Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Natural and legal rights’

Rev. David Whitney — Declaration of Independence….. “Note that Adams said, “…rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws…”…………”

July 11, 2014 1 comment

……………EXCERPT!!!!!!!!!!

…..While every word in our Founding Charter is important perhaps the second most important principle of freedom to understand is that Our Rights come from God – Not Government, therefore they are not subject to the Repeal or Restrictions of Human Laws.

The Declaration of Independence states, “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 pursuit of Happiness.

jarrwin

jarrwin (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

Read more…

Have We Been Reading the Declaration of Independence All Wrong?… “See that period? According to Princeton professor Danielle Allen, it’s not actually in the original document. If she’s right, then the individual rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” would share a sentence with what follows:…”

July 4, 2014 1 comment

Have We Been Reading the Declaration of Independence All Wrong?

The Wire ^ | 7/3/14 | Abby OhlheiserPosted on 7/4/2014, 1:54:38 AM by Kartographer

First, let’s pinpoint what’s in question here.

The official transcription from the National Archives reads emphasis ours:

jfkwarng

jfkwarng (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

jarrwin

jarrwin (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See that period? According to Princeton professor Danielle Allen, it’s not actually in the original document. If she’s right, then the individual rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” would share a sentence with what follows:

Excerpt

Read more at news.yahoo.com …

via Have We Been Reading the Declaration of Independence All Wrong?.

*****

GUNNY G:

SEE ALSO: DOI AUTHOR?:

WAS IT THOMAS JEFFERSON..OR… THOMAS PAINE ???

***

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/?s=did+thomas+pain+write

 

*****

50 States ‘Resign’ From US Corporation? ….. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “| Politics

July 25, 2013 2 comments

NOW!! Spy-Proof Communications is Here from Before It’s News

 

(Before It’s News)

 

big

big (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

Have all 50 US ‘states’ tendered their resignation from the United States ‘corporation’ as this video from BackToConstitution suggests? According to the Declaration of Independence, it is not only our RIGHT, but it is our DUTY, to ‘throw off’ a government of despots who are committing a long train of abuses as this government clearly has been. A government of criminals is clearly no government at all and will be held accountable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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,

 

Read more…

JB Williams — Our Rights Shall NOT Be Infringed…

April 7, 2013 1 comment

NewsWithViews.com

 

Political leftists with global ambitions, who fear the wrath of a free people, have been trying to disarm American citizens for more than a hundred years now. Although Americans have been quite tolerant of past overreaches of political authority at the federal, state and local level, the silence of the people should not be misinterpreted as their consent. Far from it…

 

gophum

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

In the end, our rights shall NOT be infringed! PERIOD!

 

The subject of our inalienable rights, protected by the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and State Constitutions, is simple. – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

Why? – Because, a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State and a free people.

 

 

 

 

 

RPREVOLU

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

A Free State

 

A state which is subservient to any supreme central power is not a “free state.” Our Founders created a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a democracy. The thirteen original colonies and the balance of the states by ratification, created a federal government via a compact known as the U.S. Constitution, and further protected states and individual rights via the Bill of (inalienable) Rights.

 

 

 

The people, via their states, assigned certain specific and limited duties to the federal government they created, along with the limited authority to carry out those duties.

 

Read more…

Libertarians vs Conservatives on Guns by Mark R. Crovelli

March 15, 2013 Leave a comment

Few issues highlight the gaping philosophical divide between libertarians and modern conservatives more starkly than the issue of guns. This might seem counterintuitive, because libertarians and modern conservatives often stand shoulder to shoulder against liberals and progressives to defend individual gun rights. The convenient alliance between modern conservatives and libertarians in the political trenches, however, conceals a fundamental and serious philosophical disagreement.

 

gophum

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

In order to fully grasp the division between libertarians and modern conservatives on this issue, it is important to understand why libertarians and conservatives think gun rights are so important. At the most general level, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree that all men have a natural right to defend themselves against aggression. More specifically, every man has a natural right to repel with violent force any unjust aggression against his life or his property.

 

 

 

Libertarians and modern conservatives do not defend individual gun rights out of some bizarre and loony obsession with a 200-year-old piece of parchment called “The Constitution.” On the contrary, they hold that the Constitution of the United States merely articulated something about man’s nature that has always been and always will be true.

 

mussobama

mussobama (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

The logical implication of this, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree, is that individuals have a natural right not just to defend their lives and their property against aggression from individual murderers and thieves, but that they have a natural right to defend themselves from unjust aggression by government. Hollow indeed would be the right to self-defense if it did not include the right to defend oneself against aggression by government – including one’s own government, because governments have killed and robbed exponentially more people than have private criminals.

 

Recognizing this fact, libertarians and modern conservatives agree that the natural right to self-defense must include a right to defend oneself against unjust government aggression, and that doing so usually requires more than simply a stick or a slingshot. A population armed with modern guns is not easily cowed, robbed, or massacred unless governments resort to wildly immoral and indiscriminate tactics or weapons of mass destruction.

 

So far so good. Libertarians and modern conservatives agree that…..

 

Read more…

‘Need’ defined…

March 1, 2013 1 comment

‘Need’ defined

 

redstate.com ^ | 28 February, 2013 | mcrow44

 

Posted on Friday, March 01, 2013 9:42:43 AM by marktwain

 

rprprprp

rprprprp (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

The ‘need’ word has infected political rhetoric. President Obama recently suggested that we should eliminate certain tax loopholes because some taxpayers are doing just fine and they don’t need tax relief, i.e. the money.

 

Read more…

Chris Matthews: Natural Rights and Second Amendment Are Racist

February 16, 2013 Leave a comment

Chris Matthews: Natural Rights and Second Amendment Are Racist

 

Tea Party ^ | February 16, 2013 | Staff

 

Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:57:22 PM by yoe

 

Video

 

mussobama

mussobama (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

(Infowars.com) You know establishment liberals are desperate when they start throwing around the race card to defend their attacks on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights….

 

On Thursday, that’s exactly what former D.C. cop and MSNBC script reader Chris Matthews did – he called the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre a racist for daring to defend the god-given natural right of self-defense.

 

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,255 other followers