"Self defense" an inalienable right and RKBA is an exercise of that right

[jody]

The Declaration of Independence (1776) says, "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

Eleven of the original states had adopted constitutions before they adopted the Articles of Confederation (March 1781) and later ratified the U.S. Constitution (1787 to 1790). A few states included a Bill of Rights stating the inalienable rights of its citizens and inalienable rights can not be given away.

For example, Pennsylvania said, "I. That all men are born equally free and ndependent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property," and "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

The Articles of Confederation say, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

The Preamble to our Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, 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." {emphasis added}

Why would a sovereign People create a central government and allow it to use the People's authority and power to

" provide for the common defence" of the People as a collection,

say that and

allow that government to prevent individual members of the People from exercising their inalienable right to defend self and property by using the same arms chosen by criminals and allowed to be used by law enforcement officers?

When did the Creator endow society with unalienable rights?

When did the Creator endow corporations with unalienable rights?

When did the Creator renounce the endowment of individuals with unalienable rights?

[bluestateguy]

1. Agree

Gun control promotes an ideology of victimology and over-dependence on the state for protection. Should we really trust George W. Bush's Administration with that kind of power? Do YOU trust George W. Bush and John Ashcroft with a database of names of every American who owns a gun? Fact is that in many parts of the country unpopular minorities cannot depend on local law enforcement for protection (i.e. gays in the rural South) and the right to bear arms is thus an essential natural right of self-preservation.

[MrBenchley]

3. Too too funny

George W. Bush and John Ashcroft agree with YOU and not the majority of voters who want gun control...wonder why?

[bluestateguy]

5. No, they don't

They want to renew the so-called "assault weapons" ban, and they have tried to systematically confoscate guns from law-abiding Iraqis. When guns are being taken out of the hands of non-white, non-Christians suddenly the Right likes gun control.

[MrBenchley]

13. What a pantload...

"they have tried to systematically confoscate guns from law-abiding Iraqis."
Hahahahahahahahahaha!! Who the HELL are you trying to kid?

[MrBenchley]

2. Hello

The Preamble to our Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the COMMON defence

[Wcross]

4. BWAAAAAAAAAAAA

Heaven forbid anyone defend themselves! That would be a travesty! All smart people from urban crime zones know the best defense is to curl up in a fetal position and sing Kumbia!

[MrBenchley]

14. Cross, go cry about your rubbish being untrue

to someone who cares....

"All smart people from urban crime zones know"
You mean the ones you were whining on other threads wanted to take guns from you rural rubes? Hahahahahahaha!

[Wcross]

16. Those are the ones!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA,
Us rubes are not living in fear of a hunk of metal! Seems like you are, its a damn shame that people can't control themselves around guns in your area- we have no problem out here in the sticks with guns!

Until our votes don't count anymore, we will vote to keep our rights. You are of the same ilk as Ashcroft and you know it! You just disagree on WHICH rights you want to abolish. Shame on you Benchley, attempting to buy minimal saftey at the expense of freedom.

[MrBenchley]

17. Peddle it to someone who's dumb enough to fall for it...

"its a damn shame that people can't control themselves around guns in your area- we have no problem out here in the sticks with guns!"
Is THAT why rural voters want gun control, cross?

"You are of the same ilk as Ashcroft and you know it! "
That would be NRA life member AshKKKroft...who supports YOUR position, cross, over public safety and sanity. Shame on YOU for siding with scum like AshKKKroft and Tom DeLay..

[1a2b3c]

19. What spun website did this come from?

Is THAT why rural voters want gun control, cross?

All of the blue states in 2000 were near water and all of the red states were the rural states. Did the MMM come up with this quote?

[MrBenchley]

20. Who are you trying to kid?

"All of the blue states in 2000 were near water and all of the red states were the rural states."
And the chimp was running around trrying as hard as he could to pretend he was even more for gun control than Gore. So go peddle your rubbish to someone who is dumb ehough to fall for it.

[1a2b3c]

23. Damn i cant believe

I took you off ignore to read that. Back you go.

[Lefty48197]

27. It's a fact

The New England states, the Great Lakes states, Florida, and the Pacific Coast voted for Gore. The mountains, plains, and former slave states that voted for Bush.

[1a2b3c]

33. Not to be nit-picking ya but....

Florida was a slave state. It still close after you figure in what they pay non union hispanic workers.

[Lefty48197]

26. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols had a little problem with weapons

and they lived out in the sticks too. Or don't you consider paranoid white guys trying to overthrow the federal government to be a problem?

[MrBenchley]

31. That's the RKBA movement in a nutshell

emphasis on nut.

[iverglas]

6. eh?

Somebody ask jody for me:

When did "the Creator" ... anything???

There are those who may not grasp the concept ... but when Joe says "the Creator did X", that just ain't proof that "the Creator" did it, or did anything else, or EXISTS.

Wot a bot.

http://www.jabberwacky.com/JTReply?B137883

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, 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." {emphasis added}

.

[MrBenchley]

15. Got to unravel

one of Jody's superstitions at a time....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

Gee, those sure sound like collective tasks we people are setting ourselves to do there, doesn't it?

[Shanty Oilish]

7. "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

I kind of wish they hadn't held them so self-evident. They should have been a bit more explicit.
As it is, we're lucky we got a Bill of Rights.

[jody]

8. You're referring to the phrase that I believe is attributed to

Ben Franklin who Jefferson asked to read and suggest changes to a draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson and Franklin were emphasizing that an individual's rights were not granted by some King or Queen, but rights came in "one size fits all" version, freely given to every human. It's a shame that we usually start discussions about RKBA with the Constitution and immediately get sidetracked with parsing the Second Amendment. RKBA is the way free people exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property and that was true before the states even thought about writing the Constitution. :shrug:

[Shanty Oilish]

9. They managed to agree to it

Without any queasiness over separating church and state. Endowed by the Creator and all. Wouldn't go over well today.

[DavidMS]

10. I think that "endowed by the creator" realy comes

in claiming that rights like that of freedom of speach, press, faith and consience, particapation in national defence, privacy, etc. are indemic to the human condition and fundamental to our existance as people (rational beings). Therefore a duity for a just and virtious goverment (as the agent of the populace) is created to protect these rights, perticualry when exercised by unpopular people expressing unpopular beleifs but who are not molesting or intruding apon the rights of others.

[jody]

11. Good point. My reply was muddled because I intended to limit it

to the phrase using "self-evident".

The notion of an "inalienable right" in a government based upon democratic ideals is the only protection an individual, a minority of one, has against a majority. Take away that belief founded upon a Creator, and a simple majority can impose its will upon any individual or minority on any issue.

While few of the founding fathers were Christians in an orthodox sense, I don't believe many were true atheists. If they had been atheists, then the notion of inalienable rights granted by a Creator might not have found its way into our government.
:shrug:

[jody]

12. I finally located a cite on "self-evident" by Franklin in Declaration

Special Issue Time

QUOTE
When he had finished a draft and incorporated some changes from Adams, Jefferson sent it to Franklin on the morning of Friday, June 21. "Will Doctor Franklin be so good as to peruse it," he wrote in his cover note, "and suggest such alterations as his more enlarged view of the subject will dictate?" People were much more polite to editors back then.

Franklin made only a few changes, some of which can be viewed written in his hand on what Jefferson referred to as the "rough draft" of the Declaration. (This remarkable document is at the Library of Congress and on its website.) The most important of his edits was small but resounding. He crossed out, using the heavy backslashes that he often employed, the last three words of Jefferson's phrase "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" and changed them to the words now enshrined in history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
UNQUOTE

[iverglas]

18. "Life" is an "inalienable right"

... or so some people find it handy to assert ... there being no authority that anyone can appeal to when making these kinds of claims ...

and "self-defence" is an exercise of *that* right. Not an independent right. Nope. Makes no sense.

"Liberty" is an "inalienable right" ... and resisting slavery is an exercise of *that* right. Not a "right" all by its own self. If it were, then eating an ice cream cone and just anything else one could think of would be a "right".

Gettin' it?

Rights, and exercises of rights.

Clarity of thought is always useful in discussing stuff.

The exercise of ALL rights -- let's all say it together now -- the exercise of ALL RIGHTS and ANY RIGHT -- is subject to reasonable limitation where the justification for such limitation is demonstrated and accepted according to the rules that are also accepted for that purpose. (Damned circular, ain't it? Yup. That's what happens when there are no received-wisdom first principles to measure against, and no big-daddy creators to ask for a ruling.)

The assertion of a right is NEVER the answer to whether the exercise of that right may be limited. Nope; never, not ever, no never.

And of course, I'll just never cease to be amazed that anyone would offer something said by one tiny obscure group of individuals a coupla hundred years ago, out of the whole of human history and geography, as AUTHORITY for ANYTHING ... other than what it *is* authority for, of course, which would be the fact that they presumably thought it.

What they said may indeed be accepted by some as authority for the rules by which those some agree to be governed. That, of course, is their choice, and is subject to change, just as what they have agreed to be governed by is subject to interpretation. That's life and all that jazz.

.

[Ergotron]

21. "Life is an inalienable right"...unless you are an unborn child...

Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Once you're actually born you have rights, but up until that day you are a disposable commodity.

[1a2b3c]

22. Damn pro life'rs

Isnt there a different forum on DU for the disposable commodity discussion?

[Ergotron]

25. I don't like the term 'pro-life'...sounds too political...

I prefer 'anti-murder'.

Murder is murder, whether I kill a child inside the womb or outside. Either way a child is dead. Do you actually dispute this fact?

[iverglas]

28. hmm ... I get the feeling

I'm on ignore. Must be why I'm not getting answers to my questions here and at Civil Rights. How much easier life must be when one can just pretend that the hard questions don't exist!


"I don't like the term 'pro-life'...sounds too political...
I prefer 'anti-murder'.
Murder is murder, whether I kill a child inside the womb or outside. Either way a child is dead. Do you actually dispute this fact?"

You do throw words like "fact" around with great abandon, doncha?

How can somebody "dispute" a "fact" that is more properly described as garbled garbage?

"Pigs is pigs, whether the pig in question is a pig or a diamond ring."



Pigs is Pigs, by Ellis Parker Butler

read it online

.

[MrBenchley]

32. That seems to be the RKBA crowd's

tactic of choice...

[1a2b3c]

34. ahh so i have to ask

How many kids have you adopted in your lifetime? I myself dont really consider them to be a child till they pop out. Im not much into the trimesters and all the lingo(im one of them gun wackos) but i think an abortion, say around 2 months into the 9, is fine and is doing no harm to the child or the mother. If the mother is unfit to be a mom i would rather she had an abortion then to leave the kid to rot in foster care, or worse, raise another criminal who doesnt give a shit about anyone or anything but himself. Pro-lifer does sound a bit too political but anti murder sounds a bit too catholic to me.

[iverglas]

24. or a sunflower

or a cat, or a cow, or a grasshopper, or a weed, or my big toe, or ... pretty much anything else that isn't a human being.

Funny how that works, ain't it?

Or did you suppose that your founders & framers (and jody) were saying that "life is an inalienable right" for every living cell or collection of cells on the planet?

"Darn pro-lifers"?

Darn silliness, that's for sure. And yes, I'm sure there are loads of places where it might be a welcome diversion.

Diversion it was, of course. I'm not seeing any response to my post ...

.

[Spentastic]

29. I'll respond

But only because I've missed you.

:hi:

Hello!

[iverglas]

30. have I been gone??

Well, I *have* been busy. And it has got rather dull around here. No learning opportunities on offer at the moment.

So I'm working on some stuff about the right of an accused to make full answer and defence instead. A rather obscure point in that body of thought, actually, but still ... it may be work, but it's more fun than an endless series of botspeak paeans to "unalienable rights".

And I'm busy scoffing the law about licensing and registration ... driver and vehicle, that is. Damn things expired on my birthday last month. As if birthdays aren't quite bad enough already without having to get an emissions test on one's aging motor vehicle.

.