Hawkins: Natural Rights Do Not End at State Borders

Admin

Staff Member
Administrator
Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
43,043
Likes
41,844
Location
Monadnock area, NH
Feedback: 18 / 0 / 0
concealed-carry-We-the-People-tatoo-AP-640x480-640x480.jpg


By AWR Hawkins

A natural right that ends at state lines has theoretically moved from the arena of rights and into the category of privileges.

Consider the rights protected by the Second Amendment, which are broadly curtailed by state governments that require the acquisition of a permit in order to bear arms. These same governments arbitrarily decide which out-of-state permits they will honor and which they will not, essentially declaring which law-abiding, out-of-state guests can be armed for self-defense and which must spend their time defenseless, simply trusting in the altruism of the criminal class.

Read full story here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-end-state-lines-not-talking-rights-anymore/
 
This is something i’ve struggled with for a long time. Why ARE things the way that they are for law abiding gun owners? Perhaps more importantly; how did we get here?
Most people want comfortable lives. They don't have a lot of political motivations or ideological drive. They are scared of criminals and terrorists and want to feel safe. If a politician says "this law will make you safer" it sounds good to them. They don't care about rights, and they especially don't care about the rights of other people.

Add to that being able to take money from others and it is pretty clear why democracies devolve into tyranny.
 
Some people are to stupid to understand some basic words.
like these.

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.
 
Last edited:
Most people want comfortable lives. They don't have a lot of political motivations or ideological drive. They are scared of criminals and terrorists and want to feel safe. If a politician says "this law will make you safer" it sounds good to them. They don't care about rights, and they especially don't care about the rights of other people.

Add to that being able to take money from others and it is pretty clear why democracies devolve into tyranny.

More so is, people are absolute fvcking chicken shits to stand up for their RIGHTS, no matter who it is that is violating them. If you are not willing to KILL the son of a bitch who is intent on violating your rights, you have no rights.....PERIOD.

Until the premise becomes widely known to those who would violate your rights, that people will KILL YOU if you try and take away their God given RIGHTS, the violations will continue.

The enforcers of unconstitutional laws are your worst enemy......NEVER make any mistake about it. Bring your tyranny to my door and you will likely not leave upright.
 
Rights are theoretical. It doesn’t benefit having the rights vs privileges discussion. What isn’t theoretical is the 2nd Amendment. That’s the law. No government is or ever will be bound by theoretical notions of rights. It’s why we have laws in the first place. If we operated based solely on natural rights we’d have no government to begin with.

The point is valid to the extent of illustrating the absurdity that is government. And it extends well beyond the 2A and natural rights. Why is anything legal in one state but criminal in another? It’s clearly not based on morals.
 
Have no fear, the weasels will find a way around restoration of our unalienable rights. They always do.
 
Some people are to stupid to understand some basic words.
like these.

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.

Let's even back that up further, what is NOT written into the Constitution is then left to the States to decide for themselves. Not only is 2A CLEARLY defined and written into the Constitution via the Bill of Rights, it is also recognized as a natural right.

Define - "shall not be infringed":
"shall not be" - absolutely forbidden
"infringed" - to violate
Let's put that together - "absolutely forbidden to violate".

Are the States in violation of 2A? You tell me.
 
Let's even back that up further, what is NOT written into the Constitution is then left to the States to decide for themselves. Not only is 2A CLEARLY defined and written into the Constitution via the Bill of Rights, it is also recognized as a natural right.

Define - "shall not be infringed":
"shall not be" - absolutely forbidden
"infringed" - to violate
Let's put that together - "absolutely forbidden to violate".

Are the States in violation of 2A? You tell me.
yes 100% and that is not the only right.
 
This is an example of just how uneducated not only the general public is about the importance of our Constitution but also those in Congress and Senate who are supposed to swear to uphold it for us. They clearly do not understand the core significance of our Constitution deciding that they are more important and can change or restrict the Constitution by nibbling at the edge or denying permission to exercise our rights whole cloth. While each State can flaunt its personality in a myriad of ways, they all are bound by the Constitution which must be equally shared between all legal citizens.


I have a challenge for someone who thinks they are good writers/researchers.


There's a Pulitzer out there for the writer who could compare the severe restrictions on the 2nd amendment in our current time being inflicted on its citizens by the handful of rogue states as the same as those states who insisted on preserving slavery before the civil war. I'm not being funny here. Yes, the civil war was fought for other reasons too but slavery and the ability of some rogue states to insist they keep their slaves was enough to throw our country into a civil war. Imagine, just for a moment, that California, NY, CT, MA, RI, DC, IL, et al decided that they were never going to allow the 2a to exist in their states. What would the administration do? How 'bout if they also begin to restrict the 1st amendment, too? Here in CT no one can speak at any college without being physically attacked by administrators running up to a podium and stealing their notes! When is this going to stop? There is a brewing storm on the horizon where a minority of states have decided, unilaterally, that they know better and are going to simply redact that 1st and 2nd amendment, period. They may even leave it in place but hamstring it so severely as to make it unusable. Now what?


It's my contention that one could clearly see the day when the Federal Government ordered/demanded that a rogue state reinstate the 2nd amendment immediately. How would they enforce that order, however? In a reverse situation, we've all read "Molon Labe" and when Wyoming decided that they were no longer going to restrict full-auto arms, the Feds were prohibited from crossing their border held off by the state's local National Guard. Are we going to see a day when this behavior comes to fruition with the Feds ordering that the Constitution be restored? Or, are we destined to be separated by these rogue states as we travel, concerned about being denied our rights to free travel over borders?


This surely is a brave new world.
 
Back
Top Bottom