I know, I said I wasn’t gonna write, that I was going to focus on my book, but I have to get this off my chest. This evening someone posted a comment on my Facebook page saying that this whole freedom thing isn’t rocket science. I have to ask myself, if the concept of liberty and unalienable rights isn’t rocket science, if it is something that is pretty easily understood, what does it say about the average person who just can’t seem to grasp the concept?
Before our Constitution was ratified, or agreed upon, certain states stated that unless a bill of rights was added, protecting certain unalienable rights, they would not vote to ratify it.
You see, those guys who were alive back at the time our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written believed that our rights were not gifts given us by a benevolent and compassionate government; instead they came from our creator. One of them, Thomas Jefferson once said, “Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.”
Those guys back then used words that most people today don’t, and therefore those words might often just be read over without people taking the time to understand their meaning. So let me help you out a bit here.
When someone says something is inherent they mean that it exists in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element. When they say unalienable they mean that is incapable of being alienated, that is, sold or transferred.
So, when someone say your rights are inherent and unalienable what they mean is that they are part of your existence and no one has the power to deprive you of them. You cannot give them away, or surrender them. You can choose not to exercise them, but they are still yours to use whenever you see fit.
To those of you who have not read and studied the lives of our nation’s founders, the name Albert Gallatin may not mean anything to you. However, Gallatin served both as a U.S. Senator and a member of the house, eventually becoming House Majority Leader. He also was the longest serving ever U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
Regarding our Bill of Rights, Gallatin once said, “The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals… It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”
You got that? The rights of the people, either in groups or as individuals are unalienable and no majority has the right to deprive them of. So, I don’t care in 99.9% of the people think that one of those rights found in the first ten amendments to the Constitution poses a threat to them, they STILL have no right to infringe upon it.
Now, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Pretty straightforward if you ask me. But it seems as though for some it really is as complicated as rocket science. So, once again let me assist you in understanding it.
Suppose I were to reword it so that it read: “A well stocked closet, being necessary to provide you a suitable wardrobe, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes shall not be infringed.”
Yeah, it sounds silly, but just bear with me for a moment. With the logic being used by people today, including our legislators, if you have the right to own clothes, it does not necessarily mean you can wear them outside your home unless of course you obtain a permit.
What good is a heavy jacket designed to protect you from the cold do if you can’t wear it without a permit? I would like to ask, what good is a handgun designed to protect you from criminals if you need a permit to wear it on your side?
You see, the moment you need to ask permission to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right and has become a privilege, and, unlike rights, privileges can be taken away.
But wait a minute; our founders said our rights were unalienable. I don’t give a shit what the Supreme Court says about it, a right is a right is a right. If our rights are unalienable, then no legislator, no judge, and no law enforcement officer have the right to deprive us of them. As long as in exercising my right I do not infringe upon your rights I should be allowed to do so. It matters not one iota that someone walking down the sidewalk with a six gun strapped to his belt intimidates you; it is his right to do so.
I know, these concepts may sound a bit radical to you, but nonetheless that is how our founders viewed our rights. I have been around guns since before I can remember. I have never used one in anger or in the commission of a crime. Yet because I believe that I have the right to own as many of them as I want I am considered dangerous by many. I have been asked why do I need so many guns, (mostly by women), I would like to ask them, why do you need more than one purse, one pair of shoes, or one necklace?
In concluding, I hope I have taken this whole concept of rights and reduced it from rocket science level down to a level that maybe a fifth grade student with a learning disorder could understand. If so, my goal has been reached.
June 21, 2011
If you wish to comment, please go to Neal’s blog so that others may partake of your wit and your wisdom as well… http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal