The 9th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America is the one that is NEVER talked about in legal or political circles. It's the one [they] don't want you to think about.
It preserves ALL rights that ALREADY existed before the Constitution was created, with the only exception being those rights that were delegated to government by the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment is about We the People fighting off enemies, foreign or domestic.
But the right to self-defense, gun ownership in general, and all the rest are in the 9th Amendment.
Remember: All of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are to LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and NOT to "create" any new rights of the people.
Most people do not know there even is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, much less have ever read it. Here is the Preamble:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Catch that? RESTRICTIVE.
The Bill of Rights are ALL restrictive, as to what the federal government is NOT permitted to do.
The 1st: Congress shall make NO law ...
The 2nd: ... shall NOT be infringed.
The 3rd: NO quartering of soldiers ...
The 4th: ... shall NOT be violated ... (btw: "unreasonable" search or seizure means without a judge's signed warrant)
The 5th: NO person shall be held/compelled/etc. ...
The 6th: The government SHALL provide several protections to anyone accused of a crime.
The 7th: Anyone involved in a civil case SHALL have certain rights preserved.
The 8th: Excessive bail shall NOT ...
The 9th Amendment says that ALL rights of the People, that ALREADY existed BEFORE the government was created, were STILL IN EFFECT AFTER that government was created. Here is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Get it? RETAINED.
Originally, Madison wrote 17 amendements, mostly modeled after George Mason's work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He scaled that down to 12. He did not omit anything, but merely rearranged them so that some of them were consolidated from two or three into one. The 5th, for example, has several restrictions of the federal government included within one amendment, rather than having them each in their own separate amendments.
The 12 amendments were presented to the States, and 10 were approved. The other 2 had to do with the number of representatives in the House, based on population, and congressional salary increases not taking effect until after the next legislative session. Those 2 did not pass. However, the one on salaries was given new life more than 200 years later, and was ultimately ratified in 1992, to become the 27th Amendment.
The 9th Amendment is KEY. It preserved ALL rights that humans had before the government was created.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/billofr_.htm
As the Declaration of Independence stated (which was written just 13 years earlier), certain truths are SELF-EVIDENT. Namely, that we have rights that existed BEFORE the government existed, and for which the government shall never be permitted to violate (inalienable/unalienable). And ...
... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Government does not grant fundamental rights. Those rights existed before the government existed, and those rights were used to CREATE the government in the first place.
Once created, government CAN create "civil rights," which are rights that are really privileges, and can be regulated by their creator (the government). But the government cannot create civil rights that supercede natural/God-given rights, because those rights are inalienable/unalienable (untouchable).
1/2
First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.
Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:
I define all rights like this:
For War, BLD says:
I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):
When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.
All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).
This is not true. I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here. If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.
The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.
This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.
That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.
See definition above.
The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.
Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.
This is not what is happening.
Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.
I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.
Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.
All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:
Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.
As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:
It can also mean:
These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.
The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.
We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand).
These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).
The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.
I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be Civil Law.
The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).
We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.
The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.
It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.
Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).
A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.
A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.
A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).
A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.
Wanna bet?
Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.