NRO: Yes, Gun Ownership Is a God-Given Right

“The notion of God-given rights shouldn’t be controversial. It is a bedrock of the American creed, written into the Declaration of Independence. Its preamble says, of course, that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'”

18 thoughts on “NRO: Yes, Gun Ownership Is a God-Given Right

  1. You have a “God-given”, let’s say “natural right” to do whatever comes into your mind and you have the ability to do.

    But, once you choose to live in an organized society and enjoy its benefits then your “natural rights” are constrained by law. You may still exercise your “natural right” to kill you neighbor and steal his lawnmower but – in an organized society – you will find that there are consequences.

    By the way, the first of those endowed rights is “Life.” And to protect THAT right, most societies, including ours, use the law to constrain the “natural right” of self-defense. There are NO bright lines around that. Where they are and what you need to exercise that right is a question for society to answer. There are no “wrong” answers – only stupid ones that do more harm than good. Like ours.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. My right to life carries with it the right to defend my life. Whether it is God given or not, it is demanded by reason. After all, what penalty could be exacted on me greater than the loss of my life?

      As I am the only one who is always with me, the responsibility for defending my life primarily falls on me, and that implies the right to be able to do so effectively.

      Debarring the carrying of arms simply means that outside the sight of a policeman, which is 99+% of the world, might is right. The small, female and elderly may be preyed upon by the strong at will.


      1. Uh yep, a future production of “Vengeance: Killer Neighbors” in the works.

        You could always opt for a tattoo in the small of your back that says “Get Off My Lawn”, ya know, a gramp stamp.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. And yet, my statement was factual and accurate. Your “natural right” to defend yourself IS constrained by law. There are no bright lines. In our country we have very loose constraints on the means you can legally employ in that defense. Other countries have very tight constraints. We pay HEAVILY in life for those loose constraints. That is what I meant by “stupid answers” as to where the draw the line.

        As for you wringing your hands over “the small, female and elderly”, those countries with TIGHT constraints on the means of self-defense do not experience them being “preyed upon by the strong at will.” In fact, almost all of them have less of that than we do. So, as always, your arguments from your a priori fantasy world do not match reality and are, therefore, not in the least persuasive.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. It is not my burden to prove my need for a particular means of defense.

          If you wish to limit my choice, it is your burden to prove there is a problem that justifies limiting my choice, that your proposed measures will solve that problem, and that there is no alternative solution that does not result in limiting the choices of law abiding citizens.

          That a particular weapon might pose a problem in someone else’s hands does not establish that it poses a problem in mine.,


          1. You’re confusing our republic with a democracy.

            Even if you were able to force such a rule, it would still be a violation of my rights and contrary to the principles on which this country is founded.


          2. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You know what, decent people are sick and tired of seeing the blood of innocents literally running in the streets to satisfy the emotional shortcomings of a small number of gun lovers. Pistols and semi-automatic weapons are a scourge on our society. I can easily “prove” they should be banned based on overwhelming evidence that thousands of lives, injuries and billions of dollars could be saved each year if they were. And if that were accomplished, you would still have your “natural right” to self-defense only you would have to make do with hunting rifles and shotguns.

            Of course, you dismiss the evidence because you place little weight on what happens to other people as a result of the policies you support.

            Your last argument is pure nonsense. Public policy cannot be based on such fine grained analysis of those affected. It might be perfectly safe for you to keep a FIM-92 Stinger in your home as a way for you to protect us from possible government “tyranny” but laws restricting their availability cannot be based on what some individual might or might not do.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “But, once you choose to live in an organized society and enjoy its benefits then your ‘natural rights’ are constrained by law.”

      Not necessarily. In our case as Americans, for example, the whole point of the concept of liberty is to set aside selected rights so that they shall not be constrained by either law or by custom. This practicality is in the very design of the organized society of which we are a part.

      If you want to argue that the individual owes a duty to the society in which he lives, in America that duty includes the preservation of natural rights.


      1. So, which non-trivial “natural right” is not constrained by law in our country? Try real hard. This is not a trick question. I genuinely am interested to know what right you are referring to that is not and cannot be constrained by law?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “So, which non-trivial ‘natural right’ is not constrained by law in our country?”

        The Bill of Rights contains a whole list. If any of the natural rights there are constrained by law, then the law is either unconstitutional or absurd.


        1. Sorry, but there are constitutional and non-absurd constraints on each and every one of those “natural rights.” This is not my opinion. It is an every day fact. It is frankly unbelievable that any one could think otherwise. I can only put it down to goofy counterfactual obtuseness.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Sorry, but there are constitutional and non-absurd constraints on each and every one of those ‘natural rights.'”

          Why, because you say so? Perhaps you can provide an example or two.


          1. You have a right to bear arms but the law limits the arms you can bear.

            You have a right to free speech but the law limits your ability to incite riot, slander or create a panic by shouting Fire! in a crowded theater.

            You have a right of assembly but the law limits your ability to do so without a permit.

            You have freedom of religion but the law limits the practices of many faiths.

            You have freedom of the press but the law limits your ability to print libel.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. A right to defend yourself is inherent in every society, and justly so.

    Moderating the degree of defensive (which can easily become offensive) capability available to do so is also prudent.

    Not sure why you posted this, pretty self-evident.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Not sure why you posted this, pretty self-evident.”

      It seems self-evident to me, too, but I can’t tell you how many times I have mentioned natural rights, only to be told there is no such thing or that they exist but are not absolute.

      The puzzle is: Natural rights are absolute. That’s what “unalienable” means.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s