Be sure to watch the video and read the commentary by David DeGerolamo after the video. You probably won’t understand what I’m referring to unless you do.
I feel a little bit sorry for the attorney in the attached video. He came to the meeting with one of the three sheriff’s to assist with the legal discussion and was lambasted over the things he erroneously said. The poor guy is really just a product of our modern legal system. Poor thing! He fails to understand the concept of “Unalienable Rights” because he was never taught about “Unalienable Rights.” Our legal schools today do not spend hardly any time discussing the founders and “original intent.” This is done on purpose to try to separate our people from our founders. What they teach instead is “precedent: An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.” As time has passed, our law schools and courts no longer look back at the founders and ask “what was the original intent” when the Constitution was written. This is a problem, remember, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are our founding documents. Instead, what they do today is look for guidance from decisions and case-law previously handed down by fallible judges prior to whatever case they are working on at the present time. You see, No Wonder, the poor attorney was lambasted for his limited understanding of the Constitution, because he doesn’t understand the Constitution! And he was in the middle of a bunch of Constitutionalist! He thinks prior case-law is the ultimate authority when it comes to the law, not the Constitution, because that is what he was taught in law school. What a pity, if he wasn’t so dangerous!
In the attached article that I found at Free North Carolina, according to David (my paraphrase), the Sheriff’s at the meeting said they would not confiscate firearms,under current law, but if the law were changed they would confiscate.
Our Declaration of Independence reads: “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, –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,”
“There is a profound difference between UN and IN. The founders insisted on UN. UNalienable rights are individually given to man only by God and only God can change them. INalienable rights are made by man to collectively govern man and can be, and often are, arbitrarily changed. The difference between UN and IN is that UN places man between his God and the state and IN places man below the state.” From: Do you believe in unalienable rights or inalienable rights? http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/do-you-believe-in-unalienable-rights-or-inalienable-rights/question-2587771/
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: YOU CAN NOT SURRENDER, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. YOU CAN SURRENDER, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.” Gemworld.com
“Even if you say the concept of unalienable rights cannot apply to guns because they are inanimate objects that were not around when the Creator brought mankind on the scene, you have to admit that the right of life does apply. Every animal, including man, is endowed with an instinct for self-preservation i.e. life. All creatures have a wide variety of self-defense mechanisms they use to preserve that life. Some use teeth and claws, some use sharp quills, venom, horns and hooves, and some of the higher species actually use tools. The great apes for example use clubs and rocks. Man being the highest species on the chain of life has created some very sophisticated tools. The gun is just such a tool—a self-defense mechanism used to exercise his unalienable right of self-preservation.
Given our logic thus far, I submit that while the gun alone, as an inanimate object, cannot be an unalienable right, to deny man the mechanism or tool he uses to exercise his unalienable right of self-preservation i.e. life is to seriously infringe upon that right. Without the mechanism or tool, his ability to defend himself is practically nullified. Take away an animal’s teeth, claws, quills, venom, horns or hooves and what you’ve done to their God-given right of self-preservation is to abrogate the Creator’s intent. Take away the great apes access to rocks and clubs and you’ve again annulled the Creator’s plan for that animal. Take away man’s access to arms and you’ve infringed upon his endowed unalienable right to preserve his life.” By Col. Dan @ mddall.com
The second amendment 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.” Emphasis added
The following statement can not be honestly argued against, (the facts are clear, study history): The Constitution was written to protect, to guard our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS given to us by GOD.
We have the right to self-preservation, you know; “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Weapons are an important tool when it comes to protecting the life we have a right to. When you “infringe” on the right bear arms, you are interfering with my inability to protect my life. A life I have an “unalienable right” to. You, nor the government have the right to do that!
The logical conclusion is: The right to “Bear Arms” is Unalienable!
ANYONE who says different is being intellectually dishonest!
It seems these three Sheriff’s don’t get it. That is very saddening to me because their failure to understand something as simple as this concept, could very easily lead to a civil war in this country. Those of us who understand this concept will not easily give up these “unalienable rights.” I am not saying it is time to physically fight, but confiscation will lead to that if they aren’t careful.
Verbatim, found at Free North Carolina:
The video was filmed at the Moccasin Creek Minutemen meeting on the 2nd amendment in Zebulon, NC on January 17, 2013. Three North Carolina sheriffs addressed a group of over 200 people who are concerned that the federal government will infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights. The consensus after the meeting is that we are now even more concerned about our right to bear arms. All three sheriffs (Donnie Harrison-Wake County, Jerry Jones-Franklin County and Carey Winders-Wayne County) assured the people that they would not confiscate our firearms. The reason: the federal government will not pass legislation restricting the 2nd amendment.
However, if Congress did pass such legislation, they would enforce the law and we must work through the legal or legislative system to change it. I personally want to extend my appreciation to these sheriffs for meeting with us. I also personally believe that they are all good men. But: