An UNALIENABLE Right

I'm not questioning whether any right exists, just the extent to which any right may be validly thwarted by the state or fed government.

 

right of assembly? What road you on? The 2A is unique in that (if we exclude the first phrase of the 2A) it explicitly protects a right to bear arms from infringement and effectively invalidates any law that restricts such a right. There is no similar protection to any other right, not even life. It is a ludicrous reading of the 2A yet there it stands...

If 2A (ex first phrase) applies to the states via 14A, then 10A is irrelevant in relation to the right to carry portable WMD or other weapons. The 2A (ex first phrase) invalidates all gun control, or WMD control, initiatives.

 

For an answer to that, why not ask the earliest courts? I've told you what the first court ruling was that overturned a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Let's revisit it:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Let's go to another state and see how they 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)

Then we're back to the United States Supreme Court:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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 U.S. 542 (1875)

The United States Supreme Court says the Right does not come from the Constitution AND it's not dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The states say you don't derive the Right from the state government AND it above the law, so exactly where does the Right come from? I keep citing Albert Gallatin on this:

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

He wrote that just two years before the Second Amendment was officially ratified. It's pretty clear to me that from 1789 to 1875 the courts and the founders were in agreement as to what the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general are all about.) Your enumerated Rights (those in the Bill of Rights) are unalienable Rights. The founding fathers were talking about something when they made declarations like:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."

John Adams, second president of the United States and founding father - Source: A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765

I've been from before the Second Amendment through 1875 proving that the Right to keep and bear Arms is one of those laws.

Let me give you yet another court ruling from 1878

"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 (187

I'm operating at the behest and advice of our founding fathers on this thread. Ignorant people are inadvertently forfeiting their Rights and John Adams warned:

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

 

ah more evasion. tell us if you believe the Commerce clause is properly used by the federal government-sans a constitutional amendment-to regulate privately owned firearms. and how does that clause-written before the second amendment, somehow survive the second and tenth amendments

 

Slaves weren't considered citizens, why would they be afforded the rights of citizens? Your 'argument' is akin to granting constitutional protections to foreigners, its ludicrous. Every major criticism of the Founders is steeped in placing them under today's standards all the while ignoring the reality of the world they lived in. It's intellectually dishonest, as are most progressive 'arguments'...

 

If standards are different now, then we can get rid of the 2A altogether?

 

What does "unalienable rights" mean?
Seems. To me that any of us can be deprived of these rights for a variety of reasons
Which, to my understanding, means they are NOT unalienable rights

 

The standards for the 2nd Amendment are not different though...

 

Sure. See Article 5. First, find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

 

In a constitutional / lawful / de jure Republic as the one our forefathers established, the government has no authority in unalienable Rights. Had you read the previous 130 + posts your questions have been addressed. Feel free to READ the thread or we can repost prior posts if you want to waste a lot of time and bandwidth.

 

Unfortunately, this is not a citizens v. foreigners argument. This tread does not lend itself to people, no matter how well intentioned, (and I have little tolerance for the trolls that are trying their damnedest go get you and I into a p!ssing match) coming in after the points have been made and re-arguing the case.

If you don't want to read the thread, let me be blunt with you:

The founding fathers operated on the principle that all men are created equal and had unalienable Rights. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

Of this document, Thomas Jefferson said:

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man."

At the head of the United States Code is the Declaration of Independence. It was written more than a decade before the ratification of the Constitution. So, the principle could not, in any way, be limited to citizens as NONE existed. The Constitution serves mainly like a contract with, we the people, and government with taxes being the consideration. The purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee our Rights, NOT grant them. ALL of this has been dealt with in this thread. Please read it if you want to know what is going on.

Either unalienable Rights are granted by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) OR they are bestowed upon you by government. If the government grants you your Rights, they can take them away. I urge you to please read this thread.

 

Well it can relate to the possession of firearms if that possession impacts the commerce. In other words, that the rules applying to possession are incidental to , but nonetheless necessary for, the regulation of inter-state commerce in respect to guns. Honestly, I think its a massive stretch, borne out of necessity to accommodate a poorly constructed piece of law. But there is a logical thread that is justifiable. It would have been far more sensible in my view to follow the militia line of argument.

That is simply not correct. Inalienable, or unalienable, relates to the separation of the rights from the person. It is perfectly possible to quash or suppress inalienable rights. You just can't sell or transfer them.
Any person can be jailed or even killed by the state.

 

We've been over this ... how many times in this thread? The ONLY way you can lose an unalienable Right is if you violate the unalienable Rights of another. It is sheer idiocy to keep arguing against a point we've made more than a dozen times on this thread and you fail in every attempt.

I fully agree with what you say relative to inalienable rights, but an inalienable right is NOT an unalienable Right. Do you bother to read the thread or you just enjoy trolling?

 

an amendment should have been attempted but FDR and those who went along with that expansion should have been tried and convicted of treason

 

This was answered in posts 105, 113, and 123.

The purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee those Rights which are unalienable are secured, protected and guaranteed. Your interpretation is flawed. You have a Right to Life. It does not mean that someone else cannot take your life. But, it does mean we have laws to discourage it and a penalty that must be considered if someone contemplates it.

Likewise, the government cannot infringe upon your Rights... and if they do - and IF the law becomes so corrupt that your legal non-violent avenues of redress fail you, you have the Right to keep and bear Arms, so that as a last resort, you can prevent tyranny in government.

 

If there is such a thing as an unalienable right (which exists only as either an article of faith and/or an American legal concept), then this would not be lost, rather is quashed. And it is quashed at the whim of the government unless the government is otherwise constrained. There is no requirement for a quid pro quo to someone's actions.

I read your thread but you haven't backed up this assertion that there is a legal difference between the two terms.

 

I most assuredly have demonstrated the legal difference. If you don't understand it, then you have a reading comprehension issue.

The fact that you cannot construct cogent sentences is evidence that you probably DO have a shortcoming with reading and expressing a view. Posts 105, 113, and 123 demonstrate a valid and comprehensive look at the differences and application of unalienable Rights as opposed to inalienable rights.

 

OK, 113 is the closest you came to forming an argument so lets deal with that.

Leaving aside your own admission therein that they are the same thing:

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:
“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.​

If I may succinctly paraphrase:

You believe that
inalienable rights are not subject to alienation;
whereas
unalienable rights are incapable of being alienated;
And that "not subject to alienation" is different to "incapable of being alienated" because the former allows for voluntary surrender. ​

Firstly, other than your opinion, you have not provided any external source that supports this claimed distinction between "not subject to" and "incapable of being".

Secondly, if something is in a present state of not being alienated, and also not subject to alienation, then it is incapable of being alienated in the future. The incapacity to alienate a thing is derived from that thing not being subject to the function of alienation. It doesn't matter who attempts to instigate the function. Why is it incapable of being alienated? because it is not subject to alienation.

Finally, you have completely missed the point, which is that alienation just means being separated from the person. If a right is inalienable or unalienable, it can still be defeated, quashed or suppressed.

 

No one seriously questions the authority of the government to punish crime. The whole reason we have the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments is because the government has an understood power to punish criminal behavior and the founders wanted to protect these individual rights that we have concerning the criminal trial process.

Don’t confuse the nature of a right with the scope of what it protects. The right to “liberty” is not so broad that it permits any activity whatsoever without the possibility of punishment. No right or liberty interest is so strong that it gives you complete immunity from the consequences of your own actions and the loss of freedom as punishment for a crime.

The point is the government is not the source of our rights, we are. Because the government does not create these rights, and because the government serves the people who own these rights, the government is powerless to “alienate” us from these rights on its own. This does not mean you can never lose your personal liberty under any circumstances. What it means is government cannot deny you the right on its own initiative. Instead, losing this right requires action on your part to forfeit the protection of the right. The government merely responds to your actions, and a part of that response can involve it taking away your right to personal liberty as a punishment consequence of your actions—but even then only after a trial process that involves multiple individual rights which the government must recognize and honor.

Self-defense is a good corollary to this. You and I both have a right to life and freedom from physical assault. The whole context of self-defense involves someone choosing to engage in conduct that forfeits this right. If you attack me in a manner that places me in reasonable threat of suffering death or great bodily injury then you are—at that moment—forfeiting your right to life regarding me. At that moment I (and anyone else acting to defend me) become legally entitled and morally justified to attempt to intentionally kill you. And if I succeed (or merely wound you or drive you off) then society cannot punish my actions because I have a right to life—and unlike my attacker I have done nothing to choose to forfeit my right to protect it. This body of law does nothing more than recognize the truth of human nature, and that the law of self-defense if the first law of man’s nature.

 

I understand that view but I don't agree. There are laws that criminalize drugs, for instance, which is an arbitrary quashing of everyone's right to personal liberty and property.
There are many more examples, from rules to "keep off the grass" to driving without a licence.

Governments make laws with the express intention of regulating human behavior.

I think in that circumstance that both you and the assailant have a right to life, but that your right to life defeats the assailant's right to life by virtue of your innocence in creating the situation. Consequently, the legal defense of self-defense can be defeated by the "defenders" provocation.

But my point is that the assailant's right to life is not extinguished by his actions, but rather defeated by your superior right. That superiority is created by the assailant's behavior. Similarly, that superiority can be denied by your own behavior

 

You have a childish and immature way of trying to debate an issue. My sources say nothing like what you claim.

Secondly, the court citations are very much different when it comes to the two words unalienable and inalienable.

Let's try this again so that even you should be able to understand this.

"Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”

As ALL my sources define that word the same way. The courts, however, do not treat inalienable rights the same way:

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

The courts, sir, gave the words different meanings. Any jacka** with an IQ greater than their shoe size can understand that.

Your childish arguments that governments can take away all rights is dishonest. You have Rights; I have Rights. From a legislative standpoint, the courts have admitted that certain Rights are above the law. The legislatures are powerless to take away your Rights via legislation and the courts have NO jurisdiction over unalienable Rights. Just because we have to take Rights from violators does not mean that the Right does not exist. Government only exists to guarantee those Rights, sir, not to take them via a popularity vote.

Government can take a murderers life because America was founded on Christian principles and the punishment requires it according to the same law which acknowledges that no mortal man has the authority to infringe upon your unalienable Rights.

So, you don't understand. But, know this: when it gets down to your a** on the chopping block, you would argue unalienable Rights all the way through the Supreme Court. I realize that you're being facetious and you have a difficult time with this. I would suggest that you read John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

Locke's work was the most influential writing upon which the founders relied on.

 

Self Defense is a well established concept.
There is no doubt regarding it.
There are two clearly defined actors, one is Innocent, one is Guilty.

The People v Cain is an early case.
Cain murdered his brother.

If Bob is walking down the street, and mistakenly turns into a dead end alley, and Rob pops out with a huge knife and attempts to stab Bob, and Bob deflects the knife and Rob ends up plunging the knife into his own body, killing himself, there is no doubt it was indeed "SELF DEFENCE" .

This is often the root of a highly debated topic.

Many claim that people have no Right when it comes to self defense, and that somehow, a Gun should not be allowed for the express purpose of personal defense.

So, if Bob had simply shot Rob for pulling a knife, depending on what jurisdiction or the Country, U.K. etc..... Charges may be filed on the defender, many times in places like N.Y.C., the defender is prosecuted for an illegal firearm, not for personal defense.

In the U.K. personal defense is mostly not allowed as it is considered "Taking the Law into ones own hands".....

We have the Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and no Criminal is allowed to take that from us, by means of any act, and we have the Right to resist such by the convienient means at our disposal, such as personal weapons, ie handguns.

 

No they are not.

 

Yes, as a legal defense to avoid prosecution for codified crimes.
As a "right" it is unenumerated and derives from the right to life.

 

Yes they are. READ THEM.