TexasCHLforum.com

I begin this thread with the intent of trying to adequately express my definition of “rights� and the permutations of that definition, in response to a statement I made during another discussion. My intent is that this discussion be innocuous. I ask that you read the entire treatise before posting your flaming rebuttal.

Let me preface by stating that I am neither theologian nor attorney but that the discussion is based on elements defined by both. By education I am a scientist and I am also a devout Christian. I have no problem justifying the two, however I do have unanswered questions and this is an effort to clarify, at least personally, the points raised. That being said I would like to offer the following:

Theology, particularly Old Testament theology, aside, the colloquial definition of “God given� is that which is deemed to be innate. That is to say, that something which is “God given� requires no learning process. It is inherent within the system. We will call these the “Theological rights�.

Conversely, that which is not “God given� i.e. innate, requires an outside, non-inherent, stimulus in order to be realized. This stimulus is man made i.e. is NOT innate. We will call these the “Legal rights�

Assuming that we accept these definitions then the following is presumed (for this exercise we will limit ourselves to the human species). A few examples of “God given rights� are:
- The right to gather and ingest food.
- The right to find and use shelter against the elements.
- The right to protect oneself against attack.

A few examples of “non-inherent rights� are:
- The right to dictate policy within a given set
- The right of property ownership

Now let’s take a closer look at the “rights� in question, those being the right to protect oneself against attack (God given) and the right of property ownership (Legal).

It can be argued that since the right to protect oneself is God given, then the right to use any and all means available to do so is God given as well. I can find no fault in this line of thinking therefore I can logically make the connection that the use of firearms, if they are available, to protect oneself is a God given right.

It can also be argued that property ownership is NOT a God given right but one that requires an outside stimulus i.e. an agreement between parties, or groups, that defines “property�, sets limits upon the method of collection of such property, assigns overseer responsibilities to review and record those limits, etc. This is in fact a Legal set of circumstances and I can logically make this connection as well.

Now the question becomes how to justify these two points.

My rationale is as follows:
If I can define, and accept, “God given� rights as those that are, in fact, innate and which require NO input from any outside source in order to be binding AND I can accept that the concept of “Property Ownership� is NOT an innate condition but one that derives it’s source of strength from agreements made externally, then I can justify the argument of firearm ownership.

The conclusion then is that while the use of firearms in protection of oneself is a “God given right� the actual ownership (“right to keep�, right to a CHL, etc.) of a firearm (or anything else for that matter) is a legal concept and is NOT a “God given right� therefore the arguments made for, or against, a “rights hierarchy� are entirely dependent upon the current external agreements which dictate the legal concept of ownership. If that is the case then debates concerning such a hierarchy are strictly academic and have no real meaning until such time that the current “agreements� dictating/defining legal ownership are modified.

The problem however, is that innate, God given rights are absolute. They cannot be extinguished. They may be subjugated but can NOT be expunged.

Legal rights, on the other hand, can be defined, redefined, modified, completely deleted or completely reinstated over and over again. Since this is the case then, in a free society, it becomes imperative that the external agreements that define “Legal rights� be closely monitored lest any of those rights be forfeited, but the legitimacy of those rights is based entirely upon the “agreements� that are in place at any given time. By the same token, if you are dissatisfied with the current “agreement� then have it changed more to your liking.

So there.

First I would like to say that I appreciate the time and thought you put into this…I do not necessarily agree with everything you said…but I appreciate it none the less.

shaggydog wrote:Theology, particularly Old Testament theology, aside, the colloquial definition of “God given� is that which is deemed to be innate. That is to say, that something which is “God given� requires no learning process. It is inherent within the system. We will call these the “Theological rights�.

I’m not sure yet how I feel about this definition, especially given the list of “god given� rights you provided. I mostly take issue when you say it requires no learning process. For example, a child has no idea that they need to find shelter when it is 30 below outside. They would have no concept that it could kill them to be exposed to those elements. Only from the teaching of another or by watching someone else would they have that concept. A child has almost no concept of self-defense. How are they to know that someone pointing a gun at them could kill them and that they need to defend them selves from that. A child does not know to protect itself from someone striking them until such time they have been struck and now know the pain associated with it…a child does not know this at birth and therefore it is learned. Now, I will agree that the body has some built in mechanisms for self protection…for example, the eye-lids automatically snap shut when the brain realizes something may get in it. That is not learned as it is inherit at birth.

I do agree with the second definition, at least at this point can not think of an argument against it. Unfortunately, because your thesis relies on the reader to accept your definitions (which I do not accept your definition of God given) then I can not completely agree to everything else your thesis says.

You might be able to understand why John Adams and Ben Franklin changed some of the original wording that Jeffersonn wrote in the Declaration of Independence to "self evident"...That was key to a lot of things stated in that document...

Our community of law abiding citizens "choose" to be empowered by keeping and bearing arms as a moral, unalienable, individual right, that is clearly "self evident"...

My absolute defiance of the infringements to that right is "self evident"...

"unalienable" (in most opinions) is the same as "God given", therefore, moral and individual...

You "choose" to be moral (or not), so when someone or something removes, or infringes upon your right to be a moral person (citizen), you have to decide a few things when it come to how committed you are to the cause...

I know this may be waayyyyy out there for some, I'm just throwing this out there to give another "outside the box" perspective...

I would argue that property IS a God Given right. In fact, I would argue that in order for liberty to exist there must be property rights above all else. That is, the true understanding of liberty being free to do what you need to be fruitful (as opposed to "whatever I want to do whenever I want to do it" anarchist mentality).

Property is the fruit of your labor. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. Property is connected with all of your rights. Guns and other weapons are property. They are the tools for your right to self defense. A car is your property, it is a means of transportation. Crops are the means by which you eat or earn money from. These things are the fruits of your labor.

Land is property. It is that which God alone has blessed you with. You are the lord of said land, or premesis under which the King of Kings has granted you title.

Those entering your property must submit to your authority just as you must likewise submit to their authority on their property.

If we don't have property rights, then we really don't have any rights at all. God made us stewards over this earth. To each man as his time came was granted title to land or property. He gave it to us to be fruitful subjects under him.

If you being a part of group A goes to the government (made up of men) and demands group B conform to A's wishes in regard to their property then all property rights are then not subject to the owner but to group A's wishes or the government's wishes. Group A and the government have in effect become tyrants.

We may not like what group B is doing. It may be wrong, it may be right or we simply might not like it. BUT it is nevertheless B's property and we have no right to interfere. If we do, then a third group C has just as much righ to do the same to A.

Doug.38PR wrote:Land is property. It is that which God alone has blessed you with. You are the lord of said land, or premesis under which the King of Kings has granted you title. Those entering your property must submit to your authority just as you must likewise submit to their authority on their property.
If we don't have property rights, then we really don't have any rights at all. God made us stewards over this earth. To each man as his time came was granted title to land or property. He gave it to us to be fruitful subjects under him.

This is where we have a problem. The government, or even a HOA, can take away your real property for any number of reasons.
And they often do.

Rex B wrote:This is where we have a problem. The government, or even a HOA, can take away your real property for any number of reasons.
And they often do.

They can evict you if you don't pay your rent (taxes, hoa dues) so who really owns the property?

aardwolf wrote:

Rex B wrote:This is where we have a problem. The government, or even a HOA, can take away your real property for any number of reasons.
And they often do.

They can evict you if you don't pay your rent (taxes, hoa dues) so who really owns the property?

You own the property, but you can have a lien put against your property for any outstanding dues. taxes, maintenance fees, etc.

aardwolf wrote:

Rex B wrote:This is where we have a problem. The government, or even a HOA, can take away your real property for any number of reasons.
And they often do.

They can evict you if you don't pay your rent (taxes, hoa dues) so who really owns the property?

Who can evict who?

If you are paying rent...you do not own the property...the landlord does. And he has the right to be compensated for your use of his land. HOA usually takes a second lean against your house if you fail to pay HOA dues. If your home is homestead exempted than it is extremely difficult to take it away from you. HOA will get their money when you try to sell the house as it will need to be settled prior to closing...they will not just take it and if they try they must go though due process. HOA can do this only because they have a contract with the home owner. Land is just like any other personal private property which can be bought, sold, bartered, used as collateral and etc. The government can only take it under very special circumstances, Taxes may be one of them, but I would assume it is as a last resort. Eminent domain is another reason. Eminent domain the feds must use it for some sort of public interest and they must pay a reasonable value for it…they just do not take it…they shoe horn you into selling it to them cheap. I know some will argue the SCOTUS ruling on this a couple of years ago…but since then an executive order was signed by Bush saying they the feds can not pass there power of eminent domain to private business groups.

So…my point is….no one is taking anything with out due process and just cause. The reason we require due process and just cause…is simply because we as property owners do have rights.

aardwolf wrote:

Rex B wrote:This is where we have a problem. The government, or even a HOA, can take away your real property for any number of reasons.
And they often do.

They can evict you if you don't pay your rent (taxes, hoa dues) so who really owns the property?

We don't have a problem. Note I said "in a truly free society." Ours is not truly free. The government and HOA should not be able to steal your property (well, the HOA is a little different, that is if you are not living up to the deed restrictions and reservations that you agreed to when you originally bought the property.). Property taxes are a tax on the fruit of your labor just as the Income Taxes are. Both taxes are immoral and wrong.