Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

An excellent piece as a response to the presidents most recent thoughts on usurping our God given rights.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8974/mr-pr ... -contract/

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Good one for sure.

Good article. Thanks for posting.

Well said.....

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

ShortMan wrote:http://imgur.com/gallery/vC2jD

ROFLMAO.... :lol:

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

First off... It's the Bill of Rights, not the bill of privileges that can be revoked whenever some politician gets a bug up his ass or decides to tug the leash.

Secondly, since when are we shooting clay at shoulder level / eye hight? That pictures seems a bit staged to me, but I am a conspiracy nut.

The author says some pretty compelling things, agreed. But is forgetting at least one important thing. The argument really starts with the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers were really a bright bunch of people - well educated, well read, and had a strong command of the English language, much better than what individuals commonly have today. They knew exactly what they were writing, and understanding what was written takes more of a study than a nice beach read.

The Declaration of Independence said a number of things - "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, 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." We really need to pay attention to the words. In particular, "unalienable" is truly important. It does not mean "inalienable". Unalienable means it _cannot_ be removed because it is not granted (which is what inalienable means). So, these really smart guys that could write well told England that people have rights to do things just because we exist and government only exists because it's governed permit it to. So a government has _inalienable_ rights (granted and revoked by the governed) and people have _unalienable_ rights (that exist just because we exist). England didn't like being smacked and there was a little revolution.

A while later, a bunch of smart guys (a couple of whom put their name down on the Declaration of Independence: Franklin, Jefferson, etc.) who _still_ had a great mastery of the English language, and fully knew about the Declaration, put Madison in charge of drafting the Constitution of the United States of America (after a few false starts). Madison (while coordinating with his buddy Jefferson and others) enumerated the entirety of the Federal Government's _inalienable_ rights (remember, they can be taken away or given more) and via the Bill of Rights (remember the mention of "unalienable" rights in the Declaration of Independence?) enumerated the _minimum_ rights for merely existing. The Constitution is living and has no need to be "reintepreted" or have it's meaning changed because Congress itself can, under certain circumstances, make changes to it.

So, my point (I think I have a point) is - the rights (both the Government's and people's rights) established by the Constitution originate in the Declaration of Independence.