Natural Rights v Government Rights


Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2014
Right wingers with their lack of understanding of the difference between natural (God Given) rights, and those rights "guaranteed" by government, may gain some understanding of how lacking in importance the Second Amendment is in a reality based society that actually functions as God intended, and the Founders envisioned. However, in todays world God has become a secondary, or perhaps even lower on the pole, authority as compared to mans authority:

The Constitution mentions both natural and legal rights, and the distinction is critical. Within the Bill of Rights, some activities, like speech, are innate human rights protected against government interference. Other rights, like a speedy trial, are legal rights, which are products of the structure the Constitution created.

This distinction is crucial, because natural rights are articulated as endowed by God, while legal rights are endowed by government. The Founding Fathers understood natural rights to exist independent of—or in spite of—government. They simply exist for free people walking the earth. Legal rights are granted by men, and can be altered or destroyed by changes to law or the structure of government. The natural and legal rights in the Constitution are so fundamental that the Bill of Rights was added as an explicit bar to encroachment from the federal government.

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It can be derived and is protected in multiple ways. Inherently, humans have natural grounds for self-preservation and defense. This right is beyond the reach of any person or government. Individuals can protect themselves using any necessary tools or actions.