Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Should your Rights be predicated on anything?

"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." - The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

Rights. Self-evident. Unalienable. Endowed by their Creator. Think about the above statement and those words. Dwell upon it.

When you read the word 'unalienable' you first need to understand what it meant in 1776, just like "well regulated" in the Second Amendment isn't always fully understood today. The first step can be found in the manner it was pronounced: un-a-lien-able.

"un·alien·able /ˌʌnˈeɪlijənəbəl/ adjective - chiefly US, formal : impossible to take away or give up"

Impossible. IMPOSSIBLE to take away or give up... is your mind now really contemplating what a Right truly is?

From time to time I hear statements and comments from people who, at first blush, speak about unalienable Rights and then, sometimes in the same breath, act as though Rights are privileges.

As a very recent example, I was taken aback by a statement from Dr Benjamin Carson on Glen Beck recently. When he was asked if you 'should be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon?' he responded "It depends on where you live". I almost fell out of my chair. <see video: http://youtu.be/WAiliwfeClo >

What shocked me was how could a man, who I've heard speak of unalienable Rights and a man who was correct on so many other things, be so completely off base on this? What sort of perverse thought process could, in one instance quote The Declaration of Independence and go so far as to call the referenced Creator God (which I agree with) and then go on to say that man or group of them (ie. a state legislative body) could overrule the Rights given to a person by God Himself simply because that person chose to live in an urban environment.

It's beyond ridiculous. Absurd, ludicrous... insane even. I simply cannot wrap my mind around such a deranged thought process. Now whether or not you believe that The Creator is God, your parents, Nature, Gaia, Buddha, Mohammad or who or what ever, the Rights exist, and in fact PRE DATE the United States government and the Constitution (as evidenced in the DOI and the BOR).

How can a person claim one thing and then go 180 degrees against it? I cannot fathom such logic.. or lack there of and it certainly isn't limited to Dr Carson, I simply use him as the most recent example and I am not purposefully singling him out, if you follow my articles you know this.

This is the same logic used in states where carry permits/licenses are given out on a "may issue" basis. As if your beating heart wasn't enough evidence you have something valuable to protect. As if the state was a master over the People and had the (legitimate) authority to even pretend to have the power to grant you the Right of self defense. Anything that is granted is a privilege, not a Right. The last time I checked, these united States of America were still bound together as a Constitutional Republic.

Some people consider me a single issue person (or voter). I certainly am not, but I can see how someone would think I might be. For me, the litmus test of a persons thought process, or what is going on in their mind, can be surmised by their position on the Right to self defense. RKBA. Because if they cannot grasp something as simple and fundamental as the Right to self defense, they don't have the mental or logical capabilities to properly approach any other issue.

If someone cannot grasp the most basic principle of freedom and liberty, no matter if they happen to be correct on other issues, they do not possess the ability to judge for themselves if there is anything the state cannot do, or in this case anything the state can prevent you from doing or take away from you. Such a thought process is completely antithetical to a Constitutional Republic and to freedom and liberty.

Your Rights are not predicated on anything. You have them and no matter what vile piece of legislation is passed, anything that restricts your Right to self defense is both violative of the Laws of The Creator and the Constitution of these united States of America.

I leave you with this:
"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

In Liberty,

Authors note: You will find in my writings that when I refer to a persons Rights, in this article or others, I capitalize the letter "r". This is not by accident and it is not something I invented. When you read through the history of the Founding Fathers and other great men and women throughout history, they too capitalize the word Right as well. Right, used in such a context, conveys so much more than how the word is commonly used today. I urge my readers to research the word, it's history and it's deep meaning and fully appreciate the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

©2013 -Permission is granted to reprint or repost this article provided it is used in full, with links intact and provided the content is not altered in any way, including this paragraph.


  1. Forget the Constitution for a moment. If it didnt exist, would men still be free? Would they still be free to speak and assemble? Free to keep and carry arms? Secure in their houses and persons?

    Americans dont need a piece of paper to tell them these 'truths are self evident'

  2. The Constitution, as you rightly point out with the quote from John Adams, limits the power of Government, not people. WE get our Rights from GOD. People tend to get that backwards these days, especially the ones in Government.

  3. How shall "unalienable" be understood in a land where things are as they are? Today in California, a person who has been hospitalized for depression can have their home searched for the tools of self defense. Any “weapon” found will be taken by the police, even if it is the property of another person who legally resides in the home, and legally owns the item. There will be no compensation, and the tool will be destroyed, making it impossible to return the original. How about when someone with a misdemeanor from twenty years in the past can find that due to a change in the law years after the offense bars him for life from the “right” to own the tools to defend himself or his family? Indeed, how can it be regarded as a right when one must apply for a license, just to exercise said right?

  4. I know I'm late to this discussion, but I have been struggling with the whole "limitation of Rights" thing for some time. As a former police officer, it seems reasonable to me that a convicted felon is not allowed to own a firearm. Equally, a person adjudicated to be mentally incompetent is prohibited from owning a firearm. However, society would never dream of prohibiting a convicted felon or a mentally ill person from exercising their right to free speech, or freedom of religion. This makes me question the validity of restricting some rights, while allowing the free exercise of others. I'm not saying I have the answer, but this does cause me to ponder some long-held assumptions about what we consider "Rights" versus "privileges."

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. I actually found this blog and that is amazing thing I enjoy reading this easy to understand stuff. Keep it up. www.maxblagg.net