An UNALIENABLE Right

Technically (legally) speaking, slaves werent people, they were livestock, no more applicable to (or by) the rights of 'men' than a cow or a chicken. I believe this was more of a loophole for most slave owners who just enjoyed the free labor and power trip, and likely was the reason for slavery in the US to have been based on race, but it was at least a commonly claimed sentiment.
It was a *very* common sentiment that minorities (blacks in particular) were, in some fashion, not the same as whites (beyond skincolor). Even many abolitionists (Like Abraham lincoln) are on record saying that slavery should be abolished, and then all the blacks should be deported so as to avoid race mixing (both genetic and cultural).

So, no, slavery doesnt 'debunk' the concept of unalienable rights; they were not considered human.

 

My point exactly. Unalienable rights did not apply to everyone. Not women either who were considered humans. Not even some whites who did not own land. In fact these unalienable rights only applied to a small minority of the people in the country.

 

What unalienable Right were women denied? WTH, whites that did not own land didn't have unalienable Rights???? Do tell.

 

Why liberty of course. Were women as free as men?

 

Okay, this is where the rubber meets the road. I've danced around this long enough.

In order for us to have unalienable Rights, they must be available to everyone - and, we have evolved, as a nation, toward that goal. The guy trolling this thread wants to live in ancient history and I prefer to live in the here and now. So, what I'm going to say will challenge every gun owner in America since the overwhelming majority get classified into the law and order crowd.

There is one issue where that intersects with all other issues. It was a trick, foisted upon the right by the most extreme elements of the left (using Hegelian Dialectics.) Because the right cannot see beyond unconstitutional statutes AND think outside the box, working within the parameters of reality, the right does more to destroy their cause than the left can do.

Most of you will go into an uproar and I will say this only once. IF we presuppose that Liberty is an unalienable Right, then it belongs to all men. It is just as important as our Right to Life. Unfortunately, the left has the right boxed in by their own arguments and we have to evolve in our thinking lest the left be given the legal precedents they need to destroy every argument we've made thus far. Don't think in my next paragraph that I have not fully considered the issue - I have. And I have come up with alternative solutions to addressing the issue I'm about to reveal. Brace yourselves.

The subject of illegal immigration is the wedge issue that keeps the right from being able to prevail on all the other issues related to unalienable Rights. Bear in mind, unalienable Rights are not related to the remedies that you and I could employ to address the symptoms of immigration. But like it or not, foreigners have unalienable Rights. Technically, we could make a counter argument to that and claim that since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, blacks cannot be citizens and we're back to the claim that the Constitution only protects the posterity of the founding fathers - which was the white race.

The right has left the courts in this untenable position of criminalizing Liberty because we insist on confusing immigration with naturalization. Immigration, the migration of people, is not even addressed in the Constitution. So, we end up giving Congress and the federal government a power that they most assuredly do not have. Then we reap what we've sown in the form of bad precedents (like Heller) for failure to understand the bottom line: Either unalienable Rights are bestowed upon all men OR they are a power of government as the guy trolling this thread alleges.

Now, for me personally, I think that every person who sets foot on this soil has unalienable Rights. I think that if you want to reduce the number of foreigners, you limit the number of people you want to come in as citizens AND I have a plan that will work much better than walls, human registration, forcing 11 million people to become citizens, or penalizing people for engaging in the free market. What we cannot do is to attempt to work around this concept of unalienable Rights. I could secure the border, reduce the number of foreigners in this country, increase the number of jobs for Americans - and, in the end, do so at NO cost to the American taxpayer.

If we do not clear our heads, the left will continue to win the war against gun owners on an incremental basis. If you think that, even under Trump, you have a secure Second Amendment, check the court's logic again and let me tell you about owning guns in the 1980s.

 

Do you have any proof that they weren't? What Liberty did women not have?

 

Could they serve in congress? Could they run for office? How about vote? Does that sound like liberty?

 

NONE of those are unalienable Rights. Those are the privileges and benefits of citizenship. What government giveth, the government can take away. Care to try again?

You see, you are so quick to want to pick fights that you don't read the thread. You ignore it and cherry pick to suit your false presuppositions. And now, you're showing everybody you've been in the dark all along.

What unalienable Right were women denied?

 

If liberty is not an unalienable right then there are none. I agree

 

I'm going to weigh in here. Let's be perfectly honest: the IDEALS the Founders sought to codify in the Constitution were without a doubt the greatest and most enlightened foundation for government ever devised... but they clearly did not fully live up to those ideals. I get that. Slavery was and is the most horrific affront to humanity that ever existed, and many Founders openly engaged in it even as they championed Liberty for themselves but not others. The persecution and extermination of the Native American tribes, the rounding up of Japanese Americans at the outset of World War II... the examples continue. Tyranny at the hands of a government ostensibly erected to protect the Freedoms and Liberty of its People. And women? They couldn't own property or even handle their own affairs without the approval of a male family member well into the 20th Century. My own mother was a draftsman who had to sign a confidentiality agreement because her work was so superior they wanted to give her a substantial raise and didn't want to offend her male coworkers... by allowing them to know the company was now going to be paying her the same as the men.

The reality is that the IDEAL America represents is to respect and protect the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans; regardless of race, creed, gender, or national origin. Those rights are not created by the Constitution, but protected by it, and those rights are preexisting; each citizen endowed at birth with them. Those rights can be trampled upon if we let them, or if we fail to stand up when we see them being violated. We should not meekly accept it when we are told that we need to surrender our rights or freedoms for someone else's perceived safety or peace of mind. When someone demands infringement of our rights, and says we should accept those infringements because "we already accept limitations on freedom" then we should rage against the cancer to Freedom that represents, and push back, and not stop pushing until the rights of ALL Americans are acknowledged and properly protected. We do not free the oppressed by lifting them up only partway and dragging the rest down; but by lifting everyone to the same lofty heights!

 

I can both agree and disagree with some of what you say. According to one article on the subject:

"In every state, the legal status of free women depended upon marital status. Unmarried women, including widows, were called “femes soles,” or “women alone.” They had the legal right to live where they pleased and to support themselves in any occupation that did not require a license or a college degree restricted to males. Single women could enter into contracts, buy and sell real estate, or accumulate personal property, which was called personalty. It consisted of everything that could be moved—cash, stocks and bonds, livestock, and, in the South, slaves. So long as they remained unmarried, women could sue and be sued, write wills, serve as guardians, and act as executors of estates."

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/womens-history/essays/legal-status-women-1776–1830

Those Rights were severely impacted by marriage, but I personally agree with the founding fathers there. America was founded on Christian principles and, in a marriage (which is not a right, but a privilege - requiring a license), the two become as one AND the man is the head of the house in all things even as Christ is the head of the church (see Ephesians 5: 23 for example.)

Living under Christian principles and applying the liberal interpretation of unalienable Rights became very difficult for the politicians, but I would rather return to those times. Allow me an example as to why:

I bought and paid for a house. Then I married a woman who has two sons. At the time, one of them was 27. Under the old laws, once he was in my home, he was bound by my rules. Under today's rules, it's a crap-shoot. My wife's son moved in and was supposed to look for work. He wouldn't. And my wife said she couldn't just kick him out without a place to live. The cops came here and said as long as my wife wanted him there, there was nothing I could do.

One day the POS goes on a rampage and beat holes in my walls. He did thousands of dollars worth of damage to my home. When I got home we had an altercation. He threw a small wad of money in my face. At the end of this story is that he would not go out and get a job. That was not enough to get a restraining order against him. Beating holes in my wall was not sufficient for the restraining order. Cursing me in my home was not enough. Throwing the wad of money constituted simple battery. That was the ONLY thing that got him out of here.

Yes, marriage poses many challenges to unalienable Rights. We're trying it the secular way today, but as you see it isn't working out all that good. Men are not the head of the house and most households are an absolute clusterphuck. If you don't believe it, visit a prison or a jail and see how many kids are incarcerated and the lion's share come from broken homes.

Lastly, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the 14th Amendment AND the United States Supreme Court rulings declare that all persons (as differentiated from citizens) are entitled to constitutional protections. Sooo... foreigners are entitled to unalienable Rights and, I know you don't want to hear this, but undocumented immigrants have the same Rights. We absolutely cannot hide behind statutory laws to deny people their unalienable Rights.

Other than that, know that I am as committed to not relinquishing any Right I have just as you are. Furthermore, I will stand shoulder to shoulder to help any of you defend your unalienable Rights. That commitment even extends to the trolls who won't even acknowledge my Rights.

 

The privileges of citizenship are not Liberties.

 

I'd say we agree more than we disagree.

Oh, I'm aware of the situation as you describe it. As I've mentioned elsewhere I find many Supreme Court rulings dubious at best, but that doesn't change the fact that we are ostensibly bound by them. Still, the whole "undocumented immigrant" term just raises my hackles; I think that's right up there with: "I didn't rob the bank. I just made an undocumented withdrawal." There are those who think anyone and everyone should be allowed in the country, open borders, etc, and I think that is creating some pretty serious problems that are going to prove catastrophic in the long run.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that sentiment, sir!

 

Then a gun is not an unalienable right for self defense.

 

You're a waste of time. If you're that uneducated, you need to read the thread and lay off the idiotic replies. The Bill of Rights enumerates your basic unalienable Rights. Voting and running for office are not rights that you were inherent when you were born. What are you, 15, maybe?

 

If all you have are insults I accept your defeat. I know it makes you angry when you get beaten in an argument but that is your own fault for having a weak argument. I don't need to get upset (well sometimes I do bit not often). I have an argument. I am sorry being wrong makes you angry. But you are wrong.

 

wrong, but you knew that but cannot admit it since it would destroy the anti rights talking points you post here.

 

Some years ago I was being pursued on the basis of the so - called "Patriot Act." A plan had been developed to raid my home, kill me and then say I had resisted arrest. As fate would have it, a newspaper reporter got wind of the story AND had been present at a meeting where Confidential Informants for the government had been. He knew that their story about me was false.

Before the LEOs could carry out their little plan, the newspaper reported it and the matter ended up in court. During discovery, I asked one of the government attorneys when in the Hell we began pursuing people and presuming they were guilty of a crime absent Due Process. That attorney looked at me straight in the eyes and said, "We do it all the time, sir, haven't you ever heard of an illegal alien?"

The last time I repeated that part of my life, a poster wanted "proof." So, I gave him the proof via PM. He then posted my personal info on the board. Then he threatened me. He got banned. Then he went to my house and while I was away, he hung the cat across a tree limb in the back yard. When I started looking for him, he shot through my kitchen while I was at home... so you will understand that I'm not motivated to "prove" it again.

Common sense should dictate that either Rights come from our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) OR they are granted by government. It can't be both. If "unalienable" Rights only apply to citizens, then they can be limited, regulated, or even denied. Then they are only government rights. The Constitution only gives authority to Congress the authority to enact an Uniform Rule of Naturalization. Congress has no authority to interfere in the free market to impede the migration of people that come here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. The courts gave Congress "plenary power" over immigration just as they usurped our unalienable Rights via the Heller decision. Again, either your unalienable Rights are above the law (as per the earliest court decisions) or they are not.

You protect your country from foreigners by passing laws that make it favorable to citizens and harder on foreigners. You do NOT require citizenship as a prerequisite to foreigners having unalienable Rights... which is exactly what we're doing - and again, my plan rectifies all of that without human registration papers, quotas, forced citizenship, walls NOR the loss of our Liberties on the pretext of making people safe from foreign workers.

 

You can't even beat your own willy successfully much less beat anyone here in any pretend debate.

You're being wrong don't make me angry. It's more that I feel sorry for you at this juncture and your mother really should intervene.

 

Yes. Bring the insults. I love watching you lose. Victory!!!!!

 

The final point I'd like to make regarding your unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms is that we, the people (or sheeple if we remain stiff necked), allow the government to create precedents not related directly to gun control, but being able to impact our Rights.

I mentioned the immigration issue, but it is not the only one. Immigration laws just have the greatest opportunity for gun grabbers to take our Rights.

The final issue is evidenced by the numbers of people we have in jails and prisons... which is more than any nation on this planet. We have too many laws and those laws make it impossible for most people to live without violating a law. Then that is used as a pretext to keep us separated from our Rights.

We need to look at prison reform so that people that made a mistake are returned back into society with all their Rights intact, and those who cannot be trusted remain in prison. The key to keeping guns out of the wrong hands is to make sure the bodies of wrong hands stay in jail, prison, or protective custody until such time as they can be returned to society.

 

Says the Black knight.

 

The idea that NOW certain rights are unalienable and apply to everyone but that when that term was first used they did not apply to everyone means that at any point in the future they may not apply to everyone again

 

I presume all this has something to do with gun control.

I think you have confused unenumerated tights with inalienable rights.

In any event, even so-called inalienable rights are alienated all the time, through due process. Capital punishment for instance?

 

its only a flesh wound

seriously, have any of the ARC stalwarts made any points that actually matter?