An UNALIENABLE Right

Discussion in 'Other Off-Topic Chat' started by TheResister, May 30, 2017.

  1. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just before a recent thread met its posting limit, a poster was about to challenge me on a statement I made. He did, however, turn it into a straw man argument, so I'm going to reiterate a point here and give some references in support of my position.

    Many writers, researchers, historians, legal scholars and constitutionalists believe that the Bill of Rights is the codification of the Declaration of Independence. One such person, Elvin T. Lim, in a book entitled A Lover's Quarrel: The Two Foundings and American Political Development wrote:

    "..either the covenantal grant of powers of the Second Founding is the first American deed, or the prior articulation of the states sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence -later codified in the Bill of Rights..."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=O...odify the declaration of independence&f=false

    According to Patrick Henry, a founding father:

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is a instrument for the people to restrain the government..." (NOTE: The site I got that from says that the quote is unconfirmed; however, it reflected Henry's statements in other writings, but they did not give any sources for the other writings. The sentiment, however, is accurate)

    Finally, this as a beginning point:

    "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

    Albert Gallatin (7 Oct. 1789) Gallatin was highly regarded by both Jefferson and Madison and served under both as Treasury Secretary, not to mention his stints in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    And so, my presupposition is that the Bill of Rights is the codification of the foundational principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence which state:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Your Life and your Liberty are unalienable Rights. They are not given to you by government and are not subject to the jurisdiction of government. Our earliest courts recognized and agreed with this assessment. Here is how one court ruled:

    "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

    Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

    This was the sentiment of many lower court decisions and upheld even in the United States Supreme Court in one of their earliest decisions on the Second Amendment.

    Without multiplying authorities on the subject, that is my starting point.
     
    Greataxe, 6Gunner, An Taibhse and 2 others like this.
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A few here think rights are granted by the Constitution. No amount of fact will dissuade them of that notion but then they see man as the highest power where anything any dictator says goes.
     
    Hotdogr, 6Gunner and Turtledude like this.
  3. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are absolutely right - except you find a lot of hypocrites among them - they don't think the government should interfere with their religion - or lack thereof, their right to watch porn, their ability to get an abortion, or their access to drugs.
     
  4. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Luckily the usual suspects haven't shown up and I can say something for the benefit of those who are gun owners and not sure about your Rights as they were originally written and intended.

    IF you have a Right to do something, you need to figure out what kind of Right it is. Is it an unalienable Right or an inalienable right (they are treated differently in law.) Is it a government granted right OR is owning a gun a privilege the masses "allow" us to enjoy? I see a lot of well meaning gun owners making the wrong arguments with anti-gun forces, so, let me build my case.

    In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions, the court ruled this way:

    "Bearing arms for a lawful purpose. . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

    United States v Cruikshank 92 US 542; (1875)

    Read that very carefully. The Right exists. It is not granted by the Constitution. The right exists with or without the Constitution since it is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Therefore you can rule out that it is privilege the masses "allow" us to exercise via popular vote. It's not a government granted privilege we erroneously refer to as a right. Since it is not granted by government, it cannot be an inalienable right so that leaves with one alternative: It must be an unalienable Right.

    The Rights of Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights. Given United States Supreme Court holdings in many instances, you have to come to a final conclusion about your Right to keep and bear Arms. For example,

    "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists".
    Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

    Your obligation to provide for your own personal security is YOURS, not the government's. I do not believe that the founding fathers intended for us to handicap ourselves by being limited as what technology we can employ when we may have to face a better armed adversary that means us personal harm. Your Right to Life includes having access to adequate tools to work with.

    "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

    IF we continue, we can learn a lot about this important Right. If not, the general point is that government sometimes has the power to legislate and enforce unconstitutional laws; they may very well lack the authority, however. The only real power the government has over us, in the end is our ignorance of the laws.
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  5. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This idea that where rights comes from matters is hilarious.
     
  6. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If rights are unalienable why were the slaves not all freed upon the formation of this country?
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Possibly your inability to read and understand philosophy, history, and the Constitution.
     
  8. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No answer....Shocker!!! LOL
     
  9. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were not citizens of the United States for one thing; they were considered as 3/5ths of a person, AND we still have an element in our society (even among the majority of right wingers) that assert that unless you are a citizen, you do not have unalienable Rights.

    FWIW, I disagree with the right's assessment and hope that a closer look will help gun owners understand the trap they help the left set when they do not recognize unalienable Rights.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." (from the Declaration of Independence)

    Obviously Jefferson believed what he wrote as he fathered non-white children via Sally Hemmings.

    Just as today, the average person gets citizenship and immigration confused. As a result, many people whether on the left or right; Democrat or Republican; conservative or liberal believe that a majority vote can determine whether or not you have unalienable Rights.

    There was a time when we did understand unalienable Rights to some degree. Hollywood, for example is a reflection of what our society thinks is normal and acceptable. Fifty years ago Modern Family would have caused a public uproar that would have shut Hollywood down. Well, back in 1949 when the Cisco Kid hit the screen featuring a modern day Mexican Robin Hood. And so, a cowboy, though Mexican, working in the United States with a six shooter was standard fare for the American public. BTW Cisco Kid was the first U.S. tv series to be filmed color.
     
    6Gunner and Turtledude like this.
  10. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So they did not have unalienable rights because they were not citizens? Brillant. I'm sorry but that is hilarious.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly not for someone that can't understand.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes debating is so droll. LOL
     
  13. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it is not hilarious.
     
  14. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it is. You guys claim unalienable rights and then admit they didn't apply to black people and women. Hilarious
     
  15. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What if the majority favors lax gun control and lax gun control endangers my right to life? According to what you've posted, my right to life trumps what the majority wants.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not a discussion about why some people don't have unalienable Rights. Liberty is a journey, not a destination. And, again, while the left has bad things to say about unalienable Rights, they forget that in their journey, America was one of the leading countries to abolish slavery.

    The left doesn't believe in unalienable Rights yet they maintain that slavery was bad when it was supported by a majority of the people. Even when faced with the evidence of how mob rule don't work, they want to troll the notion of unalienable Rights.

    Moving on, even when the left makes specious arguments, it should be an opportunity for all of those who own a firearm to think deeply about what I'm saying. The founding fathers had a unique view of the world. On the one hand they sought a homeland for a specific people. For some reason that eludes me, the left (especially those who will troll this thread), will have an issue with the "posterity" of the founders and slavery - and let's face it the liberals are talking about the whites in this country. Because the whites had the audacity to want a homeland for themselves and their posterity, that is considered evil. They have NOTHING to say about the Chinese who are 98 percent Han Chinese and are not judged by who they are and their cultural beliefs... ditto for the Japanese who are 98.5 percent ONE kind of people.

    Be that as it may, the United States believed that America was the New Jerusalem of the Bible. While they wanted a nation of one people, the fact is people came from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. Their unalienable Rights were respected.

    17th-century Englishman John Locke, philosopher discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

    Our first Naturalization statute required new citizens to be free white persons of good character. AND the purpose of the Constitution (in the preamble) clearly stated that:

    "We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    The Constitution became much like a contract between we, the people (the white people) and that entity called government with taxes being the consideration . Maybe the founding fathers were intelligent enough to understand that America could not be all things to all people, so they
    founded a nation that would serve one people. Given that many other countries do the same, exact thing, I've never understood the hoopla and smoke and mirror show the left puts on... especially when they don't get what they want, guaranteed Rights trump mob rule even for them if and when it works.

    But, to get back on point, your Rights either come from your God, (your Creator, whomever you deem that to be) OR they are doled out by that entity called government. Both left and right; Democrat and Republican; conservative and liberal have, historically, been inconsistent about the application of the principle; therefore, I am exploring it in this thread.

    I have a Right to Life. I have a Right to Liberty. Men, the Constitution, and the rule of law have nothing to do with that. As such, I have the duty and the obligation to defend my life... again, as the founders said:

    Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams.

    Consider that. I will add to it later.
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  17. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to be clear. These unalienable rights did not apply to blacks and women. They only applied to CERTAIN people
     
  18. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have a Right to life. In my previous post I quoted Samuel Adams. You probably won't read that post, so I'll repeat it:

    Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams.

    You too have a Right to Life. But, in order for me to be able to protect my Right to Life I need the requisite tools. You have no Right to prevent me from defending my life in the best manner I can. IF I misuse my tools and put you in imminent danger, government exists to balance that out and guarantee you that if I jeopardize your Rights, I will be held accountable. The responsibility of defense lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual. You have no Right to jeopardize my Rights NOR to preempt those Rights just to feel safe.
     
    Hotdogr and 6Gunner like this.
  19. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the Preamble, the courts determined that POSTERITY meant the white people.

    Look, this is about unalienable Rights... not slavery, blacks, women, etc. If you want to discuss that, start another thread because I will not participate in the derailing of my own thread. The next time you go off topic, I will ignore you. Thank you in advance for being respectful. Most of this idiocy has already been addressed anyway. Read the fricking thread already.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    6Gunner likes this.
  20. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I will correct. These unalienable rights were not intended for blacks and women
     
  21. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gun control is a tool to protect people's right to life. Don't take it away from them. You have no right.
     
  22. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lax gun control doesn't endanger your right to life. But if you are convinced gun control makes you safer then you have every right to choose to go where gun laws are as you prefer them. I'd recommend looking into the UK.
     
    DoctorWho, Turtledude and TheResister like this.
  23. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are demonstrating your ignorance of how rights and freedom work. Gun control is a totalitarian tool that places restrictions upon the rights of people who have committed no crime. If you don't like the idea of owning guns, you have every right not to own them; but you have no right to demand I live my life the way YOU think I should.
     
    Hotdogr, Turtledude and TheResister like this.
  24. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where I have been trying to get to with all of this - and it took us twenty posts to get there is that if you have a Right to do something, you do not ask the government's permission to do it. Most, if not all, our problems are due to a growing dependence on government. We have so many laws that America has now become the nation with more people in prison than any country on this planet!

    Since there are so many "criminals", many of you thought it a good idea to side with the left and endorse even token support for background checks ( a violation of the Fourth Amendment AND a precursor to registration.) A lot of pro - gun people then agreed with licenses and permits... which are defined in legal dictionaries as "permission from a governmental entity to do that which is otherwise illegal to do or a tort." The good one, probably the best is "prohibited persons." Ayn Rand summed it best for me:

    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

    A good way to illustrate how silly it is to have is by way of the "Lautenberg Amendment." Under this farce, if you have ever been convicted of a domestic misdemeanor, you can never own firearms. Great idea?

    You and your brother had a spat over Susie Rottencrotch back twenty years ago. The local Justice of the Peace fined you twenty bucks... no guns for you. Better is that where I live, if ANYONE calls the cops and reports a domestic disturbance, the police show up and somebody IS going to jail. Somebody WILL be charged. The prosecutors can lie to the jury; they can introduce hearsay; they can even intimidate witnesses... and do - just to be able to supposedly take your gun Rights. In one year the county I live in prosecuted close to 1200 cases like that. There are 159 counties in Georgia. You do the math. Adding insult to injury, most countries in the world don't waste their time with this kind of political chicanery. So, immigrants coming here and getting citizenship have a decided advantage over us in the job market due to our silly over the top views on law and order. We need to rethink this whole concept of "prohibited persons."

    I really had to edit this because I just thought of something that may be taking place in a lot of states. Under Lautenberg, any domestic restraining order bars you from owning a weapon. When you get divorced in Georgia the courts demand that a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER accompany the divorce petition. This is NOT a Temporary Restraining Order. Although the system is not enforcing the law, it is what it is. I think it will be like the time they went after Al Capone for an income tax law that had never been used. One day, the system will want someone bad enough to use whatever statute they can. IF they began imposing the Lautenberg Amendment on divorced people, that law would end tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    6Gunner likes this.
  25. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gun control is a dishonest euphemism for taking away tools to protect life. My defensevof my life is my right.
     
    Turtledude, TheResister and 6Gunner like this.

Share This Page