HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can we talk about gun con... » Reply #38

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:09 PM

38. Our Constitution does not give or grant rights; they are natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable

 

attributes of sovereign individuals. They pre-exist the Constitution and do not depend upon it for legitimacy.

Our Constitution requires government to protect all such rights whether enumerated or un-enumerated for a majority or a minority.

To restate the facts mere words on paper do not give or grant unalienable/inalienable rights nor can mere words on paper take them away.

Only the brute power of a totalitarian government can take away unalienable/inalienable rights of sovereign citizens.

It’s difficult to see how those who support government using its power to take away unalienable/inalienable rights of sovereign citizens are not themselves supporting totalitarianism, e.g. the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property

Recent shooting tragedies are being used by many to again try to infringe on the right to keep and bears for defense of self and property. It’s important therefore to review a bit of history to get at the truth.

The Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller (2008) “the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. . . . ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence’”.

Five justices supported Justice Scalia’s opinion that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”.

Four justices dissented, supporting statements written by Justices Stevens and Breyer that the Second Amendment protected a militia right, not an individual right. They cited Pennsylvania and Vermont in their dissents and that’s very important.

Pennsylvania was the first state to clearly define the right to defend self, property, and state saying, “A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776 . . . That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." PA said "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Vermont changed the word “inalienable” to “unalienable” and adopted the same statements in its constitution with “A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT- July 8, 1777”

PA ratified the Bill of Rights (BOR) on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, it modified its constitution on 2 Sept. 1790, five months later, to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

So what does inalienable and unalienable mean? Legal Dictionaries define them as “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”, e.g. it can never be legal for a person to become a slave to another.

It is indisputable that PA and VT acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights” regardless of what modern day politicians or adjunct constitutional instructors might spout. As an inalienable/unalienable right, it is impossible for PA and VT citizens to have given their right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, property, and state away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR.

Presumably since “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, what’s correct for PA and VT is correct for the other 48 states and what’s correct for the right to keep and bear arms is also correct for every other enumerated unalienable/inalienable right and every un-enumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Our Constitution and BOR were written so they could be read to crowds of illiterate patriots, not tweeted on cell phones. Their authors possessed writing and oratory skills rare among modern academics, journalist, and politicians. Consequently the audience in circa 1790 knew precisely what our Constitution and Bill of Rights meant and so do I and other patriots.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
kpete Aug 2012 OP
Shadowflash Aug 2012 #1
appal_jack Aug 2012 #15
DanTex Aug 2012 #20
appal_jack Aug 2012 #23
DanTex Aug 2012 #24
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #32
DanTex Aug 2012 #36
ellisonz Aug 2012 #2
Fumesucker Aug 2012 #5
ellisonz Aug 2012 #7
hack89 Aug 2012 #9
rrneck Aug 2012 #18
Fumesucker Aug 2012 #22
DanTex Aug 2012 #40
ellisonz Aug 2012 #58
AtomicKitten Aug 2012 #3
patrice Aug 2012 #4
TheKentuckian Aug 2012 #27
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #28
hack89 Aug 2012 #6
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #11
rrneck Aug 2012 #19
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #30
99Forever Aug 2012 #8
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #35
99Forever Aug 2012 #54
xchrom Aug 2012 #10
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #31
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #42
DisgustipatedinCA Aug 2012 #12
Tommy_Carcetti Aug 2012 #21
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #33
DanTex Aug 2012 #45
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #47
DanTex Aug 2012 #52
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #56
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #50
Scuba Aug 2012 #13
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #14
appal_jack Aug 2012 #16
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #29
DanTex Aug 2012 #26
Kaleva Aug 2012 #39
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #41
Kaleva Aug 2012 #51
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #43
Kaleva Aug 2012 #49
DanTex Aug 2012 #55
Kaleva Aug 2012 #57
DanTex Aug 2012 #60
-..__... Aug 2012 #17
virginia mountainman Aug 2012 #25
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #34
madinmaryland Aug 2012 #37
LineReply Our Constitution does not give or grant rights; they are natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable
jody Aug 2012 #38
DanTex Aug 2012 #44
derby378 Aug 2012 #46
jody Aug 2012 #53
DanTex Aug 2012 #61
oldhippie Aug 2012 #48
davidpdx Aug 2012 #59
UnrepentantLiberal Aug 2012 #62
Please login to view edit histories.