I am certain I am not the uninformed one in this instance, because I keep asking this question and no one even addresses the question … let alone answers it. I will ask it again giving my background reasoning for my thoughts.
“Why have we allowed government (the courts up to the SCOTUS) to treat the Second Amendment as an INalienable Civil Right (regulated) when its purpose (individual protection [self-defense] against the evil acts of other individuals and/or the governments they create) is clearly described in the Declaration as being an UNalienable HUMAN Right (meaning inherent in the individual as an Act of God, and beyond the ability of government to deny or regulate)?” The Declaration is a LEGAL document. Look up the definitions of both unalienable and inalienable in any LEGAL dictionary. Not Webster’s, Johnson’s or Funk and Wagnall, but Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition or Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.
Our three basic Human Rights are listed in the Declaration as being “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. These are ABSOLUTE Rights existing in everyone for being created as a member of the Family of Man and, recognized as such by the individual, are self-limiting by individuals - not by government. It is only required that the actions of individuals do not deny, limit or intrude upon those SAME Rights existing in other people, because no one’s Rights supersede those of any other person.
Under Natural Law (the concept laid out in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration and the significant mechanism ensuring the perpetuity of our Rights), the Rights to “LIFE” (autonomous and absolute control by the individual of one’s existence and destiny), “LIBERTY” (the Right to enjoy a political atmosphere that allows the free exercise of our Rights) “and the pursuit of HAPPINESS” (the individual Right to do anything one wishes with his/her life) – pursuit of any occupation, hobby or activity one wishes - are only subject to ONE restriction or caveat: Because these are universal Natural Law Rights existing in everyone, no individual may take any action or undertake any pursuit which would deny, limit or intrude upon the ability of any other individual to enjoy THEIR life. That’s called TOLERANCE and RESPECT for the Rights of others. This is the chief characteristic of the moral and polite society envisioned by the founders. Just penalties imposed by government for the violation of one’s individual Rights by another are justifiable government regulations promoting freedom, not limiting freedom, by punishing evildoers. Violations of HUMAN Rights were the original justification for the death penalty in capital crimes such as murder, kidnapping and rape. Take a life illegally, pay for it by forfeiting yours. Destroy the liberty or happiness of another, the state destroys you. The deterrent for those perpetrators is permanent.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller rejected the idea that the Second Amendment only protects militia service. He affirmed it “protects every citizen’s individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.”
Scalia’s “opinion” is in perfect harmony with Natural Law for three obvious reasons. (1) An individual Right confirms we were created as individuals – not as a group and given one Life to live; (2) The individual Right of self-defense is affirmed as well, because you cannot have the absolute Right to control your Life and destiny if you do not ALSO have the Right to DEFEND your Life, the lives of family members and any innocent life in need of protection … hand-in-glove as a necessary part of that control; and (3) The Right of self-defense assumes our ability to eliminate a threat to our life in the most effective way possible. That would not include being forced to bring a knife to a gun fight, but does include effective arms of the period in which we live, constrained only by the caveat not to harm or end the life of any other innocent person.
Also, government has absolved itself of any liability for its failure to protect individuals. In Warren v District of Columbia – 444 A 2d, 1 (DC Appl., 1981) it was decided and affirmed, stating “It is a fundamental Principle of American Law that no agency of government (no Federal, state or local jurisdiction nor any subdivision thereof) may be held liable for failure to provide government services to any individual – only to society as a whole. This decision is not unique to the District of Columbia; nor is it a ploy to avoid just liability. The principle that each individual must be responsible for providing his/her first line of defense against crime with the police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent to crime, is inherent in a free society.” Put simply, according to Warren and other similar cases, self-defense is not just a Right but an individual responsibility or obligation.
It is lawyers and judges (partially because of feelings of intimidation on the part of the public and their respect for a profession including judges who deal with the complexity of the law) who have been allowed to complicate through its regulation a Right that is inherently exempt from government regulation. Another part can reasonably be attributed to the Liberal bias found in almost all institutions of learning at any level, and the tendency of Progressive thought to promote larger more intrusive government while diminishing the concept of Individual or Personal Responsibility for one’s actions – which is the very soul of freedom and Liberty. Warren mandates that concept.
It also is the root of what Progressives, Liberals and Democrats (by the fact their party wholeheartedly embraces these political philosophies) have been targeting for over a century. It is the view that our Constitution is a malleable document subject to the whimsical interpretation of whatever warped cultural anomalies are contemporaneously present and in need of justification, instead of the fixed but amendable document that is designed to govern a moral and religious people. As John Adams said, “… it is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other.” The freedom-promoting concept of personal responsibility has been driven out of our schools along with and/or replaced by an ignorance of American History, a lack of citizenship instruction and a resulting false definition of “Rights”. At the same time there has been, and currently is, an ongoing attack on Christianity and a denial by government of the existence of Natural Law.
The proof lies in the fact that no one can be said to have the inherent Right to control one’s own life and destiny unless they also have the Right to defend their life effectively as a necessary and inseparable part of that control. Our Human Rights are self-evident TRUTHS endowed by our Creator in each of us – inviolate as Acts of God.
The stupidity exists in the myriad confusing, often-conflicting-and-lacking-in-uniformity-from-jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, rules and regulations which WE the people have allowed to take root through our representatives. The remedy is simple: Eliminate the stupidity and the conflicts by recognizing the 2nd Amendment as a Natural Human Right of self-defense! With that acknowledgment, all of those stupid, conflicting existing laws and regulations just go away! And so do the BATFE’s abuses of power. Gee! The people are “free” to act in their own defense! What a concept!
Can you imagine being a governor or a member of the legislature of any state that denies the affirmation of these Rights to their citizens? The beautiful thing about this mechanism is no one is forced to adopt any particular religious philosophy as their mantra; it is only required that they DO NOT work against or deny the Right of those who do. Their acquiescence thereby secures their Rights against government usurpation as well! Everyone’s Rights are protected as the founders intended.
“Prove Me Wrong!”
