Constitution is not the only important document

22 Jan
Constitution is not the only important document

As gun owners, we put a lot of stock in what the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, has to say.  But yet, that is not the only document that the Founding Fathers wrote that was important.  I’m speaking of the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration was one of the most important things ever written and when signed changed the world forever.

Never had a colony broken away from its mother country.  It was a game changer and those that signed it were trail blazers.  As we look at the signing of the Declaration, perhaps through the fog of time we have lost perspective of what it actually did or says.

This wasn’t some Sunday afternoon folly perpetrating among some old biddies playing bridge.  This was an act of war, a declaration of rebellion and a call to arms.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Right of the People to alter or abolish it.  But this isn’t to be taken lightly, so that every time the government says something minor you disagree with you break out the torches and set DC aflame.  The Founding Fathers understood that this was a serious undertaking.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

But I ask you, how exactly can one to throw off such a government?  Only through the use of Arms.  For a a tyrannical government will not yeild to fair and honest elections, and the Peoples freedom of speech ends at the point of a the Governments rifle.

So, in understanding that they were forming a nation by overthrowing tyranny, the Founding Fathers realized that history may have need to repeat itself in the future.  And should it come again that:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The people would have the means in which to enact such a separation.  The Declaration of Independence led directly to the need of enumerating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights.

One cannot be free if one is not able to defend themselves from tyranny.


Posted by on January 22, 2013 in Uncategorized


28 responses to “Constitution is not the only important document

  1. msalzbrenner

    January 22, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Its too bad that people don’t provide the appropriate respect to the Declaration of Independence. Without it, properly understanding the United States Constitution is never possible. I made a video a few months ago trying to express the obvious connection between these two inseparable documents. : : Its nice to see that there are others that recognize the absolute unity these two documents share.

    • Chris Webber

      January 22, 2013 at 9:25 pm

      Your statement is true, but doesn’t go nearly far enough. The Constitution is incomplete without the Delcaration of Independence, of course, but much more so without the Bible. The fire of the American Revolution was lit by the sermons of the Great Awakening in the decades before. To make ANY sense out of the Constitution, it must be interpreted from the context from the Judeo-Christian moral worldview.

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

      Can the Constitution rightly rule on abortion? Gay marriage? Pornography protected by the first amendment? Unruly mobs protesting for over a month and destroying public & private property?

      Wholly inadequate. The capacity for individual self government articulated by the Constitution requires the self-control of “moral and religious” people. The Constitution cannot govern anarchists.


      • sceptreofjudah

        January 22, 2013 at 9:56 pm

        Right on! (Righteously hits the mark).

      • msalzbrenner

        January 22, 2013 at 10:11 pm

        In my opinion the Constitution and Declaration of Independence can resolve the questions you put forth.

        Can the Constitution rightly rule on abortion?
        Since a fetus in NOT an individual and is NOT a citizen of the United States of America it is not protected under the law. Argue as much as you will but the only way you can argue is from a “religious” point of view. And the Constitution does declare a distinct separation of church and state. So the end result is, if it is against YOUR beliefs, DON’T DO IT. But you do NOT have the right to dictate YOUR opinion or religion on the other citizens of this country. I don’t approve of abortion personally, but I do support INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and the freedom to express them.

        Gay marriage?
        Shouldn’t even be in question. I am a truly mufti-denominational minister. I am trained for various ceremonies pertaining to multiple religions. I have a degree in theology and a degree in philosophy. Marriage in truth is an institution of religion and not of state. Marriage should be held under the same conditions of separation of church and state. The government has only taken it upon themselves to “regulate” marriage in the interest of money, and power. The reality is the government should have NO concern, interest, or influence over marriage AT ALL! (Nor in my opinion any other aspect of an individuals “personal” life. But that is another issue.)

        Pornography protected by the first amendment?
        Why should it not be. Everyone has a right to express what they choose. Those who don’t like it don’t need to view it. But no one has the right to DENY OTHERS their right to view what they wish.

        Unruly mobs protesting for over a month and destroying public & private property?
        Two words. Peaceably Assemble. Destroying property is not peaceably. If it be public property that is destroyed then it would fall under our duly elected law enforcement to protect our environment. If it be private property that is destroyed than it is withing the owners rights to defend it.

        Being religious myself does not make me superior to anyone else. Their RIGHTS are just as important as mine. I wouldn’t want them telling me I can’t practice MY religion and as such I will not attempt to declare that they should not practice theirs.

        We are free people. We should be able to do as we choose so long as we do not infringe on the RIGHTS of others in our community. And if at any time one DOES endeavor to infringe on the rights of another. He who’s rights have been infringed, has the natural right to defend themselves.

        Just for future reference you may want to look into the backgrounds of our “founding fathers” before you assume that they were all influenced by a “Catholic Based” religion. Much of our nations heritage was established by individuals of various, ethnic, religious, and social, backgrounds.

      • NateP

        January 23, 2013 at 4:24 am

        @msalzbrenner I agree with a lot of what you said there except I do take issue with 2 things you have obviously been brainwashed on through your education. First, abortion is a trampling on of the Constitution. Our laws everywhere protect the life of the unborn child and it was an early standard practiced to this day that someone who murders a pregnant woman is charged for two murders. Somewhere our morals were compromised to say that the mother has the right to murder for convenience but no one else can. The hypocrisy is so thick on this subject that if a pregnant mother gets in a wreck on the way to the abortion clinic and it was purposeful neglect by the other party they will get 2 charges of manslaughter yet this unborn human magically loses it rights once the mother decides it is not wanted. Second, you have a completely warped view of the separation of church and state than the Founding Fathers did. If you look at the beginnings of our government, the Christian religion was heavily intwined with our government at every turn. They prayed before sessions, held church in Congress on Sundays and our Constitution and Founding Fathers have a heavy Christian basis. The Founding Fathers were clear they didn’t want a situation like England where the government forced the mandate of a singular form of Christianity, however no where in the beginnings did that refer to total a complete separation of religion from everything related to government. Check out the first Webster readers that were used in schools all over the country for many years, the Bible was so heavily incorporated in those readers that some could argue that it would be good circumlum for Christian Sunday schools today. Anyone who studies history can see that his harsh view of separation of church and state far overreaches anything that the Founders meant by it.

      • JBoston

        January 23, 2013 at 11:12 am

        Absolutely not true. In fact, this entire post is irrelevant.

        The Declaration is in no way a legal document. The Declaration has no legal authority in the US. Moreover, this is a secular nation and nothing within it is to be seen through any religious lens.

        In all honesty, your comment is repulsive and vile to even suggest it. Thomas Jefferson was far more influential in the crafting of the Constitution and he felt “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

        You shoudl really learn to keep your religion fueled bigotry to yourself.

      • JBoston

        January 23, 2013 at 11:21 am

        NateP – You are ridiculously wrong.

        Charges of double murder being brought against a person who murders a pregnant woman are exceedingly rare as to be almost non-existent.

        “The hypocrisy is so thick on this subject that if a pregnant mother gets in a wreck on the way to the abortion clinic and it was purposeful neglect by the other party they will get 2 charges of manslaughter yet this unborn human magically loses it rights once the mother decides it is not wanted.” The only “hypocrisy” here is your own amazing ignorance. Your claim is patently false and has absolutely no supporting evidence. The only recent case is that of Laci Peterson in which case the fetus was almost 8 months old.

        Get a clue you delusional twit.

        As for your ridiculously stupid claim that “no where in the beginnings did that refer to total a complete separation of religion from everything related to government” I would urge you to introduce yourself with Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constituion which clearly states “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” You should also check out Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which quite clearly states “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Additionally, there is no mention of the word “god”, “christian” or anything else remotely supporting religion to be found in the Constitution.

        Stop re-writing history to serve your own delusional, bigotted needs.

      • msalzbrenner

        January 23, 2013 at 11:55 pm

        Well NateP,

        I will assume that you yourself are of a member of the “Christian” religion. I assume this only because of you venomous response to my comment. Specifically in regards to my being “brainwashed” by my education. Well lets break this down a little.

        First the definition of “brainwashing”:

        1.a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
        2.any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.

        With that definition in mind shall we look through the history of the “Christian” religion?

        I’m of the opinion that my desire to keep an open mind to all options is far from the above definition of “brainwashing”.

        However, the isolation that you have accepted with your blind adherence to ONE SPECIFIC religion, does have a few similarities to the above definition of “brainwashing”.

        Just for giggles lets look at a couple of other definitions:

        1.a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
        3.the object of such devotion.
        4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
        5.Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

        1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
        2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
        3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
        4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
        5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

        Keep these last two words and the definitions is mind when you thing about the word “brainwashing” and its definition.

        As a mufti-denominational minister. My focus is on FAITH not specifically any one RELIGION.

        So to be fair lets look at the definition of faith as well:

        1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
        2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
        3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
        4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
        5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

        So, if the understanding of any of this escapes you than I’m afraid it isn’t worth the effort to explain further, because, the truth is, if anyone is brainwashed, I am confident that it is NOT me.

  2. Chris

    January 22, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    The Constitution and the Declaration go hand in hand. Reasons for anything put within the Constitution can generally be found by referencing the Declaration. The very concept of a Constitution was viewed by many of the founders as akin to making a deal with the devil, as they did not wish to give the Federal Government any more authority than they had to.

  3. GB

    January 23, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Chris Webber is 100% correct, historically and Biblically. Our founding laws and society were built upon Biblical law. It is the very reason the Ten Commandments, Scripture verses, and images of Moses, etc., are carved into our government architecture all over Washington, DC, and other monuments and government buildings in America.

    Looking back on America’s history, we can now see that John Adams was correct when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”, and so was George Washington, who cautioned us, “True religion affords to government its surest support.” and “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” John Jay, America’s 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court declared, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
    A hundred years later, our US Supreme Court upheld this historical fact after considering all the writings of our Founding Fathers on this issue, and in the case United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892, they declared, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation”

    The writings of our Founding Fathers on this issue is extensive and clearly expressed. THEY, our Founders, back Chris Webber up on the issue of our Declaration and Constitution being founded upon the Bible. Again, he is 100% historically correct. Anyone declaring otherwise, is either ignorant of the extensive writings of our Founders, or is seeking to re-write history so as to lead others away from the foundation that made America the greatest nation in human history. Beware of such people.

  4. Terri

    January 23, 2013 at 2:17 am

    So what do we do? How do we do it? We need to do something besides talk about..everything this government has done is wrong…but how to stop not in 2014….

    • KJQ

      January 23, 2013 at 8:30 am

      We need to educate our fellow citizens, one by one if necessary. No one is trying to get cars banned, even though people die by the hundreds of thousands when they ‘use’ them. Why? Because as bad as that is, we all know cars are used ‘for good’ hundreds of millions of times. The benefit outweighs the risk by a huge factor. The same is true of firearms, where 5 crimes are stopped by CCW bearing citizens for every 1 violent crime successfully committed. This fact stuns everyone I tell it to because the media almost only ever report criminal use of firearms. Guns are used much more for good than for evil, but no one hears the truth. So much so that guns themselves are seen as bad things. We need to turn this around so that the idea of banning guns is as laughable as suggesting we ban cars to stop accidents. Yes, the 2nd is important, but to win the hearts of our fellow citizens we need to connect the truth to them on a level they can relate to. Guns save more lives than they take, and not just in the hands of the police.

  5. Rick Biehle

    January 23, 2013 at 3:24 am

    msalzbrenner wrote: [Can the Constitution rightly rule on abortion?
    Since a fetus in NOT an individual and is NOT a citizen of the United States of America it is not protected under the law. Argue as much as you will but the only way you can argue is from a “religious” point of view. And the Constitution does declare a distinct separation of church and state. So the end result is, if it is against YOUR beliefs, DON’T DO IT. But you do NOT have the right to dictate YOUR opinion or religion on the other citizens of this country. I don’t approve of abortion personally, but I do support RIGHTS and the freedom to express them.]

    You are incorrect in saying that the constitution declares a distinct separation of church and state. It does however say that congress shall not make any law regarding religion and the free exercise thereof. You are also incorrect in saying that a “fetus” (a sterile word that all but abortionists designate as “baby”) is not an individual. If a mothers unborn child is killed in an accident or a wilful attack the responsible party can be tried for murder of that unborn child. Even the law recognizes the individuality of the unborn baby contrary to your argument

    • Rick Biehle

      January 23, 2013 at 4:32 am

      addendum: murder is a crime in the United States whether it is against a citizen or non citizen

      • msalzbrenner

        January 23, 2013 at 9:42 am

        I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes. I believe in your right to worship in whatever manner you choose, however I do NOT agree that you should encroach your beliefs onto other people. That is a violation of their rights. Many of the founding fathers were NOT “Christian” whether you want to admit it or not. Many of them DID use the teachings of Jesus as a basis for their OWN religion. However most of them flatly denied his divinity. Most of the founding fathers were considered Deists and while they professed a belief in a “creator” they did NOT identify the biblical god directly. With the exception of not identifying the biblical god directly this is more of a “Jewish” religious base than “Christian”. There is a good reason the Constitution does not specifically state it was based on the Christian faith. The Constitution itself clearly states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article 6, section 3). This was included to ensure equal citizenship to both believers and non-believers, and that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion. This being another detail to segregate our new nation from the corruption that was evident in England at the time.

        As far as abortion goes.

        Define Life.

        Now define Life without using “religious” ideals, individual emotions, or personal beliefs.

        You have a right to your opinion. But you do NOT have a right to force that opinion on others.

        If you don’t like it. Don’t do it. But I will never agree with ANYONE being FORCED to abide by the “beliefs” of another person.

        As far as the hypocrisy evident in the enforcement of law, such as charging an individual with 2 counts of murder, when a mother is not held on charges for having an abortion. I have to agree, it is extremely hypocritical. But then again, that is why I don’t feel opinion should be law.

        So what is the answer? THERE ISN’T ONE!

        The only solution then is to allow individuals to make and be responsible for THEIR OWN CHOICES. And by rights it is NO ONE ELSE’S CONCERN! Essentially everyone needs to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS! And quit infringing on others right to do as they choose.

        The point is, once again, individuals are reacting to their personal “emotions” about a particular subject. Just because YOU believe that something is a certain way does not arbitrarily demand that EVERYONE should believe the same way.

        So long as no one has infringed on YOUR rights. Then you have no RIGHT to infringe upon THEIRS!

  6. Rick Biehle

    January 23, 2013 at 3:28 am

    Nobody ever asks a mother to be how long till her fetus will be born or if she knows the sex of her embryo. We rightly call that child a baby and yes it is an individual

    • msalzbrenner

      January 23, 2013 at 9:47 am

      While I don’t condone abortion, you statement proves nothing more than opinion, and etiquette.

  7. James

    January 23, 2013 at 9:19 am

    I used to believe in abortion, when I was a teenager that didn’t want the responsibility of a father yet. I subconsciously ignored the truth for purely selfish reasons. And then one day when I was around 19 or 20 years old the obvious that I knew since middle school biology hit me. Once 23 chromosomes from each parent come together and create a new double helix strand of Human DNA, it is most certainly an individual human life. And to intentionally end a human life is unarguably murder.

    This is coming from an agnostic that compares adult’s belief in God to children’s belief in Santa or the Easter Bunny. In this case, religion is in the right. Anyone saying that science teaches us that a fetus or embryo isn’t a human life is ignoring the basic fact of what makes us what we are. They do this out of pure selfishness and lack of person responsibility, as I once did.

    The religious argument, in connection with our Constitution, has no true side. Yes John Adams fully believed it should be part of government; he also believed states don’t have the right to secede. Another great founder, arguably the most influential, Thomas Jefferson most certainly did not believe in religion. That’s why the Declaration of Independence says “that they are endowed by their CREATOR”, not ‘their God’. He even re-wrote the bible taking every bit of supernaturalism out of it and renamed it “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”. Benjamin Franklin also was against the belief in a higher power as described in the bible. One could argue these were of the most intelligent men at the time as well..Agnostics and Atheists were very much a part of our founding, and they found a way to work with their religious counterparts. I agree with most Christian values, but like the 2 great founders that I just mentioned, I know religion is not required to develop just morals. Widespread religion is the biggest form of government in the world, and like government it has been and is still being used by evil men to commit the greatest atrocities in the history of man; all for the “greater good”.

  8. James

    January 23, 2013 at 9:22 am

    On subject though….I would have to dig to find it again, but if I remember correctly one of both houses of the legislature had in the past declared that the Declaration of Independence is part of our law or at least a legal interpretation of the Constitution…And I’ve never heard that that was revoked. So I’m happly to finally see another article making a similar point, would have liked to see the legal reference to give it more merit.

    • msalzbrenner

      January 23, 2013 at 9:52 am

      If you are able to discover that legal reference I would be interested in its location. While I firmly believe these two Documents were intended and are quite obviously intended to coexist with each other, any “legal” reference to such would be highly appreciated.

  9. David Rickel

    January 23, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Very Nice! The US Constitution is much easier to understand once put in perspective. Many people today have not read it and think it is the document that gives the government the power over the people. It is really to LIMIT the power of the government and ensure the people and the statees retain the majority of the power. We have strayed dangerously far from the original design and intent and should return to it.

  10. Chris Webber

    January 23, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    Msalzbrenner, – what I was trying to get at is the beliefs and worldview of the Founding Fathers were quite different than the perspective that most people interpret the Constitution today. I think history will show they believed that government started with self control, moral restraint, or whatever you want to call it. This strict secularism that we are told government matters must function by today was not their perspective, but is a contrivance of “progressives.” There is a big difference between not imposing a particular church denomination on the citizens and our leadership functioning according to broad Christian principles. We seem unable to see that difference today.

    • msalzbrenner

      January 23, 2013 at 11:27 pm

      Many teaching of Jesus are very much identical to the teachings of Buddha. Which coincidentally Buddhas teachings were available even before the arrival of Christ. The primary difference being that Buddha teaches inner divinity as where Jesus suggest that you place your faith in an external divine being. With that being said, I can agree that our country was built around the ideals of self control, moral restraint, and other “honorable” qualities. And I do agree that you stated it correctly when you said that these are “broad Christian principles”. I’m just not willing to go so far as to say that these are “specifically” Christian principles.

      Regardless, I did not bring religion into this conversation, this was/is not a “religious” debate, nor do I have any desire to continue that debate in this thread. Your faith is your own, and your are welcome to it.

      The point of the original article, and back to the subject, was to express that without the use of the “Untied States Declaration Of Independence” it is NOT possible to understand the context in which the “United States Constitution” was originally written. It is this very thing that our current legislation intentionally tries to cloud so that they can convince the general populace that the Constitution needs to be “re-interpreted”, when it truth we already have the device available to understand its intentions. Even if the “Declaration Of Independence” has no “specific legal authority” it is still a legal document. But that is besides the point. Considering that the Declaration of Independence did indeed act as a “template” in which the Constitution was derived. As well as its historical significance and its specific statements regardless of their “legal” merit. We are provide with an invaluable, specific, and fundamental key to understanding the context in which the Constitution was written.

      But even besides that. Seriously, many of the statements within the Constitution are blatantly and specifically written in a manner that needs NO interpretation at all. I mean really what part of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” can you NOT understand? Its quite direct in its statement, and I’m not sure how you can justify NOT being able to interpret that correctly. But they inevitably find a way to twist it around regardless.

  11. arjun kanuri

    May 15, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Great work! This is the type of info that are meant to be shared around the net.

    Disgrace on Google for no longer positioning this put up higher!
    Come on over and seek advice from my website . Thank you =)

  12. youtube video emusic review

    July 31, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Yes! Finally something about free music download.

  13. Isaac

    March 26, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    This is some great information. Thanks!

  14. who called

    July 31, 2014 at 2:36 am

    What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It positively helpful and it has aided me out
    loads. I hope to contribute & help other users like
    its helped me. Good job.

  15. Jeffrey Liakos

    July 12, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    Gun bans are blatantly Unconstitutional.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: