks like you had the muse on you.

Nice write-up. You are wrong on this issue (again), but a nice write-up anyway.

Your main failing is that you make assumptions regarding the Founding Fathers that are mistaken. It is true that God is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but this is because the Founding Fathers thought that the general population was so universally understanding that all rights come from God, that it was unnecessary to mention it further.

You can determine this by reading their vast volume of writings. I recommend some books from this site:

www.wallbuilders

It is a great site and full of great information. It has whole books that refute your arguments.

I understand what you are saying, but it conflicts with the vast writings of the Founding Fathers.

They understood, and "We the people" understood, and Old_Painless understands that God gives all rights. Here and in the hereafter.

Rights given by the government, and rights given by "we the people" can be recended.

Rights given by God never fail.

(I'm going to take my walk, so just argue among yourselves for a while.)
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:44:15 PM EST
I believe the right to self-defense, and the defense of your loved ones and the innocent, is a God-given right.

What weapon you use to do it is a function of Constitutional rights.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:55:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
They [the founding fathers] understood, and "We the people" understood...that God gives all rights. Here and in the hereafter.

Rights given by the government, and rights given by "we the people" can be recended.

Rights given by God never fail.



SA, while I agree that the rights enumerated in the BOR are inviolate, I also agree with the above quote. Any Constitutional scholar (without a degree from UC Berkley) would be hard-pressed to come up with a counter-argument.

One needs only to look at the historical writings of the men who wrote the Constitution.

BTW, I also agree with you when you say:


Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
We must understand EXACTLY where our rights come from and why we are entitled to them. It is only in this way that we can defend them from attack and legislation that seeks to infringe or limit them.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:59:50 PM EST
All rights come from our Creator. The Constitution simply enumerates them. It additionally it limits the power of the Federal Government.

Government by its nature cannot give you rights. Government by its nature restricts rights.

Unfortunately, we are human and we invariable screw up all we touch.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:00:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:06:24 PM EST by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:01:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:05:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:10:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:12:46 PM EST
Actually, I believe that both documents were born from the theories surrounding the concept of "Natural Law". As such, they are BOTH based on the idea that all basic human rights are universal to the Human race, and that the right to be armed was granted by the Creator--whether or not both mention this concept specifically.

Then again, it's been a while since those Justice Studies classes...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:15:05 PM EST
BTW, in several writings of the time it is openly acknowledged that the BOR's merely acknowledges rights given by the creator. It does not grant rights, rather it restricts the intrusion of the .gov on those presupposed rights.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:16:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:22:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
All rights come from our Creator. The Constitution simply enumerates them.




But that is simply NOT true.

Here is the source of our rights as US citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People of the United States" is clearly the source of our rights and "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" is where we established them. Our rights are not simply enumerated in the Constitution as you suggest.




You are wrong, my friend.

Just look at what was written: "We the people....do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

They were writing a Constitution to enumerate the rights they had, not to give rights. The "People" cannot give rights. They don't have that power.

Only God has the power to give rights.

And He has done so. And I thank Him and give Him all praise.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:23:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:24:18 PM EST by slash-5]
Uh, OK.

I am not arguing with your high-level concept, I am arguing with some of your leaps of logic.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:28:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:32:30 PM EST by ZEN]
Nice piece of writing and I see what you are getting at.

But, ............

The most important thing to remember is that when it comes to your rights, the constitution doesn't mean shit. They are YOUR rights. (natural rights) They belong to you no matter what ANY piece of paper says. No matter what any slick lawyer or politico says. No one can take them away from you. They can only keep you from exercising them temporarily.


God given or natural rights, it is all the same thing. The constitution does not give or grant us any rights. It only affirms rights that at the time of its making our founding fathers recognized as rights that we all had. And restricts the govt from infringing on those natural rights.

Our rights are not the "result" of any document or govermental order. The are the result of being born on this planet equal to other men, and having the right to live that way. And no other man can tell us what to do as long as we are not interfering with someone elses rights.

The British had abused these rights when they ruled us and during the revolution.

Our founding fathers worried that the same thing would happen again with the creation of the new centralized federal govt. They were right to worry. So they put these guarantees in the constitution.

There was a lot of unease amongst the people about creating a powerful federal govt. The federalist papers were the propaganda used to convince the people to ok this new govt. If you read the federalist papers this becomes very clear.

And the guarantees in the bill of rights were there to protect the people from that new fed govts power.

That is why the bill of rights is always under attack and derision from the powers that be. It makes it hard for them to create the socialist nightmare they dream of.

The most important thing to remember is that when it comes to your rights, the constitution doesn't mean shit. They are YOUR rights. They belong to you no matter what ANY piece of paper says. No matter what any slick lawyer or politico says.

You don't need permission from anyone to exercise your rights. (of course evil govts may jail you for doing so)


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this on is mine"
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:34:09 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:34:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:36:47 PM EST by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
All rights come from our Creator. The Constitution simply enumerates them. It additionally it limits the power of the Federal Government.

Government by its nature cannot give you rights. Government by its nature restricts rights.

Unfortunately, we are human and we invariable screw up all we touch.



Which begs the question, why can rights that can't be restricted by the Federal Government be restricted by the State Government? We need a little pre-emption reasoning here, otherwise we sound like a bunch of schizophrenics and act like we still think little fiefdoms are OK.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:39:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:40:12 PM EST
All people are born with the same rights. Sadly, not everyone is allowed to exercise those rights. The Constitution enumerates those rights and strictly forbids the government to intrude on them. Those rights have been intruded upon because not enough Americans have banded together to force the government to comply with the Constitution.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:41:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:42:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:44:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

"do ordain and establish"

Ordain - To regulate, or establish, by appointment, decree, or law; to constitute; to decree; to appoint; to institute.

Establish - To set up; found; bring about

Hmmmmm, looks like a "creation" to me.

Don't see any definitions like "merely enumerate."



You are proving my point.

They were "ordaining and establishing" a Constitution. They were not "creating" or "giving" any rights. They were merely listing these rights in a Constitution.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:46:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

OK in thact case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world?

< snip >




Yes, they are. ALL humans, by virtue of being born human, innately posess freedom of speech, religion/conscience, association, KABA, . . . ALL of them, including ones not enumerated.

Most humans however live under governments that are not restrained from abrogating these rights.

Only constant vigilance keeps our usurpers at bay.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:47:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

"do ordain and establish"

Ordain - To regulate, or establish, by appointment, decree, or law; to constitute; to decree; to appoint; to institute.

Establish - To set up; found; bring about

Hmmmmm, looks like a "creation" to me.

Don't see any definitions like "merely enumerate."



You are proving my point.

They were "ordaining and establishing" a Constitution. They were not "creating" or "giving" any rights. They were merely listing these rights in a Constitution.



Yep, what he said.

Styer, I really appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are a bit misdirected.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:47:11 PM EST
What is this vs thing? God-given and constitutional is the same thing, proprerly understood.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:49:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ZEN:




OK in thact case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world?

Wouldn't that mean the ACLU is correct in promoting the idea that foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Wouldn't that mean non citizens of this country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment?






Yes, that's probably what that means.

The aclu isn't wrong about everything they say.

The proplem with the aclu is that they selectivly defend rights and that they view rights as civil rights not individual rights.

That is, they see rights as being granted from the govt, not natural rights.


They used to make some sense, but now they just seem to be a front group for socialism.

In any event, don't let the words of slick lawyers or politios twist your thinking into a knot, and for Odins sake do not get trapped into playing their word games.

It is so simple. These are natural rights that no amount of verbage and writing or court rulings can destroy.

Do not let anyone convince you that your rights disapear like a bad fashion trend just because commies are running the country.

It's a trap.

(okay, someone can post that fish head creature from star wars now that I said it)

Bear in mind that we are right, and have the power of simple truth on our side.



Zen

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:50:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Ok then again:

In that case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world?

Wouldn't that mean the ACLU is correct in promoting the idea that foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Wouldn't that mean non citizens of this country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment?



Now you have hit paydirt!

That is exactly true. God gives all men the right to speak freely. He gives all men the right to worship Him freely.

But the Bill of Rights we are talking about are entitled, "Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America".

"We the people" you spoke of, established a Constitution where they said, "These rights are ours. This document limits the Federal Government from infringing upon these rights."

If other men in the world are willing to "water the tree of Liberty with their blood", they can have the ability to exercise these same rights. Rights given by God, but infringed by evil governments of evil men.

Our Forefathers rose up against a wicked government that infringed upon the rights given to them by God. They then established a country with a Constitution that limited the government's ability to infringe upon these God-given rights.

And God blessed them, and us, for their courage.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:52:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2_of_5:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

OK in thact case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world?

< snip >




Yes, they are. ALL humans, by virtue of being born human, innately posess freedom of speech, religion/conscience, association, KABA, . . . ALL of them, including ones not enumerated.

Most humans however live under governments that are not restrained from abrogating these rights.

Only constant vigilance keeps our usurpers at bay.





Wow, 2 of 5 put it so much better than I did.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:56:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:58:09 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:01:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:05:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

"do ordain and establish"

Ordain - To regulate, or establish, by appointment, decree, or law; to constitute; to decree; to appoint; to institute.

Establish - To set up; found; bring about

Hmmmmm, looks like a "creation" to me.

Don't see any definitions like "merely enumerate."



You are proving my point.

They were "ordaining and establishing" a Constitution. They were not "creating" or "giving" any rights. They were merely listing these rights in a Constitution.



By "ordaining and establishing" they were "founding and bringing about" (which is creating - Just like they FOUNDED this country) the Constitution and all the rights contained within it.



They were establishing the powers of the govt. Not the rights of the people.

Before the etablishment of the federal govt did we not have the right to breath air? To ride a horse? to associate with whom we chose? To assemble? And to own guns?

Yes we did.

The constitution did not give us the right to exist and be free.

It gave the govt powers. And tells the govt what powers it may not have. Those non-powers are explained in the bill of rights.

LIberals would love us to buy into the idea that our "rights" are granted by the constitution of the govt, because rights granted can be restricted or taken away by "laws".

Rights that are natural and pre-existing cannot be written out of existance.

Don't fall into the liberal trap of believing the constitution is the beggining or the end of your rights. It isn't. It is only a piece of paper drawn up to creat a federal govt and restrict it's powers. Period.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:07:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:13:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:19:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Now if it is your contention that you believe God wishes these rights and freedoms for ALL MEN, ...



Just what you may consider a "minor" point (But not minor to me ), God doesn't "Wish" anything. He is God. He does as He pleases. No "wishing" required.

He doesn't "wish" these rights to men, He freely gives these rights to men. But it is up to men to throw off the shackles of evil governments and exercise their God-given rights.

That's what our Founding Fathers did.

And thank God they weren't as confused as you are as to why they had these rights.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:22:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 2:25:53 PM EST by ZEN]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Styre wrote:

I never thought that. I consider the BoR inviolate ALWAYS.

I just don't the rights of a US citizens are universal (for example I don't think foreign nationals have a first amendment right to petition our govenrment for redress of grievances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand how you feel. I have felt that way about foreign nationals at times as well. '

But, ...... that is how people felt about "niggers" after slavery had been discontinued.

Those "niggers" shouldn't have guns. God forbid, ......those rights are for god fearing white people, not "niggers".

And so, the first gun control laws this country had ever seen were put into law to keep "niggers" from owning guns.

Now we are the "niggers". And the power elite are the "white people".

It is a slippery slope we begin to walk when we decied that "those people" (whomever "they" may be) are not worthy of being treated like "us" and have "rights".



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:34:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 3:40:10 PM EST by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:38:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:55:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
I am not confused. I could just as easily suggest you are wrong in your beliefs about the Constitution and would have the specific wording of the Constitution to reinforce my statements.



There is no "specific wording" that disagrees with me.


I just don't think God is the source for the specific rights within the BoR and more importantly the Constitution specifically states the source of those rights.


I understand that you do not think God is the source. But you are wrong, my friend.


I don't recall a SINGLE country of Christian men who had rights such as those of the 5th Amendment, 7th Amendment, 9th Amendment or the 10th Amendment prior to that of the United States.


I agree with you on this one. Just goes to show how much God has blessed this nation.

Once again, we must agree to disagree, old buddy.

But, as a side note, ain't it great that we live in a country where we can discuss such issues freely?

God gave us that right.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:59:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:49:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 5:13:00 PM EST by Swordslinger]

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Well old buddy, I'm glad I looked all the way on page three to see this. Looks like you had the muse on you.

Nice write-up. You are wrong on this issue (again), but a nice write-up anyway.

Your main failing is that you make assumptions regarding the Founding Fathers that are mistaken. It is true that God is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but this is because the Founding Fathers thought that the general population was so universally understanding that all rights come from God, that it was unnecessary to mention it further.

You can determine this by reading their vast volume of writings. I recommend some books from this site:

www.wallbuilders

It is a great site and full of great information. It has whole books that refute your arguments.

I understand what you are saying, but it conflicts with the vast writings of the Founding Fathers.

They understood, and "We the people" understood, and Old_Painless understands that God gives all rights. Here and in the hereafter.

Rights given by the government, and rights given by "we the people" can be recended.

Rights given by God never fail.

(I'm going to take my walk, so just argue among yourselves for a while.)





Amen!

The above recipe is a blueprint for enslavement. Its what the communist have taught for years. If your rights can be given to you by a man with a pen and paper, then they can be taken away by a man with a pen and paper. No thanks! I dont worship the constitution, nor the guys that wrote it.

I would be safer fighting along side 3 Christian men than an army of non-Christians. People with faith have a reason to fight for something. According to Col. Jack Moorhe, the communist in Korea figured this out. They divided the people of faith from the atheists. Several hundred atheist could be gaurded by just a few gaurds. Not so with people of faith. They had to be divided up into much smaller groups with more guards.


Edited to add:
I have found that argueing relgion with people who do not believe is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it. For it is thefool who hath said in his heart that " there is no God".
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:19:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 5:21:39 PM EST by ZEN]
If you believe that your rights were granted by a piece of paper and a stroke of a pen, then you are in interesting company.

Klinton, fineswine, stalan, pol pot, hitler, etc.

Your rights may have been created that way. And maybe they can be changed or altered by a judges ruling or the stroke of a pen or some new law or regulation.

But my rights were not. MY rights were with me when I was born. And they existed when people were still living in caves. My rights don't depend upon some technocrat. They don't live or die within someone elses philosophy.

And,......... anyone who denies them to me, will find themselves looking down the barrel of my rifle.

After all, ........ "It's MY island"

Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"


Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:50:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


Originally Posted By ZEN:

LIberals would love us to buy into the idea that our "rights" are granted by the constitution of the govt, because rights granted can be restricted or taken away by "laws".



No they can't, that is the entire point of Constitutionally "protected" freedoms. We can create laws and amendments all we like so long as they aren't in conflict with those original 10 rights which are inviolate.





I suppose you could ask the Japanese-Americans during WW2 about Executive Order 9066 and what happened to their "protected" freedoms.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:51:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 6:09:12 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
The rights mentioned in the DoI are what we consider "God Given" or "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The rights mentioned in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) are given to us by "We the People" and nowhere in the Consitution is God or a creator mentioned. And these rights are NOT universal but specifically the rights of citizens of the United States and they include the first 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Disagree.

The SCOTUS has reaffirmed numerous times that the words "the people" go beyond merely "citizens of any state" but rather to the populace at large - everyone:

U.S. Supreme Court: U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

"The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added).

While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."


Though this was only a "dicta" (non-binding statement by the court), it seems that the words "the people" go beyond JUST citizens but includes even non-citizens living in this country too.



The rights of the BoR (and the Constitution) are not "God given" but they are rigidly codified and specifically defined. These are NOT the rights of ALL MEN nor are the rights universal, they are only the rights of "the people of the United States." Now some will argue that if they are not "God given" (which they aren't the Consitution specifically states where the rights come from and God or a creator is not mentioned) they can be taken away. This is NOT true however. The entire point of the Constitution was to establish these rights as inviolate. That means we can vote on things and change things EXCEPT those things that are "Constitutionally" protected such as the BoR. If we discovered "God" didn't exist the rights of the Constitution would remain intact and inviolate as a result where the "God given" rights of the DoI may become unfounded. But that scenario is pretty unlikely.

Now certain people like to refer to gun onwership as a "God given" right. This is not accurate. Gun ownership is a protected right of the Constitution (specifically the BoR) and the Constitution is very specific about the origin of that right, it comes from "We the people..."


Again, I disagree. The Constitution never states the origin of any of our rights. The Preamble simply states that "We the people... do ordain and establish this constitution" not the rights protected therein.




The important thing here is IF you try and say the "the right to bear arms" is a "God given" right then you are trying to associate the specific rights of the BoR of the Constitution with the "God given" rights referred to in the DoI but then ALL the rights of US Citizens are now universal rights of all people everywhere. This is the ACLU basis for declaring that Middle Eastern terrorists are deserving of 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protection.

No. The RKBA is a "God given" right but the right to free legal counsel is not NOT because both are in the BOR - but because the former is a "Natural Right" and the latter is a "Civil Right".

Rights protected under the Constitution & the BOR come in at least two flavors - Civil Rights and Natural (or "human") Rights.

"Civil Rights" 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" 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 or the right to free legal counsel for the accused a "God-given" right - but the RKBA, free speech, worship and privacy ARE called "God-given" rights.

For the most part, when the Constitution protects against gov't abuse of our "Natural Rights", those protections apply (or should apply) to every free person in this nation - citizen or not - because exercising those rights requires NOTHING from the gov't or anyone else in order for a person to exercise them. Hence, they are "God given".

If there were NEVER any Constitution or gov't around, I could still:
* Speak my mind
* Worship my God
* Be secure in my property
* Keep and bear arms...

I can still do those with no Constitution or Gov't so they are my "natural rights" as a human.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:59:06 PM EST
"when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house.........his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 5:59:50 PM EST
"when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house.........his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21

Self defense is a God-Given right that cannot be stripped away by mere mortals.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 6:00:29 PM EST
"when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house.........his possessions are safe." - Luke 11:21

Self defense is a God-Given right that cannot be stripped away by mere mortals. And in this day and age, we use the weapons that give us the greatest chance to self defense...which are firearms.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 7:28:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 7:32:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 7:34:43 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 7:36:22 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top