Petition Asks White House To Recognize Second Amendment Does Not “Give” A Right
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 5 months ago
… a Facebook colleague has alerted us to a source that just doesn’t get it: The White House.
Per its explanation of the Constitution:
“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”
[ … ]
I just got done creating a White House petition.
“Recognize that the government does not ‘give citizens the right to bear arms,’’ it asks, further explaining and requesting:
“The White House website section on the Constitution instructs ‘The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.’ This is exactly wrong and contradicts the very nature of unalienable rights, the clear intent of the Founders and the understanding of the right as articulated by the Supreme Court.
“Privileges are granted. Rights are inherent to the condition of being human. The Second Amendment didn’t create a right to keep and bear arms — it acknowledged a right that was already assumed and accepted at the time of ratification. Nobody in government gave us that right, so it’s not theirs to take away.
“Please correct your website description and make an announcement about the change.”
I signed. You should too. It’s simple and quick. This is 3-second activism.
I would add that the notion of unalienable rights is based on the condition of being human only insofar as you accept the notion of man as made in the image of a Holy God. It’s beyond the scope of this little post to engage in a debate over the concept of Lockean “natural” rights versus a Christian world and life view.
I disagree with Locke, I am a Calvinist. Nature is impersonal, powerless, and confers nothing at all on any man or animal. In fact, according to a naturalistic world view, man is an animal. Animals kills each other all the time without regard for moral righteousness.
The subject here is moral righteousness. What is right, just, absolute, an unalienable. That can only come from God and His immutable law-word, not nature.
On July 1, 2019 at 9:12 am, Fred said:
“I would add that the notion of unalienable rights is based on the condition of being human only insofar as you accept the notion of man as made in the image of a Holy God.”
I don’t think you have to be Calvinist to agree with this. It seems pretty basic as a Christian precept. But the American Churches won’t pull this thread. That’s sad. The evidence of God abounds in nature and His created order, the Natural Law. To assume all is chaos takes a greater leap of faith than believing on the name of the only begotten Son. That everything would be held together by some thread of nature is an assumption with no conclusion. Who or what created this thread, is one question, another is to ask, what is my proper role in creation.
“Only a fool would mistake what he does not understand for nonsense.” – Toby Webber.
I’ve never heard preaching on Dominion or read anything about it in Christian literature. Pitty, nature can only rightly be understood by man through the understanding of what is granted, to whom it is granted, and who granted it. If you assume that Dominion is ours simply because we can reason as a higher animal form than you make yourself as a god. If you assume that nature through evolution gives you dominion than you make Earth, the creation, a god. One is idolatry of the worst order and the other is a Paganism.
I’m pretty sure that the American Church won’t discuss Dominion because a rightful and well studied understanding of it leads to only one conclusion; God is sovereign, man is his highest creation, not governments of men. Can’t have people walking around believing that they are granted a master role in creation, things such as self determination in the will of God, ownership of self in so much as we are God’s, the rights of men to be free based upon our duties unto Holy God, it’s scarwy – hold me, good heavens, Christianity could break out, it could be another reformation, and we can’t have that now can we dear State run Churches?
On July 1, 2019 at 11:48 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Fred,
Viz. Rousas J. Rushdoony (RJ), Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Gary DeMar, David Chilton, Kenneth Gentry, Joe Morecraft, etc., etc., i.e., everyone associated with the Christian Reconstruction movement.
R. J. Rushdoony, “Institutes of Biblical Law.”
On July 1, 2019 at 2:10 pm, Gryphon said:
Fred – “I’m pretty sure that the American Church won’t discuss Dominion because a rightful and well studied understanding of it leads to only one conclusion; God is sovereign, man is his highest creation, not governments of men.”
On-Target there, Fred, the “American Church” (all that are IRS 501c “corporations”) regardless of Denomination, is a Creature of the ‘government’ and Cannot, under “Law”, contradict the Supremacy of the State.
It’s almost if the “church” doesn’t want the People to Understand that they HAVE Inalienable Rights, and Question the ‘government’ that underpins the “church”.
On July 2, 2019 at 7:12 am, Talktome said:
This is why our congregation is purposely not registered as a 501c3 or 3c. I read the rules and realized that there is really no purpose in obtaining this status other than to make it easier for your donors to write off their donations to the church. You can still deduct, within the guidelines, donations to a religious org that isn’t a registered non profit, you just have to tell your tax preparer to do so. The rules are pretty simple. Ironically, many of these registered non profits are taking donations that aren’t tax deductible based on their intent. For example, donations intended for an individual are not tax deductible. the churches appear to not even know these details, yet the volunteer to stifle their speech. Not that most modern Christian churches would speak ill of government anyway.