I've stated several times in the past that gun rights should, as with all rights, be an inclusive movement. It's perfectly fine to believe in the same thing for different reasons. Adding political, ideological, or religious prerequisites to be part of the gun rights movement only hurts the cause. So yes, using the phrase "god given" rights isn't a very productive way to try and persuade an audience.

So exclude that from the inclusive movement?

So exclude that from the inclusive movement?

No. I'm just saying it's not the best tactic for persuasion.

70.6% of Americans describe themselves as Christians as of 2014. I don't think some people using God in their argument will hurt anything. If you're to appease the left, removing God isn't going to bring them into our camp. They simply will never be in our camp.

 

Yes, it will give the liberals something to howl about, but they would be howling anyway. Just about something else. Besides, God doesn't kill liberal opinions of guns, liberals kill liberal opinions about guns.

 

Sound familiar?

Removing "god" doesn't do any harm and appeals to a wider audience.

Removing "god" doesn't do any harm and appeals to a wider audience.

Actually it does a lot of harm. Just like using the term "assault weapon". Hey just change the words no big deal, then they get changed again and again and again until people actually believe that rights come from the government, so the government can take them away. Can't count the number of times I've heard that the 2nd "created" the RKBA.

 

As to the broader base, F them. Rights are not subject to the likes of the masses. That is what the Constitution is all about.

The Bill of Rights is meant to affirm and secure our natural or God-given rights, NOT to grant them. 

 

Amen.  The Constitution grants no rights.  Even Supreme Court Justices (Kennedy, in Obergefell vs. Hodges ... "The Constitution grants them that right.").  No, it doesn't.  This is fundamental folks, but even SCOTUS forgets it at times.

 

We hold these truths to be "Self-evident" - Jefferson originally wrote "Sacred and Undeniable" but was forced to change it

Rights are "Unalienable" - Cannot be taken away

 

The Founders clearly understood and expressed the Bill of Rights as protection for rights and freedoms dating to at least the Magna Carta (800 years ago this year), not the 'granting' of such rights, which would have been alien to them.  Witness the cover seal of the record of the first Continental Congress (12 colonies in Philadelphia met in response to the Coercive Acts) if you don't believe me: