"Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Shootist

The_Shootist

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
1,586
Location
Richmond Tx, CSA
Ok - bear with me. Being a naturalized US Citizen (from Canada) the US Bill of Rights didn't figure too much in my highschool history lessons. :D

So - tell me. Isn't the above part of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution?
We all know about the 2A , but unless the Government can ABSOLUTELY provide for the above can't THAT phrase be used to support gun rights as well?

I mean, if you are in danger of being robbed/murdered (being deprived of the above) and the only way to safeguard your right to the above is to carry/have access to firearms, doesn't this re-enforce your 2A rights?

Unless the Gov't (local/state/Federal) can provide an absolute guarantee to the "Life Liberty etc" then aren't you under the bill of rights allowed to provide that yourself ? By arming yourself if necessary?

How can any level of Gov't argue in court with a straight face that this right doesn't exist to the point of being able to restrict your possession of firearms? Unless I guess if you are a felon engaged in criminal/non-legal activity not supported by the Constitution.

Just curious
 
Although it's a part of th Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, it is nonetheless one of the "founding documents," so to speak, and as such shows the intent, if not the exact letter, of the law. So although it may not carry the weight and authority of the Constitution, it does carry more weight than, for example, the Federalist Papers.

Or that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
In the Constitution, the phrase you cite is listed as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the Fifth Amendment.

Jefferson listed Property as "Pursuit of Happiness" as owning property was seen by the Scot Whigs and early English and Italian republicans as insurance of a man's independence and liberty.
 
The USBOR was intended to protect rights from federal infringement. The 14th "Amendment" says that no State shall deprive any person of life/liberty/property without due process of law.


I believe the idea is that free government is not absolute government, and the majority has no right to legislate away the life/liberty/property of the minority. I think Locke's concept was that, just as it is wrong for one person to take another's life/liberty/property, so it is also wrong for government, unless by due process of law. So the government cannot just go around murdering people, but there is capital punishment ... the government cannot take your property, except by law and with just compensation. I don't think we can take the idea that no government has a right to shoot us down like dogs and conclude that no government has a right to pass gun laws.
 
Don't feel too badly - it is just barely part of our high school curriculum, anymore.

It is important not to dismiss the D.o.I. too quickly, though. It provides much needed insight as to what the Constitution means, and the reasons for it, even if it does hold no legal binding.

(It does, however, acknowledge the right and duty of the people to overthrow their government should it become tyrannical).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top