Constitution grants no rights

[James K]

There are no rights granted by the Constitution. None. Nada. We casually speak of being granted our rights, but that is not the way the founders of our nation saw it.

They saw the rights we cherish as coming not from them or any human agency, but as coming from the Creator, and growing out of the nature of mankind. To them, "granting" people rights in the Constitution would have not only seemed as absurd as "granting" people brains or five fingers on each hand, but would have been an usurpation of the prerogatives of the Creator.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not grant a single right. They do list rights, and they say that Congress, which is established under the Constitution and controlled by it, cannot take away those rights. But nowhere is the word "grant" to be found. As important as it is to understand this concept, it is equally important to understand another. If the rights of mankind are not granted by a human agency, they cannot be taken away by a human agency.

Even if the Constitution is amended out of existence, even if the rights become hollow shells because the means of exercising them is denied, even if every copy of the Constitution is burned by government edict, those rights will still exist.

Freedom of the press is the right of the people to be informed of the approach of tyranny; the right to bear arms is nothing more than the right of the people to resist it. A tyrannical government can take away the means of exercising rights, even the basic right to vote, but it cannot take away the rights themselves, since it cannot take away what it has not given.

These are things to remember, things forgotten by most of our judiciary, none of whose hidebound minds can even begin to understand the lofty ideas of men like Jefferson and Madison.

 

[bookkie]

Jim:

Glad you posted this reminder. I've always said that the Bill of Rights is a reminder to our government of those rights which we do not relinquish to them when joining the compact of society. The first amendment allows us to tell them when they are violating this prinipal. The 2nd is the amendment which upholds all others.

Richard

 

[Douglas in CT]

Jim:
Wow!

 

[longhair]

thanks for making me think for a minute.....
when you're right, you're right!!!

------------------
fiat justitia

 

[James K]

My purpose in this posting was to make people think!

Jim

 

[Dennis]

Jim K,
For those who know - a great reminder.
For those who didn't know - a truly great lesson!
Thanks!

 

[45King]

Jim K.,
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court has said this exact same thing in US v Cruikshank (one of only 5 second amendment cases ever heard by the court.) I have heard the anti's quote Cruikshank, saying that the Constitution does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. Cruikshank does indeed say this, and goes on to explain exactly what you did-rights are granted to man by the Creator, and those rights exist independent of the existence of the Constitution.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard

 

[James K]

This is typical of the antis: Misunderstand, misquote, and lie. People with teeny tiny little minds can't even understand the great thinkers of history.

 

[Jordan]

Funny thing is: How many members are reading this, nodding their heads.. "Yep, that's right Jim, speak it brother...." and then will turn right around and wring their hands over some half a dozen threads concerning what state, county, or burough will "permit", "allow", or "liscense" who to do what.

Folks: The rights are there. Always have been, always will be. And they're yours to exercise! Why are you waiting on some appointed mini-tyrant to give you the green light?

Remember that old hippy bumper sticker, "What if they had a war, and no one came?"-- Those guys may have been on to something. Try: "What if they attempted to abridge our unalienable rights, -- and no one payed them any recognition?"

 

[HS]

In Australia we have the right to :


Surrender our semi-auto Rifles


Surrender our Pump Action Shot Guns


Not own a gun for Self Defense


Be told what's best for us


Have NO rights


Have a Prime Minister that wears a bullet proof vest when addressing a group of shooters !


Have a Govt. that signs an U.N. proposal to strip us of our guns !


And you think you've got it tough ?


------------------
"The Gun from Down Under !"



[This message has been edited by HS (edited April 10, 1999).]

 

[Hal]

Posted to a new thread. A bit long.

[This message has been edited by Hal (edited April 10, 1999).]

 

[Dennis]

Jordan,

(sarcasm mode: ON)
Bravely spoken! Hear! Hear!

Pay no attention to any law which infringes upon our Natural Rights (and merely noted or affirmed in our Constitution).

Tote your piece and conduct your life in any manner you desire. So long as you infringe upon no other person, you and only you are answerable for your actions.

When confronted with authority, tell them they have no right to interfere with your Rights and you do not comply with their demands.

By the way,
1) Please send us the address where to send flowers, or
2) Have one of your survivors tell us when visiting days are at your penitentiary, or
3) When you lose your job, your home, and the ability to feed, shelter, and protect your family, tell us on TFL all the details of your personal victimization. FYI, since you and your family may be living under a bridge, remember you can find a computer to use at most public libraries.

Hmmmm. Maybe the complete practice of our Natural Rights is not as practical as we would like. Let's see, there was Waco, Ruby Ridge, a list of other individual terroristic attacks by elements of our government where completely innocent people were killed, injured, lost personal property, were financially ruined,....

Hmmmm (again). Perhaps I'd better go back and revise my views on the "...police state" thread.

Hmmmm (yet again!) Perhaps we should unite our efforts and strive harder to bring about change through legal action, gaining public support (through education, etc.), and illuminating the anti-self-defense effort as a socialistic attempt by a bunch of liars to achieve total domination of the people by a paternalistic government.

Then again, perhaps I'm just one of the wimpy cowards who is afraid to shoot LEOs when they challenge my Natural Rights. I guess I too, must be another of those Politically Correct, hand-wringing, mini-tyrant-fearing sheeples.

It will be interesting for us to read all about you when you exercise your rights without regard for the law.....
(sarcasm mode: OFF)

IMO, we have not yet exhausted the legal and political means available to us to bring about a return to Constitutional law. Civil disobediance probably would not result in the public support we both seek and require to achieve our goals.

To be successful, blatant disregard for our laws and/or violence to achieve our goals would require the broad-based support of the American people. We do not have it. They have been misled too far, too long, by anti-self-defense forces.

Educate the public. Show them how they are being reduced to chattel and it is the government who is making them helpless and dependent upon the tyrant's largess. Return to the values that made us strong - values you obviously believe in (as we all do). Re-take our governmental processes through channels established by our Constitution.

I feel as frustrated, as "put upon", as the next guy. But I see no chance of achieving our goals by frightening the general public and weakening our current efforts with incidents of civil disobedience.

Your question, (which I truly believe was rhetorical) was, "What if they attempted to abridge our unalienable rights, -- and no one payed them any recognition?" The answer is, "The government would use whatever force they needed to enforce those laws which abridge our unalienable rights." The government would win, we would suffer financial ruin, injury, and death.

Outright rebellion is called for only when there is no hope of justice.

Hang in there, buddy. You are NOT alone!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 10, 1999).]

 

[Destructo6]

Dennis,

It's exactly that kind of, "not worth it," and, "close enough," compromising attitude that's allowed the kind of infringements that we currently must tolerate to stay within the law.

Once again, Patrick Henry has a few words to say about that:

This is no time for ceremony. The question before us is one of awful moment to the country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. Should I keep back my opinion at a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven. It is natural to humans to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it. Let us not deceive ourselves, why does our government, after four hundred years of our existence as an armed people wish to disarm us? It can have no purpose but to force us to submission. Submission to a world government which wishes to manage us as so many sheep, incapable of possessing free will or self-determination. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? We have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable, but it has all been in vain. We have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm, which is now coming on. If we wish to be free-if we mean to preserve inviolate those rights for which we have been so long contending-if we mean not to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, we must fight! I repeat we must fight! An appeal to arms and to god is all that is left us! They tell us that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a soldier or policeman is stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying on our backs, hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies bound us hand and foot? We are not weak, if we make proper use of our means which god has placed in our power. Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country, as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just god who presides over the destinies of nations. The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. There is no alternative even if we were base enough to desire it. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged! Their clanking can be heard on the plains and in the mountains! War is inevitable-and let it come! I repeat let it come! You may cry peace, peace-but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! What is it that you wish? What would you have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry
Richmond, Virginia

Yeah, a lot of these guys never got to be grandfathers, but I think we owe it to them as well as ourselves to be willing risk the same.

 

[Ipecac]

Dennis,
The question is, then, "when is it time for outright rebellion?" Is it time yet in Australia, for HS? What more do we have to give up, and, having given it up, how will we then fight back? I agree with Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards."

You have given an excellent guide to survival in a police state, one which, unfortunately, most of us follow. Which, after all, is what got us all here in the first place.

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken

 

[Jordan]

Destructo-- As familiar as I am with that quote, I read every word of it one more time. Here's another oldy but goody: "Those who would surrender essential freedoms for a little temporary safety (Dennis?) deserve (and will get) neither." B.F.

Dennis-- I admire your optimism. Anymore, though, by legal activism we are surely panting on their hampster wheel... right where they want us: always half expended, but with a faintly warm feeling that progress is yet achievable. Claire Wolfe (you're not the only one, Ipecac) points out that in the harshest dictatorships in the world, voting is COMPULSORY!! The peasants feel like they have a voice and that keeps them benignly toiling in the fields.

Ipecac-- "When is the time for an outright rebellion?" What the gun community (not to imply that they are the only group being pushed to the limit) is waiting for is to switch on the TV, and see a news anchor standing in front a team of disarmers going door-to-door down the streets of their neighborhood. This is the ONLY thing that MIGHT jolt us awake. The 'powers' know this, and that is why we will most likely NEVER see that approach. Why would they when the current stragegy is proving so effective?

 

[Dennis]

I truly wish y’all could be here and see me grinning from ear to ear. All
right! There are still some Americans left! I agree with you that there is a
time for rebellion. However, it is not yet that time. You ask “If not now,
when?” so let’s discuss it.

1) How many people would take to the streets right now? Today? At best,
a scattered few. Americans are not yet aware of the true peril our runaway
paternalistic government represents to our freedoms. Most Americans think
the current restrictions are mere inconveniences or only affect “the other
guy” or just a few “gun nuts”. You would stand alone and be slaughtered
like sheep.

2) Who would you shoot? Local LEOs? Many of them are on our side at the
moment. Start shooting them and they will NOT flock to your support! In
other words, we have no currently realistic target for physical aggression. If
the BATF and fellow travelers come marching down the street, then more
Americans would realize the time has come. Even then, expect sheeple to
outnumber willing fighters. Expect willing fighters to outnumber capable
fighters. Expect slaughter at the hands of the government and their
sympathizers and informers.

3) Is physical aggression necessary? I think not!
- Clinton will be out of office in less than two years. He has lost the backing
of the media and even his own party. He is on his way out. He has no way
to mobilize an effective force against us. If he moves to do so, Americans
will flock to OUR side. We need to elect a President who will wipe out
Clinton’s “legacy” of law-making by Executive Order.
- We need to “fire” many of our representatives. We have Americans in
government but they are outnumbered by the Socialists. Bob Barr, Ron
Paul, Dick Armey and others will back our movement if we do not screw it up
with illegal force
- Restrictions are becoming more and more burdensome to Americans of
every caliber. As restrictions begin to “bite” more people, the self-defense
movement will become stronger than the self-destructive forces of gun
control.
- We are gaining Rights - even though they are called “privileges”. Who
would have thought ten years ago we would even DEBATE the concept of
legalizing concealed handguns? Look at the gains we have made, the horrific
predictions we have proven wrong, the converts we have brought to our
side. Yes, I realize these CHL procedures constitute illegal registration but
our number are growing. We must strive to increase our ranks of CHL
holders - and train them well so they will be proficient and not stupid.

4) There are several impending clashes that we must win. In no particular
order:
-- Paternalistic government v. American people. As taxes, laws, rules,
restrictions, and court decisions increasingly infringe upon our lives, the frog
may surely boil. But we are not frogs! More and more Americans are slowly
becoming aware that their parents had a lot more freedom than we have.
Many American recognize this threat more slowly than we do - that is
lamentable. But they are learning! And when the water boils, it is not just
the citizen who will be burned - but also the federalists.
-- As people learn that guns do not cause crime any more than stench
causes garbage, we will gain converts. Therefore we must back ideas like
Rob’s (FOUP, have you sent YOUR $50?) and organizations that can truly
impede and even reverse federal tyranny.
-- These converts must be willing and able to use force. And pray to God
that such force need never be used. Hopefully, the “threat” of force by an
armed citizenry would be enough to persuade our government to return their
gaze to the Constitution. Then “actual” force would never be required. One
of the reasons I advocate mandatory firearms training (see the licenses and
permits thread) is that we will need more than an armed populace to win a
civil war - we will need people who are armed AND competent AND willing to
fight, if our threats are to be taken seriously.
-- The continuing perversions of our Constitution must be publicized!
People must understand in their gut that governmental attempts to control
crime have been expanded to the extent that each and every American is at
financial and physical risk because of a government who has, in many
documented cases, “taken a good thing too far”.
-- There is more, but you get the idea. Americans killing Americans should
be too ugly to contemplate; if contemplated, too imminent to resist. It is
not yet time. Pray that time never comes. Work within the Constitution to
ensure that time is never necessary. We need to win more than a battle -
we need to win the war.

 

[Spectre]

One common training method for modern Americans is verbal commands, followed by force. Depending on the situation (at the traffic stop, you are asked if you have any weapons?), this may be the route I follow.

For example:
"The question you ask me violates my 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights.
The 1st amendment protecting my free speech, or lack thereof.
2nd protecting my right to own and carry items suitable for protection;
The 4th amendment protecting my right to freedom from harrassment without cause,
and the 5th noting my protection from incriminating myself. As a Law enforcement officer, surely you are aware of these rights? I understand you have a job to do, and want to help you...so, please tell me, without my rights being violated, how I can assist you!"

 

[James K]

I don't have too many pairs of rose-colored glasses left, but things are not all black, either. We lost CCW in Missouri by 4%. FOUR percent! The antis expected to get 80-90%, and would have ten years ago.

And nothing has been lost except money; the people of Missouri have not gained, but they have not lost anything except an opportunity; more of those will come along.

There is a wider interest in guns than ever, in spite of the general drop in crime. That interest may not go very deep, but the more people who own guns, the more people will react negatively when some nut rants about exterminating gun owners or unlimited search and seizure.

We need to keep our own side straight, and then publicize the downside of gun control, most especially the racism that drives much of it. Gun control is not driven by fear of crime, it is driven by fear for the loss of establishment (not just government) power.

Minority groups pose a threat to that power and must, in the estblishment view, be disarmed. But disarming just one racial group would be discrimination (very un-PC), so "right wing militia" threats are exaggerated or invented to provide an excuse the minority group will accept. But the idea is that everyone must be disarmed. After that, any threat can be co-opted or its members simply wiped out.

 

[Grayfox]

I agree with Dennis. Now is not the time for open warfare in the streets. Put up an armed resistance if you feel you must. You'll end up with a small mention on the evening news about a "gun nut" the police were forced to kill. In the end you'll do our cause more harm than good.
Knowledge is power and education is the key. The people are slowly waking up. It will take time. But every government lie or cover-up strenghtens our position. The children are growing up and someday they won't need their nanny.
Our job is to help educate these children. To point out what is wrong and speak up loud and clear. To drag the concepts of the nanny state, gun control and political correctness out of their dark little corners and into the light of day where all can see how ugly they really are.
Make no mistake, if it ever comes to a shooting war, I'll be right there beside you. But it will also mean that we have failed in our task to educate the masses.
Let me ask you this. Do you contact your legislators about the things that are important to you? Are you a member of the NRA, GOA or other pro-gun group? Do you take the time to make your point with facts and logic or do you just tell the anti-gunner "You're full of s**t" and walk away? Have you sent your $50 to FOUP and helped spread the word? If not, you are just as guilty as the sheeple you hate.
Don't whine to me about whats wrong or shoot off your mouth about what you will do. Help turn the system against itself. Get off your butt and get out there. We can make a difference, but only if we stop feeling sorry for ourselves.

 

[Jordan]

I'm going to call it 'quits for now' on this argument. Before leaving, though, I reread my posts and couldn't find anything REMOTELY suggesting "shooting wars", inciting "open warfare", or any other manner of aggression. In fact, I only mentioned the word "rebellion" in response to someone elses question.

The type of resistance I alluded to was of a most quiet, passive, and personal nature.

Lastly, Grayfox, citing me as a whiner and a mouth-shooter-offer seems a little bold, knowing me no better than you do.