"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Holder Lashes Out at SYG Laws in the Wake of the Zimmerman Verdict - Yet Another Straw Man...

At an NAACP rally this past week, AG Eric Holder lashed out at the Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws that have been enacted in 22 states.

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Holder said at the Orange County Convention Center. "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely" (Holder lashes out at SYG laws

There are three very basic flaws in Holder's arguments.

 First, the US Supreme Court has upheld the basic right to self defense in numerous cases, most notably Heller. Self defense is a right; there is no duty to retreat. So once again the good AG is trying to create a legal duty where none exists.

Second, the Zimmerman trial was never about SYG; it was the self-same self defense plea to which Holder refers in his speech. Holder states that citizens have a duty to retreat, yet the jury determined that Zimmerman was unable to retreat. Therefore, he was entitled to his use of lethal force to preserve himself from great bodily harm and death.

But the most important ramification of Holder's speech is this: Holder made the statement, "... people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat..." The context of this statement is Holder's stated contention that Zimmerman exercised his right to employ lethal force before making an adequate attempt (whatever THAT is) to retreat.

 Now, the prosecution's testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Zimmerman was following him, and according to testimony from Martin's girlfriend, Martin felt threatened. The logical conclusion, therefore, under Mr. Holder's argument, would be that MARTIN should have been the one with the duty to retreat - which we know did not happen.

But that isn't what Holder said.

He said that it was ZIMMERMAN who had the duty to retreat.

This poses a real problem for his contention that Martin was the victim. In the light of his stated argument that the victim/defender has the duty to retreat, one can only draw one conclusion: if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor.

In other words, Mr. Holder just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender.

 Thank you, sir, for clearing that up for us. You just confirmed the jury's verdict.

 Now leave our SYG laws, which played absolutely no part in this case, alone.