Inalienable Rights VS Compromise

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Jul 5, 2010.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    Inalienable Rights VS Compromise

    Let me try and tell you why I think that compromising on ANY of our Natural Rights or Inalienable Rights is a very bad thing. Or rather; evil.

    For starters I would like you to know exactly were I'm coming from, so let me start with the definitions.

    Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable.
    That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. The personal rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are inalienable.

    an agreement between opposing parties to settle a dispute or reach a settlement in which each gives some ground, rather than continue the dispute or go to trial. Judges encourage compromise and settlement, which is often economically sensible, since it avoids mounting attorneys fees and costs. 2) v. to reach a settlement in which each party gives up some demands.

    As you can see just from the definitions a compromise puts lives, property and liberty in jeopardy for generations.

    For a little history of why Jefferson and Locke thought Natural or Inalienable Rights were so important, especially concerning the Second Amendment, but not limited to it, lets look at what they had to say."If a man by the terrour of present death, be compelled to doe a fact against the Law, he is totally Excused; because no Law can oblige a man to abandon his own preservation. And supposing such a Law were obligatory; yet a man would reason thus, If I doe it not, I die presently; if I doe it, I die afterwards; therefore by doing it, there is time of life gained."
    - >>>Thomas Hobbs, Leviathan<<<, (Outlines the Laws of
    Nature - Chap. 27, (1651)).


    "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other."
    - John Locke, A Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government, 1690.


    "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
    - Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin, 'The Rights of the Colonists', (actual title; 'The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting'). Nov. 20, 1772.


    "The supreme of all laws, in all cases, is that of self-preservation."
    - Thomas Paine, The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and Edited by
    Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam�s Sons, 1894). Vol. 3.

    Obviously as you can see, our Founders thought highly of our Natural Rights.

    I see these rights in the same light of importance as they did. Any compromise of these can easily lead to not only the destruction of your own body, but worse yet, the destruction of a country.
    Lets not forget that countless millions of people have died at the hands of their own government.

    I firmly believe that the second amendment is there ultimately to protect ourselves from an unjust government; our own.

    The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. Yet even today, due to those who believe in compromise, they have put the USA in a very dangerous position. The people can not easily access automatic weapons and that alone could very easily allow a usurper to overrun everybody that dares to oppose a tyrannical regime.

    I simply can not trust anyone who does not trust owners of firearms. Those kinds of people usually fall into a couple of different categories, usually liberals – socialists – communists all of whom could very easily fall into the tyrant category. History backs that claim and if you think it could not happen here, you simply can not know that.

    Any compromise at all is a HUGE victory for those who don't know or don't believe in the Constitution. Look at what Sarah Brady said, "Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." A good solid compromised bill might not ever make it to SCOTUS before it's to late.

    The one thing that drives me absolutely batty is a firearm owner that is actually willing to compromise our Natural Rights; whether it is by supporting an organization that is willing to compromise or by supporting a politician that will sell us all out.

    I sincerely hope that those people that think compromise is alright will take a very SERIOUS look at history to see where you are wrong. You might also see how your actions today could very easily be classified as evil by people of a future generation when they are looking back on history.

    Marlin T
  2. red14

    red14 Well-Known Member

    Aug 17, 2009
    N FLA
    You make a very strong case. I agree with you, on every level.

    I can understand someone not wanting to own a gun, but that does not give them the right to refuse me, just as I can not make them own a gun. Murder has been around since the Garden of Eden, and a gun was not needed then.

    I can not overpower my 10 year old grandson, how else can I defend myself?

  3. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Aug 25, 2009
    Great post...
    2A so whats the problem with the simplicity of the Bill of Rights.
  4. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    It's too simple.

    If you can't argue about it, what good is it?:rolleyes::mad:
  5. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Jun 30, 2005
    Great post Marlin !!

    Listened to that Red Skelton salute to the Pledge of Allegiance, did you ? >MW
  6. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    I know what you are talking about, but it has been a couple of years since I heard it though.

    Thank you.
  7. lentz

    lentz Former Guest

    Mar 12, 2010
    We compromise every day.And every time a new law is passed.
  8. Eddie N

    Eddie N New Member

    Apr 23, 2009
    Thank you, Marlin, for posting this. This has been on my mind ever since reading about the NRA compromising on the freedom of speech. I do agree with you 100%. And I especially agree that there should be no more compromise! All it does is help the enemy and that's how we would be giving up our rights.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Inalienable Rights Dec 17, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum House Passes Bill to Protect Second Amendment Rights of America’s Veterans Mar 18, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Lawyers Attack Gun Rights now Dec 11, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Did Wisconsin just lose the 4th amendment rights Sep 18, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum thoughts on 2A rights of minors Mar 19, 2016