Unalienable Rights

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:04:23 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Two new ones from Larken Rose, telling the meaning of unalienable rights, and explaining why treason "is an insane, authoritarian concept." Well, treason does make sense, but it only applies to people who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If they do otherwise, they are guilty of treason. If you haven't sworn such an oath, then the Constitution doesn't apply to you. It is a limit on government power, not a license.

People who talk about preserving their rights by way of "the system" don't understand what a right is. By definition, a "right" is something that you don't NEED "legal" permission to do. You have the right to do it no matter WHAT any "law" says. I know it's about as politically incorrect as you can get to say this, but the proper response to "gun control" is not lobbying and petitions--which imply that its up to the damn politicians to decide whether we can be armed or not. The proper response, if one actually believes in unalienable rights, is to declare, "I have the right to be armed, and trying to violate that right will be hazardous to your health."

Now it's time to get REALLY politically incorrect. Suppose Barrack "I'm-For-Unspecified-Change" Obama becomes President, and successfully introduces a bill to ban all private gun ownership, thus attempting to violate the rights of around 100,000,000 gun-owning Americans. If some thug then shows up at your door, and declares that in the name of King Obama (or King Bush, or any other tyrant) he's going to be swiping your firearms, you have the right to use any amount of force necessary to stop the thug.

Add comment Edit post Add post