Our rights and freedoms as are the result of two primary documents:

1. The Declaration of Independence:

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. -

and

2. The Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But I find that many people confuse one with the other in many cases.

The rights mentioned in the DoI are what we consider "God Given" or "endowed by their Creator" and these rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The rights mentioned in the Constitution (Bill of Rights)  are given to us by "We the People" and nowhere in the Consitution is God or a creator mentioned. And these rights are NOT universal but specifically the rights of citizens of the United States and they include the first 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Now on to specifics.

The rights in the DoI are not as rigidly codified as those in the BoR. They were our justification for breaking from the British crown and they are the rights we see ALL MEN as deserving of. Again those specific rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Now some argue that these rights prohibit capital punishment and participation in combat universally because those things deprive some men of their "God given" rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As a result the enforcement and providing of these rights to "all men" is not possible and probably not practical. The best we can really hope to achieve is to provide these rights to "all men" (and not just US citizens) who find their way to our country.

The rights of the BoR (and the Constitution) are not "God given" but they are rigidly codified and specifically defined. These are NOT the rights of ALL MEN nor are the rights universal, they are only the rights of "the people of the United States." Now some will argue that if they are not "God given" (which they aren't the Consitution specifically states where the rights come from and God or a creator is not mentioned) they can be taken away. This is NOT true however. The entire point of the Constitution was to establish these rights as inviolate. That means we can vote on things and change things EXCEPT those things that are "Constitutionally" protected such as the BoR. If we discovered "God" didn't exist the rights of the Constitution would remain intact and inviolate as a result where the "God given" rights of the DoI may become unfounded. But that scenario is pretty unlikely.

Now certain people like to refer to gun onwership as a "God given" right. This is not accurate. Gun ownership is a protected right of the Constitution (specifically the BoR) and the Constitution is very specific about the origin of that right, it comes from "We the people..." and as part of the Constitution can NOT be taken away "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now if the "right to be armed" is based upon a religious source such as the Bible then it could technically become a "God given" and "Constitutional" right but then it comes under the protection of a 1rst Amendment religious freedom in that case.

The important thing here is IF you try and say the "the right to bear arms" is a "God given" right then you are trying to associate the specific rights of the BoR of the Constitution with the "God given" rights referred to in the DoI but then ALL the rights of US Citizens are now universal rights of all people everywhere. This is the ACLU basis for declaring that Middle Eastern terrorists are deserving of 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protection. You cannot have one without the other. People of the world are generally seen as deserving of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as "endowed by their Creator" but that "Liberty" does NOT specifically refer to the "rights of a US citizen" and that is why people have to become citizens of the United States to enjoy those rights.

And that is why the BoR of the Consitution are not "God given" or universal.

They are however specific INDIVIDUAL rights of a US citizen.

Many have tried to argue that the second amendment here "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to the National Guard and not ordinary citizens of teh Unites States. Couple problems:

1. The Dick Act of 1903 was the instrument under which various "militia" became organized as the National Guard. This legislation repealed the militia laws and effectively converted the various volunteer militias into the National Guard as we know it today. Under the Dick Act Guard units received increased federal funding and equipment. So obvioulsy the National Guard couldn't possible have been the "militia" referred to in the Constution or the second amendment. Also the second amendment being a inviolate part of the BoR supercedes the authority of the Dick Act of 1903 and National Guard was already in existence prior to the Dick Act of 1903 which was named after Major General Charles Dick of the Ohio National Guard so the National Guard and the "militia" were two separate entities prior to the 1903 Dick Act and as a result the National Guard again could not possibly be the "militia" of the Constitution of the United States depsite the 1903 Dick Act.

2. The rights of the second amendment are within the first 10 (Bill of Rights) and these are known to be colective, individual rights of US citizens. To suggest that the rights of the second amendment refer only to the "state" militia is as absurd as to suggest the rights of the first amendment only refer to the "state" press's freedom of speech or the "state" religions "freedom of religion." And to parrot the anti gunners "What person needs freedom of the press or freedom of religion since ordinary people don't own newspaper publishing firms or churches anyway?"

And the point of all this is...

We must understand EXACTLY where our rights come from and why we are entitled to them. It is only in this way that we can defend them from attack and legislation that seeks to infringe or limit them.

The Constitution is not a "living" document with regard to the BoR, they are inviolate. It is a living document in that it can continue to be amended (as it has done so in the past) so long as those subsquent amendments are not in conflict with or limiting to the first ten which are inviolate.

Because if we lose a single one of those rights (and one could argue that the second amendment is already well infringed currently) then that is the first domino to fall and all the others will surely fall behind it. Right now that first domino is "teetering" and that is probably the real meaning of "the second amendment protects all the others..." For if we lost it, all others can and will be lost.

Quoted: Well old buddy, I'm glad I looked all the way on page three to see this.  Looks like you had the muse on you. Nice write-up.  You are wrong on this issue (again), but a nice write-up anyway. Your main failing is that you make assumptions regarding the Founding Fathers that are mistaken.  It is true that God is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but this is because the Founding Fathers thought that the general population was so universally understanding that all rights come from God, that it was unnecessary to mention it further. You can determine this by reading their vast volume of writings.  I recommend some books from this site: www.wallbuilders It is a great site and full of great information.  It has whole books that refute your arguments.

Ahhh, but that is NOT what the Constitution "says" and only what is says is what is enforceable. Otherwise we would have gun laws based upon the Federalist Papers. The FF believed a great many things, even at times being contradictory and at odds with each others beliefs. And as a consequence of that we have ONLY the Constitution, and what is says, to provide our rights and freedoms. If our rights and freedoms were based upon anything else, such as what we "think" they said elsewhere, might have believed to the contrary or similar such things, then our rights and freedoms would not be as absolute, defineable or as inviolate.

For example, on certain issue you and I as well as others, believe differntly, and it is ONLY the specific wording of the Constitution that protects us both.

Quoted: I understand what you are saying, but it conflicts with the vast writings of the Founding Fathers. They understood, and "We the people" understood, and Old_Painless understands that God gives all rights.  Here and in the hereafter. Rights given by the government, and rights given by "we the people" can be recended. Rights given by God never fail. (I'm going to take my walk, so just argue among yourselves for a while.)

And again, if you have a religious basis for your rights that is fine. In fact it gives you further additional protections SPECIFICALLY under the first amendment. Just remember those rights are SPECIFICALLY ordained by "We the people..." just like it says.

Quoted: I believe the right to self-defense, and the defense of your loved ones and the innocent, is a God-given right. What weapon you use to do it is a function of Constitutional rights.

I can find no argument with this.

I think the right to self defense is universal and covered by "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Quoted: All rights come from our Creator.  The Constitution simply enumerates them.

But that is simply NOT true.

Here is the source of our rights as US citizens.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People of the United States" is clearly the source of our rights and "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" is where we established them. Our rights are not simply enumerated in the Constitution as you suggest.

Quoted: Quoted: They [the founding fathers] understood, and "We the people" understood...that God gives all rights.  Here and in the hereafter. Rights given by the government, and rights given by "we the people" can be recended. Rights given by God never fail. SA, while I agree that the rights enumerated in the BOR are inviolate, I also agree with the above quote.  Any Constitutional scholar (without a degree from UC Berkley) would be hard-pressed to come up with a counter-argument. One needs only to look at the historical writings of the men who wrote the Constitution. BTW, I also agree with you when you say: Quoted: We must understand EXACTLY where our rights come from and why we are entitled to them. It is only in this way that we can defend them from attack and legislation that seeks to infringe or limit them.

These rights, the BoR, are given to us by "We the people..." and NOT the government. However despite being given by "We the people..." they CANNOT be rescinded because the first 10 are inviolate. Even IF some person were able to prove there is NO GOD at some future date they could still not be rescinded because they are Constitutionally protected.

Quoted: Actually, I believe that both documents were born from the theories surrounding the concept of "Natural Law".  As such, they are BOTH based on the idea that all basic human rights are universal to the Human race, and that the right to be armed was granted by the Creator--whether or not both mention this concept specifically. Then again, it's been a while since those Justice Studies classes...

And all such simialr arguments are based upon belief, faith, personal values and views. All of which are subjective, interpretable and usually in conflict with the beliefs and values of others.

As a result we have ONLY what the Constitution says to protect us all.

The second amendment protects OUR rights despite the fact that some think the Dick Act of 1903 says it does not.

Quoted: Nice piece of writing and I see what you are getting at. But, ............ The most important thing to remember is that when it comes to your rights, the constitution doesn't mean shit.  They are YOUR rights.  (natural rights)  They belong to you no matter what ANY piece of paper says.  No matter what any slick lawyer or politico says. No one can take them away from you. They can only keep you from exercising them temporarily. God given or natural rights, it is all the same thing. The constitution does not give or grant us any rights. It only affirms rights that at the time of its making our founding fathers recognized as rights that we all had. And restricts the govt from infringing on those natural rights. The British had abused these rights when they ruled us and during the revolution. Our founding fathers worried that the same thing would happen again with the creation of the new centralized federal govt.  They were right to worry. So they put these guarantees in the constitution. There was a lot of unease amongst the people about creating a powerful federal govt.  The federalist papers were the propaganda used to convince the people to ok this new govt.  If you read the federalist papers this becomes very clear.   And the guarantees in the bill of rights were there to protect the people from that new fed govts power. That is why the bill of rights is always under attack and derision from the powers that be.  It makes it hard for them to create the socialist nightmare they dream of. The most important thing to remember is that when it comes to your rights, the constitution doesn't mean shit.  They are YOUR rights. They belong to you no matter what ANY piece of paper says.  No matter what any slick lawyer or politico says.   You don't need permission from anyone to exercise your rights.  (of course evil govts may jail you for doing so)   Zen "This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this on is mine"

OK in thact case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world?

Wouldn't that mean the ACLU is correct in promoting the idea that foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Wouldn't that mean non citizens of this country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All rights come from our Creator.  The Constitution simply enumerates them.   But that is simply NOT true. Here is the source of our rights as US citizens. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "We the People of the United States" is clearly the source of our rights and "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" is where we established them. Our rights are not simply enumerated in the Constitution as you suggest. You are wrong, my friend. Just look at what was written: "We the people....do ordain and establish this Constitution..." They were writing a Constitution to enumerate the rights they had, not to give rights.  The "People" cannot give rights.  They don't have that power. Only God has the power to give rights. And He has done so.  And I thank Him and give Him all praise.

"do ordain and establish"

Ordain - To regulate, or establish, by appointment, decree, or law; to constitute; to decree; to appoint; to institute.

Establish -  To set up; found; bring about

Hmmmmm, looks like a "creation" to me.

Don't see any definitions like "merely enumerate."

Quoted: Quoted: All rights come from our Creator.  The Constitution simply enumerates them.  It additionally it limits the power of the Federal Government. Government by its nature cannot give you rights.  Government by its nature restricts rights. Unfortunately, we are human and we invariable screw up all we touch. Which begs the question, why can rights that can't be restricted by the Federal Government be restricted by the State Government?  We need a little pre-emption reasoning here, otherwise we sound like a bunch of schizophrenics and act like we still think little fiefdoms are OK.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So basically according to the Constitution, they can't be restricted at the state level.

Quoted: All people are born with the same rights.  Sadly, not everyone is allowed to exercise those rights.  The Constitution enumerates those rights and strictly forbids the government to intrude on them.  Those rights have been intruded upon because not enough Americans have banded together to force the government to comply with the Constitution.

Ok then again:

In that case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world?

Wouldn't that mean the ACLU is correct in promoting the idea that foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

Wouldn't that mean non citizens of this country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment?

Quoted: Quoted: "do ordain and establish" Ordain - To regulate, or establish, by appointment, decree, or law; to constitute; to decree; to appoint; to institute. Establish -  To set up; found; bring about Hmmmmm, looks like a "creation" to me. Don't see any definitions like "merely enumerate." You are proving my point. They were "ordaining and establishing" a Constitution.  They were not "creating" or "giving" any rights.  They were merely listing these rights in a Constitution.

By "ordaining and establishing" they were "founding and bringing about" (which is creating - Just like they FOUNDED this country) the Constitution and all the rights contained within it.

Quoted: Quoted: OK in thact case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world? < snip > Yes, they are. ALL humans, by virtue of being born human, innately posess freedom of speech, religion/conscience, association, KABA, . . .  ALL of them, including ones not enumerated. Most humans however live under governments that are not restrained from abrogating these rights. Only constant vigilance keeps our usurpers at bay.

So you agree foreign nationals in THIS country enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections?

And non citizens of THIS country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OK in thact case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world? Wouldn't that mean the ACLU is correct in promoting the idea that foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections? Wouldn't that mean non citizens of this country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment? Yes, that's probably what that means. The aclu isn't wrong about everything they say. The proplem with the aclu is that they selectivly defend rights and that they view rights as civil rights not individual rights. That is, they see rights as being granted from the govt, not natural rights.   They used to make some sense, but now they just seem to be a front group for socialism. In any event, don't let the words of slick lawyers or politios twist your thinking into a knot, and for Odins sake do not get trapped into playing their word games. It is so simple.  These are natural rights that no amount of verbage and writing or court rulings can destroy. Do not let anyone convince you that your rights disapear like a bad fashion trend just because commies are running the country. It's a trap.   (okay, someone can post that fish head creature from star wars now that I said it) Bear in mind that we are right, and have the power of simple truth on our side. Zen

I never thought that. I consider the BoR inviolate ALWAYS.

I just don't the rights of a US citizens are universal (for example I don't think foreign nationals have a first amendment right to petition our govenrment for redress of grievances.

Quoted: Quoted: Ok then again: In that case, IF these rights are "natural rights" "endowed by the Creator" then does that means they are enjoyed by EVERY person in the world? Wouldn't that mean the ACLU is correct in promoting the idea that foreign nationals enjoy 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections? Wouldn't that mean non citizens of this country have the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" under the first amendment? Now you have hit paydirt! That is exactly true.  God gives all men the right to speak freely.  He gives all men the right to worship Him freely. But the Bill of Rights we are talking about are entitled, "Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America". "We the people" you spoke of, established a Constitution where they said, "These rights are ours.  This document limits the Federal Government from infringing upon these rights." If other men in the world are willing to "water the tree of Liberty with their blood", they can have the ability to exercise these same rights.  Rights given by God, but infringed by evil governments of evil men. Our Forefathers rose up against a wicked government that infringed upon the rights given to them by God.  They then established a country with a Constitution that limited the government's ability to infringe upon these God-given rights. And God blessed them, and us, for their courage.

Ok that is pretty much what I said.

And having "watered the tree of Liberty with OUR blood" we secured these rights for OURSELVES by the authority of "We the people..."

Now if it is your contention that you believe God wishes these rights and freedoms for ALL MEN, then I have no argument with that and it doesn't have any direct bearing upon THIS discussion.

But I draw your attention to your statement which is in complete agreement with my original statements.

"Our Forefathers rose up against a wicked government that infringed upon the rights given to them by God.   then established a country with a Constitution limited the government's ability to infringe upon these God-given rights."


Motivations aside (and I agree that most were motivated by the same notions you hold) it was "they" who established this country AND the freedoms of US citizens. And as a result of those actions, THAT is where our freedoms SPECIFICALLY come from.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "do ordain and establish" Ordain - To regulate, or establish, by appointment, decree, or law; to constitute; to decree; to appoint; to institute. Establish -  To set up; found; bring about Hmmmmm, looks like a "creation" to me. Don't see any definitions like "merely enumerate." You are proving my point. They were "ordaining and establishing" a Constitution.  They were not "creating" or "giving" any rights.  They were merely listing these rights in a Constitution. By "ordaining and establishing" they were "founding and bringing about" (which is creating - Just like they FOUNDED this country) the Constitution and all the rights contained within it. They were establishing the powers of the govt. Not the rights of the people. Before the etablishment of the federal govt did we not have the right to breath air?  To ride a horse?  to associate with whom we chose? To assemble? And to own guns?   Yes we did.   The constitution did not give us the right to exist and be free.

Correct that was the DoI that did that.

Quoted: It gave the govt powers.  And tells the govt what powers it may not have.  Those non-powers are explained in the bill of rights. LIberals would love us to buy into the idea that our "rights" are granted by the constitution of the govt, because rights granted can be restricted or taken away by "laws".

No they can't, that is the entire point of Constitutionally "protected" freedoms. We can create laws and amendments all we like so long as they aren't in conflict with those original 10 rights which are inviolate.

Quoted: Rights that are natural and pre-existing cannot be written out of existance. Don't fall into the liberal trap of believing the constitution is the beggining or the end of your rights. It isn't.  It is only a piece of paper drawn up to creat a federal govt and restrict it's powers.  Period. Zen "This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

And yet we didn't have those rights prior to the Consititution. I think they are the source of those rights. The natural rights you speak of are those mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and it was the absence of those rights that led to the war for independence. Once independent and FREE we protected and ensured those rights by CREATING the Consitistions which gave us 10 INVIOLATE rights of citizens to ensure those protections.

Quoted: Quoted: Now if it is your contention that you believe God wishes these rights and freedoms for ALL MEN, ... Just what you may consider a "minor" point (But not minor to me ), God doesn't "Wish" anything.  He is God.  He does as He pleases.  No "wishing" required.

Clarfication: He gave us free will. And as such wishes we would use it accordingly.

He doesn't "wish" these rights to men, He freely gives these rights to men.  But it is up to men to throw off the shackles of evil governments and exercise their God-given rights. That's what our Founding Fathers did. And thank God they weren't as confused as you are as to why they had these rights.

I am not confused. I could just as easily suggest you are wrong in your beliefs about the Constitution and would have the specific wording of the Constitution to reinforce my statements.

I just don't think God is the source for the specific rights within the BoR and more importantly the Constitution specifically states the source of those rights.

I don't recall a SINGLE country of Christian men who had rights such as those of the 5th Amendment, 7th Amendment, 9th Amendment or the 10th Amendment prior to that of the United States.

Quoted: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Styre wrote: I never thought that. I consider the BoR inviolate ALWAYS. I just don't the rights of a US citizens are universal (for example I don't think foreign nationals have a first amendment right to petition our govenrment for redress of grievances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I understand how you feel. I have felt that way about foreign nationals at times as well. ' But, ...... that is how people felt about "niggers" after slavery had been discontinued. Those "niggers" shouldn't have guns.  God forbid, ......those rights are for god fearing white people, not "niggers".   And so, the first gun control laws this country had ever seen were put into law to keep "niggers" from owning guns. Now we are the "niggers".  And the power elite are the "white people".   It is a slippery slope we begin to walk when we decied that "those people" (whomever "they" may be) are not worthy of being treated like "us" and have "rights".   Zen "This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Ahhh, but how some feel about blacks (and how they were treated in the past DESPITE the Constitution) has little bearing on what the Constitution says.

Currently gun owners are being denied their rights and it is wrong.

The fact that black Americans were previously denied their rights is ALSO wrong.

The distinction here is that THEY were Americans and DUE the rights of the Constitution. Foreign nationals are NOT, however they are free to begin the process of citizenship which would entitle them to the same freedoms.

Quoted: Quoted: I am not confused. I could just as easily suggest you are wrong in your beliefs about the Constitution and would have the specific wording of the Constitution to reinforce my statements. There is no "specific wording" that disagrees with me. I just don't think God is the source for the specific rights within the BoR and more importantly the Constitution specifically states the source of those rights. I understand that you do not think God is the source.  But you are wrong, my friend. I don't recall a SINGLE country of Christian men who had rights such as those of the 5th Amendment, 7th Amendment, 9th Amendment or the 10th Amendment prior to that of the United States. I agree with you on this one.  Just goes to show how much God has blessed this nation. Once again, we must agree to disagree, old buddy. But, as a side note, ain't it great that we live in a country where we can discuss such issues freely? God gave us that right.

And thankfully do did "We the people.." More importantly "We the people..." wrote it down and secured it for us (along with many others) as a inviolate right.

And original "intended" sources of those rights aside, it is those specific writings that secured these rights for all citizens.

Quoted: If you believe that your rights were granted by a piece of paper and a stroke of a pen, then you are in interesting company. Klinton, fineswine, stalan, pol pot, hitler, etc. Your rights may have been created that way. And maybe they can be changed or altered by a judges ruling or the stroke of a pen or some new law or regulation. But my rights were not. MY rights were with me when I was born. And they existed when people were still living in caves.  My rights don't depend upon some technocrat. They don't live or die within someone elses philosophy.   And,......... anyone who denies them to me, will find themselves looking down the barrel of my rifle.   After all, ........ "It's MY island"   Zen

All fine and well but it is still that piece of paper the defines and defends them.

As stated previously many of your rights NEVER existed before that piece of paper.

And "some" of you are having the same problem as those of your interesting company "Klinton, fineswine, stalan, pol pot, hitler, etc." and that is the fact that YES that "piece of paper is what PREVENTS ANYONE from restricting those rights. These rights cannot be given and simply signed away.

That is what a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right is. That is why so many men are sworn to uphold and defend that piece of paper and that is why so many have willingly fought and died for taht piece of paper and what it does.

Because WITHOUT that piece of paper you in fact have NOTHING.

These God given, universal and natural rights simply don't exist in much of the world (or in most of history) and that is because they DON'T have a piece of paper like our Constitution.

And for the religious, let's keep in mind the Bible is just many pieces of paper. But funny that somehow it is more than that. By the same token so is the Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: LIberals would love us to buy into the idea that our "rights" are granted by the constitution of the govt, because rights granted can be restricted or taken away by "laws". No they can't, that is the entire point of Constitutionally "protected" freedoms. We can create laws and amendments all we like so long as they aren't in conflict with those original 10 rights which are inviolate. I suppose you could ask the Japanese-Americans during WW2 about Executive Order 9066 and what happened to their "protected" freedoms.

A violation of the Constitution happened to them.

Is your argument that the notion of "natural" of "God given" right would have better protected them?

It is what happens when politicians decide to do things contrary to the Constitution and the poplulation permits it.

Quoted: If there were NEVER any Constitution or gov't around, I could still: * Speak my mind * Worship my God * Be secure in my property * Keep and bear arms... I can still do those with no Constitution or Gov't so they are my "natural rights" as a human.

Really? Do them in China.

In fact try and do them in ANY other country.

Quoted: "when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house.........his possessions are safe."  - Luke 11:21 Self defense is a God-Given right that cannot be stripped away by mere mortals.

Very good. You have a basis for an additional first amendment protection to be armed.

But that doesn't protect everyone now does it? I don't think it applies to Buddhists for example.