What is not right action (violence or force initiated that causes harm to another) by an individual can NEVER be bestowed upon a group, and that INCLUDES police and military folks!
JB is spot on here. The false religion of external authority still reigns supreme in this land and nearly EVERYONE has faith in it.

There is no need for laws folks, because if it is outside of Natural Law principles than it is errant, if it aligns, it is superfluous. Life, is quite simple, but your controllers, who have manipulated societies for as long we have a record, use FEAR to bind you into falling victim to their mind control aka (Govern/MENT – Control, to rule / Mind). Might does not make right and the whole premise of government authority is based on the notion that it does.

There is a massive difference between force and violence (the only error I notice in JB’s comment was the incorrect word “force” was placed where “violence” should, and it is critical to make that distinction).
Force = the energy necessary to make change. What is perceived as violence in the terms of a forceful encounter between an aggressor and defender is actually all FORCE, but only one actor engaged in VIOLATION or Violence. It ABSOLUTELY matters who started it.

Pardon the caps, I have no other way of emphasizing my words, to my knowledge anyway.

I find it interesting that we have folks who don’t believe humans have rights, but rather privileges, yet these people are the ones clamoring to stop “VIOLENCE”, well, how can you have a violation of something that doesn’t have an inherent right? Additionally, they are the first to run to an external authority who has illegitimately gained a monopoly on the initiation of violence (see mind control), to enact real violence against people who “might” become violent or who, God forbid, want to put something in their body or want someone else to put something in their body. Imagine that? The hypocrisy. And its rampant. Heck, I bet half of the readers here actually believe it is rightful behavior to make laws on drugs.

Is that you? Do you believe you or anyone else has the authority to rule someone else’s body, so as to vacate them from their self-ownership because of what they “may” do when they become addicted? A nation comprised of vapid children, throwing tantrums and running to mommy and daddy because they didn’t get their way. 99.9999% of the population are guilty of this crime, DO THE MATH.

this isn’t hate folks, just tough love. The time for lubrication over agitation is over. We see what collectivism gets us, and its time for some stern talking.

The people have failed because they disparage a divinely inspired template for freedom/responsibility and do not exercise these rights. The result is ignorance and half truths, such as yours, deliberate or not? No, they did not grant the majority any power, which is why we have a constitutional republic, not a democracy. They did depose the king and make a nation of laws not men.

Our inherent right to property, liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights which all animals possess, respect and practice. Only humans defy natural law and seek to enslave and control and harm each other. Wolves do not need a constitution for they have honor.

The fight over who controls our money, which is property, has been ongoing. Andrew Jackson wrestled control back from the bankers only to have the people fail to defend their right to property, hence fiat currency continues to make everyone debt slaves, with few understanding or caring about this. This takeover has progressed to seek to create a nifty one world government which seeks to control every aspect of your life thru this one little thing; money. You make it sound as if this is a frivolous fight. Without control or ownership of your property, you can not live, you can not feed yourself or your family. This is a most important right, given to us as a birthright.

Jon has again done a beautiful job in framing divine law with logic. It could be nothing less or it would not be divine.

These documents are not a farce, they are merely a beginning of a higher level of being that humans can consent to and build on, or not.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. – John Adams

A republic is not an easy form of government to live under, and when the responsibility of citizenship is evaded, democracy decays and authoritarianism takes over. Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p 13.

The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his (God’s) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.

As for the Declaration of Independence–for many years I had nagging thoughts about what was written there. One day I actually read each sentence and thought about their meaning. I came to the conclusion that there are at least three logical fallacies contained in its introduction. Like most everyone else, for years I just breezed through it not questioning every statement, disregarding that mental hiccup that spoke: Wait a minute, is that really true?

As far as Rights are concerned, the document is a farce. The authors assume that a person knows the meaning of “Rights” without the need for definition. (Madison in a letter to the State legislature, attempted to delineate the rights of the majority vs the minority and failed miserably in his logic.) The English did not know any better the meaning of Rights in the 1700s than the common American does today. Englishmen, who trace their Rights back through the Magna Carta, don’t realize the king did not consent out of recognition and honor of their proposed Rights, but from the threat of combined force to depose or imprison him. Analyze the preamble of the Bill of Rights and you will find Congress violated the entire precis of the Declaration with regard to Rights.

The truth is, the Declaration’s Signatories were not declaring independence from English democracy, but the Divine Right of kings–monarchy, to which they substituted the combined Natural Rights of the majority. Is plunder any less tolerable, whether by one man, a minority, or a majority? Can the will of the majority supersede the UNALIENABLE right of the individual? Only through force.

The Revolutionary War was not fought over freedom, independence, nor equality. And most certainly not over Rights. It was fought over who had the power to control colonial money:

“The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.” –Franklin

“A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” –E.R. Bulwer-Lytton

Bastiat was correct: “if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if
law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder-is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”

Government cannot rightfully do that which the individual cannot rightfully or legally do.

George Carlin told his spectators that any Right (“that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc.”) that can be taken away is not a Right, but a privilege. If Man was endowed with Natural Rights by his Creator, then that Creator has an obligation to maintain them in the recipient where the recipient cannot, and the recipient is justified in asserting them by any means. But we see that no such intervention by any Creator throughout history in the cause of individual or collective Rights was ever instigated. Man has always been compelled to assert them by collective force. And therein lies the fallacy of the English system of Representative government.

If Rights are unalienable, they cannot be given nor taken. They cannot be transferred nor apportioned. Representative government is an abrogation of that premise, especially by ballot. How congruent is the English system of government with Natural Rights? How logical is that?