The Declaration is merely a statement of rights. It is an explanation to the civilized world to explain why a revolution to dissolve the ties between part of a kingdom and its king has proven necessary.
The Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution to set out rights that Congress could not infringe upon. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were intended to be block against an oppressive Federal government infringing on certain powers reserved to the State, and to rights retained by the people. The 14th amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to all the states, as well as to Congress and the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated as a right that States could not infringe on.
No where in the Constitution does it allow government to take away an unalienable right, except when imprisoning or executing a person after due process of law. I do not believe there is a healthy body of case law supporting the idea that government has the right to take away Civil Rights and liberties from free people. That bothers some of my gun owning friends, however, who believe that NO person convicted of a felony should be allowed to possess a gun.
Of such are the substance of many conversations, thought, and arguments. I can see restricting released felons from carrying a firearm, or requiring all convicts to take and pass a firearms safety course before being able to possess a firearm( You really can't possibly know how ignorant most convicts are about guns!!), or pass a period of time before complete restoration of rights occurs after their release. Those seem to be reasonable request and tailored to prevent the misuse of firearms by people who have not proven that they can exercise clear and lawful judgments in our society. I would require them to take a course in firearms law, and the law of self defense, as well as show competence on a range, to get a carry permit, for instance, after they complete a period of probation where a board can see what they have made of their lives since their release to show that they are prepared to be contributing members of our society, and not a continuing threat of criminal violence.
No one has a crystal ball. But we are canstantly told if we just give up our rights to government bureaucrats who will use their crystal balls to tell which of us can be trusted to possess a gun, that we will be safer, and people believe it, even though they also willing admit that we don't have a crystal ball. This is the snakeoil of modern government- " Trust me " and I will keep you safe", when the law does not require( make it a duty) the government, at any level to provide you with protection, the government can't be everywhere all the time, so can't be expected to protect you, and if you are being attacked by too many people, government has the right to back off and leave you to your own devices to save your life and property, while they protect city property from gunfire, and firebombs. But people buy into the " let the government do it " lazy kind of citizenship so they don't have to be bothered getting bloody or wet. All registration, and back ground checks, and other forms of screening are based on the fallacy that government has a crystal ball when you don't. I was taught that 1 times zero is zero, and that any larger number times zero is still zero. That tells me that 265 million times zero( a government of the people, by the people, for the people) is still---wait for it----ZERO! How about that! And you thought you would never have a use for simple multiplication ! Everyone wants to ring their hands when some nut, or suicidal kid takes a gun to a " gun free zone" ( really, a " FREE FIRE ZONE" ) and begins shooting people. Its got to be someone's fault beside the perpetrator.
Well, it doesn't. And government cannot fix everything. That is what the Founding Fathers figured out. Just read that long list of specific greavances against King George III in the Declaration of Independence. If the King could not resolve those, he could hardly be expected to provide protection to thousands of settlers miles from the nearest road and further from the nearest town. The founding fathers had no choice but to be self governing, simply because the King was so far away, as was his government. It was also clear that many in the English Government considered people living in the colonies to be second class citizens, and not worthy of having elected representative serve in either the House of Parliament, or the House of Lords. Since the King had never traveled to the Colonies, he had no clue of the real problems that existed there, and the substantial reasons why his subjects would revolt against his rule, finally, in 1775.
The world was very fortunate that a host of great minds came together, all steeped in the teachings of Natural Law as the source of the rights of citizens, at a time when events required a separation of the American Colonies from the British Empire. They were the right men, at the right time, and they knew what had to be done. The world is so much better a place for their courage and actions, today. God bless them all.
