“The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”

The freedom to own and carry any gun, knife or other weapon, is but one of those unalienable rights.

You can't deprived of the rights of an individual, or unalienable rights, unless you live in a democracy... Thank Heaven we don't live in a Democ.... oh wait! WE DO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!!! Too bad we don't have our Republic anymore.

One may not be deprived of these unalienable rights, but one may forfeit them through outrageous behavior. Carry a gun as your right, until you commit crimes, when you forfeit the right. Live unfettered, until you take an innocent life, when you forfeit your own.

"...no majority has a right to deprive them of." If one commits a crime and is put in prison, serves his or her sentence and is released from prison, isn't that person supposed to have his or her rights restored according to the original Constitutional Law of the Land? After all ones debt is paid to society, isn't it? Firearms were given back to prisoners being released from prison years ago, and not all were repeat offenders

Knowing that the Fabian Society (hard core socialists) were so prevalent and influential in New England and the rest of the North Eastern States appears to have had major influence on the development of the here subject quote. AND; David, if a right is unalienable or inalienable - that means it is an inviolable constituent of the noble being - man, incapable of being severed (not voluntarily given up or taken away). The missing element of your stated observation is that the exercise of 'a' or 'such' right may be hindered; while, the "right" itself stays intact (an erroneous amalgamation of the be and the do). Rights are inherent to the palpably salient individual - incapable of transference to a third party for the purpose of alienating a third party's - or another person's faculty of birth. An increase of single persons or a multiple of individuals - at law, equity or otherwise - can neither increase nor decrease / add to or take away from the individual person's unalienable/inalienable rights. A "majority" by definition, has no rights - government has no rights but, duties only.

The Bill of Rights established or created NO ! ! ! "rights" but rather, enumerated but just a few that exist eternally. Each and every, any and all right(s) is/are unalienable/inalienable beyond corporeal man's ability to distinguish for the sake of creation, continuance or extermination.

The majority of the scotus feel that they can deprive us of our rights.

I'm with Mike on this one. This view of the Bill of Rights while true seems to imply that the Bill established rights when it actually prohibited the government from making any laws that would abridge these enumerated rights. Some statesmen worried that by making such a declaration the people might think that these were their only rights, instead of a prohibition on government -- seems like they were right.