just read the instructions, people

A topic we have touched on a few times before, but never really delved into, is the debate over the need for the Bill of Rights. To be certain, this debate is not ongoing today, but it was one of the largest arguments amongst our Founding Fathers back when the first ten Amendments to our Constitution were being originally considered. However, regardless of how the debate was settled, it would appear, unfortunately for us, as though Alexander Hamilton might have been right:

It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved”? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

(Emphasis added.)

You see, in a very real sense, a large number of our Founding Fathers understood the Constitution to read, “The government can do this, this, this, and this, BUT NOTHING MORE,” and they were convinced the last clause of that sentence was sufficient to keep authoritarians’ pants on. Obviously, our contry’s history has more than proven that the admonition was woefully inadequate, and that the Bill of Rights was not such a bad idea after all… but if one follows the tortuous logic of Mr. Hamilton after the above-bolded segment of his quote, those assaults against our freedoms and liberties may have been indirectly prompted by the very existance of those Amendments.

Of course, twisty-and-turny logic or not, that is almost exactly the kind of thought process that many anti-rights nuts seem to employ when fielding their various “arguments” to try to strip rights and freedoms from their fellow American citizens, only Hamilton put pen to paper centuries ago. Uncanny, that.

So where does that leave us? I have no idea, but it is nowhere good. This was was only and solely written in order to make a relatively interesting observation, especially for the anti-rights nuts of America: our government was never intended nor designed to infringe upon, limit, abridge, control, regulate, administer, license, tax, or otherwise govern the individual rights of America’s citizens, amongst which is included the right to self-defense, which itself includes the ability to procure what tools we feel are necessary for that defense. That our government has done such things in the past, and continues to do such things currently, does not give those actions approbation, it merely means our government is operating outside of its established boundaries… and we are letting it. Finally, those rights in question existed before the foundation of our government, and exist outside of our government, regardless of whether it wants to recognize and respect them or not – the Declaration of Independence made that clear, the Constitution made that clear, the individual Amendments made that clear, and history itself made that clear.

Now, if any anti-rights nuts want to take those plain facts as just that – the elemental facts necessary for any further discussion about the matter – I am more than willing to talk to them about whatever they would so desire. Otherwise, I simply do not have the time, and frankly do not have the interest.