The fundamental difference between "The Founding Fathers" and "The Government"

Emailed in by Robin Smith, from the ultimate Faux Libertarian/Home-Owner-Ist pressure group in the USA:

Mission

Our mission is to protect private sector legal rights, so that land ownership remains a fundamental right derived from natural law envisioned by our founders, as opposed to a benefit and privilege conferred by the grace of government.

I asked RS what leap of logic was required to be able to see a fundamental difference between "The Founding Fathers" and "The Government" and he replied:

Founders: do the conquering
Government: maintain the conquering

Subtle. This all works out, so long as they don't complain when a new conqueror comes along and "founds" a new state.

I personally would be interested to know whether these Faux Lib-Homeys could pin down the exact date on which there was a shift from "conquering" to "maintaining the conquering"? Presumably that was the date that they or their predecessor were granted the title to the land they currently claim to own, which might be centuries ago in some cases or quite recently for somebody who has just acquired a title from "the government" (in a UK context, those who exercised the Right To Buy their council house).

That would appear to be the date on which "natural law" gave way to "benefit and privileges conferred by the grace of government".

Or you could look at it from the point of view of the Native Americans: do they draw a big distinction between:

a) having been displaced by the "natural law" of the original settlers/founding fathers, and

b) the successors in title of the original settlers who continue to receive "benefit and privilege conferred by the grace of government"?