Rights vs Privileges

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hole or not; Rockwell, I don't give a damn. It bothers the hell out of me when people walk around yelling "I've got rights". And it happens from all directions. You've got criminals yelling it as well as the bleeding hearts trying to defend them, terrorists, and others. And now, we've got each other talking about "Their Rights". Well, that's going to all be find and dandy until our "So called Rights" no longer exist. "Oh yea, that's right. That can't happen because the government DIDN'T GIVE ME my rights, so they can't take them away". I forgot.

So you can talk about "Holes" all you want. Just don't be surprised when you wonder why it feels like someone is trying to "Fill" one of those holes?

I'm not a paranoid, but there are a lot of people who believe that they are "PROTECTED" by their RIGHTS. So, if you believe that your "Rights" are given to you by God; or NATURE; then you better have one hell of a good relationship with him/her. Me personally; I'm going to continue to remind people that "WE THE PEOPLE" are the true meaning of the Constitution and that WE need to hold our government responsible TO US.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo
Well, that's going to all be find and dandy until our "So called Rights" no longer exist. "Oh yea, that's right. That can't happen because the government DIDN'T GIVE ME my rights, so they can't take them away". I forgot.
Click to expand...

The Jews in Sobibor didn't seem to be disuaded from asserting their rights to life and liberty by the fact that some government said they didn't exist.

Bottom line no government controls my freedom, if I have to die proving that someday so be it.

If you can't grasp that, if you aren't willing to defy tyranny,
If you don't have the stones to stand and fight, you're not free now.
 
Last edited:
I beg your pardon, but I am most definitely free. And as long as the government is held responsible to me and "We The People"; I will remain free. And if it means I have to fight to ensure they stay subservient to "We The People"; then I have no problem with that. I spent 21 years serving our country and swearing an oath to protect and defend the constitution. But these are the old days or tyranny and military coups. This is a more modern world. A world where those who want such control will feed off of the ignorance, complacency, and fear of the citizens. Then, as long as those citizens remain the "Majority"; they will allow more power to be given to certain others and quite likely add more amendments to the constitution. Some that could easily redefine existing "Rights".

Imagine redefining the 2nd amendment where the vast majority agreed that the meaning of "Keep and Bear Arms" meant only for the protection of oneself and property. And that NO open shooting, sport, hunting, etc... was allowed. And maybe even to the extent where you were allowed any weapon you want; but ONLY on your own property. Never in public at all.

The key to this is the citizens. 54% of those over 18 years old voted in this past election. 122 Million +. Of those, 63 Million + voted for Obama and the democratic ticket. If you take a good portion of those; feed on the fear and ignorance of the 100 Million + who didn't vote; you can get a lot of support to directly affect and change our way of life.

This is not paranoia. Simply a means of describing possibilities. When people complain about our laws, politicians, "Rights", etc... They only have themselves to blame. And if we have any of our rights infringed on or trying to be amended, again, we only have ourselves to blame. It's NOT the government's fault. "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE as a people have agreed that WE would be allowed to exercise certain rights. So long as we do so responsibly. Unfortunately, WE as a people, can take that freedom away. So while you're exercising your RIGHTS, don't forget that these Rights rests in your fellow American's hands. And they, WE, "The People", have the power to change it. And we delegate a lot of that power to representatives. While I'm enjoying the freedom to exercise certain "RIGHTS" (For lack of a better word); I'll continue trying to educate and hopefully getting more people involved. Involved in the political process. Involved as a gun owner/shooter. Involved with understanding how the government works, and that IT works for WE THE PEOPLE.
 
More food for thought???

If the 2nd amendment is so clear; and it's a Right that the government did not give us; then why are there different rules in different states???

1. HOW can one state require a PERMIT to buy a gun, while another state doesn't?
2. HOW can one state require any type of waiting period while other states don't?
3. HOW can one state set up certain requirements for carrying, and others don't or differ?

The list can go on. Obviously, not only is the 2nd amendment allowed to be interpreted by different states and it's people; but it allows for the questions of WHO, WHEN, WHERE, and WHAT the 2nd amendment can apply to. This person CAN have a CCW, this person CAN'T. This person CAN buy a hand gun, this person CAN'T. You CAN have a gun here, you CAN'T have one there. I really wish that ALL the amendments and the constitution in general was as clear cut in it's meanings as many believe it is.

The first thing we need to fix with the 2nd amendment's interpretations, is that the interpretation is the same in all 50 states. We should be allowed to go to ANY state and buy/carry/use a gun EXACTLY the same that we do in our home state. Freedom of speech shouldn't change because I'm in Mississippi instead of Montana. Carrying a gun shouldn't change because I'm in New Jersey instead of Georgia. The government shouldn't be allowed to search my house/possessions/person differently in California than in Texas. It seems that the vast majority; if not ALL; of the bill of rights is interpreted the same in all states. The exception seems to be the 2nd amendment. We need to get the 2nd amendment recognized nationally the same.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the 2nd amendment is so clear; and it's a Right that the government did not give us; then why are there different rules in different states???
Click to expand...
Because, as has been stated earlier in your diatribes, it's not yet been incorporated. I suggested earlier (in the other thread in which you satted these positions) that you research that topic, and I'm guessing that you haven't. It's pretty key to understanding how the Constitution actually works. And it's not something that you just pass laws to change.

Do you even read the responses in the thread, or are we just providing a bully pulpit for you?
 
Last edited:
I understand the constitution quite well. And I understand quite well how bills, laws, etc... are formed and put into place. And yes, I have read ALL responses in this and other threads. But the answer has NOT been acknowledged by some. I know the answer; many others in some of these threads have shown that THEY know the answer; some others definitely don't know the answer. The answer is; what many want to consider Rights; that the government does not grant and therefor can not take away; is incorrect. Our Rights are only safe from being infringed on, as long as we, the people, maintain control and distribution of power. And the constitution is very clear at verifying this. And the fact that 17 additional amendments could be added and rescinded over a 201 years span; demonstrates that nothing is guaranteed if enough support is garnered.
 
If you look at the etymology of the words, Privilege in Latin meant Rule or law for one. It was a law that only SOME were able to enjoy.
as for the word Right, if you look at the old English, it was something that was correct, just, proper, As it should be... etc;

I see the the bill of rights as simply that. Rights. They are correct and just. They are for all, not just a few. To me the exclusivity should be on anyone who cannot live an interact within the society without resorting to violence, fraud or other significantly malicious actions. All others should be able to enjoy the right. As opposed to the law for a few based on job, or political affiliation or lineage, education... etc;

JMTC
 
Yea; I signed up 2 years ago; and posted 300 times; just so I could wait around and troll you with this particular thread. You caught me. What a genius you are. But I guess there is 1 thing we can agree on. Some people believe we have RIGHTS that weren't given to us by the government and the government can't take them away. And some people believe that certain freedoms we have; whether they are defined as Rights, Privileges, or whatever; CAN be taken away from us by the government with the approval of the citizens. And if we're not careful, then these freedoms WILL be taken away from us.
 
Definitions

The answer is; what many want to consider Rights; that the government does not grant and therefor[e] can not take away; is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Uh, dude?

You're seeking to redefine the word. Fail.

Rights are what they are. Life -- that is, "being alive" -- is the most fundamental of rights. Murderers take life every day. That doesn't mean that the right of life doesn't exist, but only that it can be abridged.

Crime, when properly defined, consists in the abridgement of someone's rights.

Theft is the abridgement of the right of property. If the right of ownership of property were not already acknowledged as a right, theft would not be the subject of criminal codes; it would simply be the forceful acquisition of property and a demonstration of Darwinism at work.

The right to life, the right to ownership, the right to be free of violence to one's person: these are the foundation of rights and of morality.

That they can be abridged is not in question. History is largely the collected stories of people and groups violating the rights of other people and groups.

But while rights can be violated or abridged, this does not mean that rights are in any way a fiction.

You may kill me, and violate my right to life, but doing so does not mean the right never existed.


Our Rights are only safe from being infringed on, as long as we, the people, maintain control and distribution of power. And the constitution is very clear at verifying this.
Click to expand...
Which is fine. The rights exist nonetheless. It matters not which group of thugs violates them. Their existence remains.

And the fact that 17 additional amendments could be added and rescinded over a 201 years span; demonstrates that nothing is guaranteed if enough support is garnered.
Click to expand...
Amendments aren't rights. Amendments don't grant rights. The same applies to laws.

Great swathes of human history have been written as a result of people, tired of having their fundamental rights suppressed, rising in revolt against those responsible.

No one is arguing that the government can't suppress, abridge, or violate rights.

We are simply observing that rights are not a function or consequence of government.

Rights were there before government was. Rights will be there after government is gone.

And, while there IS government, it can only do what is permitted by the consent of the governed.

 
There is, actually, a kernel of truth here...

but it's only a kernel, and the plant that the OP is trying to grow from it is a thin reed at best.

Remember that the philosophers of the Enlightenment lived in what they considered to be a created universe. While many of them would not be considered "Christians" in any modern sense, they had the idea that the universe, and particularly that part of it called "Man", was the product of an act of conscious creation.

They very well may have been wrong, although we cannot know for sure.

So, if they were wrong, and we are not "created" beings, then there really can be no such thing as "RIGHTS" as the OP has tried to formulate them, or even in the more limited form in which many here believe that they exist. If there is, in fact, no external source of those ideals that we call "rights", what are we left with?

The answer is easy, really:

The consent of the governed. Whether or not it is a matter of "rights", it is observably true that human social groups tend, long-term, to resist oppression, and to try to build social structures that maximize their own scope of action. "Property rights" are an abstraction, and not all human societies have had them, (some that didn't were quite successful, albiet in limited circumstances,) ut it's pretty clear that most do. That tells us something about the utility of "property" in forming stable groupings of humans.

The same arguments can be made regarding what we're talking about here, the ability of individuals to resist potential violence by offering violence of their own.

What it comes down to is that there are certain rules by which we have set up our society. We have agreed that we will grant a government the power to rule over us as individuals, because we get something out of that. But we've chosen to put limits on that power, and some of those we call "rights". What we're really saying is that the government cannot go beyond those limits without loosing our permission to rule us. Now, most governments throughout history have not ruled by permission. But what we say is that, if they do not, getting rid of them (peacefully if possible, by force if not) is a moral action.

It can be equally well understood as an agreement, without recourse to hard-to-define things such as "rights", and without appeal to higher authorities that may or may not exist, and which we can't prove in any case.

--Shannon
 
A Right CAN'T be taken away. If a felon CAN'T possess a gun; then "Keep and Bear Arms" was NEVER a right for this individual,
Click to expand...

That's not true, you can give up your rights, they have to be taken away by a jury trial.
Click to expand...

((((((annoying buzzing sound indicating an incorrect answer))))))

A jury trial can not take away a right. Read posts #16 and #20 again. The jury can be used to criminalize the 2nd Amendment right, but the right continues to exist and is the possession of the individual. It may now be illegal to exercise the right, but it hasn't been taken away, just abridged.

There is no way to "give up" your rights. You can choose not to exercise them, but then again, you still have them. How could you "give up" your right to life?
 
The jury can be used to criminalize the 2nd Amendment right, but the right continues to exist and is the possession of the individual. It may now be illegal to exercise the right, but it hasn't been taken away, just abridged.
Click to expand...

This is first class obfuscation. Rights are abstract concepts; they have no physical existence. So, when a jury makes it illegal for a felon to carry a gun, he has no right to carry a gun. Saying his right still exists is basically saying that the abstract idea of his bearing arms still exists though he may not actually do so. The rights still exists, perhaps, in that others may still bear arms; but for that felon that right is gone.
 
You are absolutely correct Joe. There is no such thing as a right if you are not allowed BY CHOICE to exercise it. A person on death row who is executed has had their RIGHT to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" taken away from them. When s/he is dead, they aren't simply "Not Exercising" their Rights. When a person commits a felony and is no longer allowed to own a firearm, they aren't simply "Not Exercising" their Right to "Keep and Bear Arms". That right has been Taken away from them. They DON'T have that Right (or whatever) any longer.

Thank you Joe for finding words that eluded me, such as: "Rights are abstract concepts; they have no physical existence". That is so true. The closest I came to was the analogy of our economic system. At one time it had substance. It was backed by gold. No longer. It is now backed by the "Good Faith" of the United States. And that's all our "Rights" as described in the DOI; and the government's limitations to infringing on our Rights as spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. I hope we can maintain "Good Faith" in our government and those in power. If not; the only recourse we have is "We The People". I just hope that the vast majority aren't conned, lied to, scared, and B.S.'d into believing that certain "Rights" need to be changed, amended, abridged, eliminated, etc.... It was Men that gave us the DOI and Constitution; and it is Men (Including Women) who will either protect or change those faithful words.
 
A person on death row who is executed has had their RIGHT to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" taken away from them. When s/he is dead, they aren't simply "Not Exercising" their Rights. When a person commits a felony and is no longer allowed to own a firearm, they aren't simply "Not Exercising" their Right to "Keep and Bear Arms".
Click to expand...

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

See that bolded part? Your felon and your death row inmate didn't have their rights removed arbitrarily. They were found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimously, by a jury of their peers, of some crime that the majority of Americans agree warrants a revocation of those rights.

If the government just decides to attempt to stop "We the people" from exercising our rights, we have the right to resist by any means necessary or available. and no government can take that away from us.
 
You're absolutely correct. And just like I said, the person's Rights were TAKEN AWAY from them. CoRoMo made the point that in the case of a felon no longer being allowed to "Keep and Bear Arms", that their Right hasn't been taken away from them. They still HAVE the Right. They are just not being allowed to exercise their Right. Talk about a twist on words. A RIGHT is NOT a RIGHT if you can't exercise it. Now maybe your Right has been taken away from you legally; by a jury of your peers; but it has been taken away non the less. So now that we agree that your Rights can be taken away from you; your next statement is directly in line.

If the government just decides to attempt to stop "We the people" from exercising our rights, we have the right to resist by any means necessary or available. and no government can take that away from us.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct with this statement. And it would be almost impossible for the "GOVERNMENT" to attempt to stop "We The People" from exercising our rights. If the "Government" collectively used every single military, police, guard, reserve, sheriff, ranger, DEA, FBI, CIA, and every other form of "Law Enforcement" personnel; that would barely put a dent in the 80,000,000 (80 Million) gun owners in the country who potentially could resist. And that is why I am quite happy with the "Government" knowing how many LAW ABIDING citizens have guns and how many guns we have. The "Government" should be very afraid of it's Citizens. That is what makes us such a free and wonderful country.

HOWEVER: This is where I get back to my original point. If the majority of the PEOPLE in the nation through persuasion, lies, deceit, fear, or whatever means; is convinced to SUPPORT Constitutional Amendments; such as the 17 amendment created AFTER the original Constitution and 10 amendments were ratified; then it is possible that the "Constitution and Bill of Rights" as you know it today, could be changed. The document and words within were written by people. And PEOPLE can change it. And that is my fear. You can believe that GOD or some other supreme being or of nature GIVES us the Right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"; but unless that supreme being plans on coming down to ensure those Rights; then the power rests with the people. We just need to ensure that the PEOPLE stay united with the meaning and purpose of the Constitution, and that they aren't persuaded into believing it is in the best interest of our nation to CHANGE it.

I believe in the concept that God gives us those rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But they mean nothing if as a society "We The People" don't agree collectively on them. If these are natural/human rights, then they'd be recognized and honored all over the world. And they aren't. And it isn't because God loves us more than other people in other countries. It's because some countries/lands have a government system whereby the "People" don't control the power of that government. And as such; the government is free to allow freedoms as they see fit. We're fortunate because we still have a government that is responsible to the people. But it sure seems like the people are giving more and more power to the government.
 
Any idiot with a pen and paper can write a constitution granting rights. Heck...it can even be etched into stone tablets.

Any idiot with a pen and paper could also write a new religion. They just have to convince bigger idiots to have faith.

There have been many "constitutions" enacted by various nations over the timeline of modern man which granted "Rights". Many of these "constitutions" have disappeared along with the "Rights" guaranteed in them.

Heck...when a practiced religion has outlived it usefulness it gets relgated to the status of mythology. But make no mistake, these various "mythologies" were practiced with a fervor at one time and believed with the same conviction as the various newer religions.

Every individual has their own beliefs and arguing about "Rights" is about as productive as arguing about "religion". Perhaps I'm pessimistic but I have a hard time believing in "RIGHTS" or anything which can, has, and will be changed/modified in the future. YMMV!
 
Honored?

If these are natural/human rights, then they'd be recognized and honored all over the world. And they aren't.
Click to expand...

There isn't any logical presentation I can think of that validates that statement.

Off the cuff, I'd classify this as "begging the question," a logical fallacy in which premise assumes the conclusion is true.

If what you are trying to establish is that "we get to keep our rights to the degree that we stick together," then I can follow that.

The argument that "they're not rights unless we all stick together" is, however, flawed.

I have no trouble accepting that rights must be preserved or defended.

Let us be very clear, though, that government is not the source of rights, nor is some arbitrary population majority.

In fact, when government begins "awarding rights" it does so invariably at the cost of actual liberty and the abridging of original or natural rights.

Yes, we are all aware the preservation of rights requires that we keep watch.

"The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance."

 
We have many rights. Rights cannot be taken away. Rights can, however, be usurped, and often are.

If someone kills you, they did not take away your right to life, they simply violated it.
 
They have effectively moved the guns rights into gun privileges.

But this is nothing new, it has been going on in this country in some form since the 1800's.
 
Last edited:
Not that anyone cares because we all seem to have our own personal definition of the man-made-word "Right" but...the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a "Right" as "something (as a power or privilege) to which one has a just or lawful claim". Basically a "Right" is a "Privilege" that is granted by the laws of man. But what authority does the dictionary have to impose the definitions of words on the members of this forum responding to this thread? :cuss:
 
He made the choice to commit the crime; no one took it away from him, he forfeited it.
Click to expand...

Try not to prejudge because that is not always the case. Read enough testimonies from this site, and you'll learn how precarious a law abiding life can be. Tell this guy that it was his choice.
 
US DoJ said:
In 2004, state and federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly 1,145,000 adults of felonies -- state courts convicted an estimated 1,079,000 adults and federal courts convicted 66,518 adults (accounting for 6% of the national total).
Click to expand...

No they all didn't make a choice to commit the crime, but I bet you alot of them did. I was just saying, wrongful convictions aside, felony criminals forfeit their rights, in my opinion; felony criminals are not being infringed upon or having their rights usurped.

If you tell me Volvo makes safe vehicles and I show you a wreck where someone died in a Volvo, the former is not negated by the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
States Rights vs Bill of Rights
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
130
Views
6K
geekWithA.45
G
U
  • Locked
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Replies
8
Views
1K
USAFNoDAk
U
W
  • Locked
The Armed Citizen - Ultimate Right Of A Free People
Replies
0
Views
382
WAGCEVP
W
C
  • Locked
It Is Simple And Basic.
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Maxwell
M
R
  • Locked
Kansas CCW Legal Opinion
Replies
7
Views
424
insidious_calm
I
Back
Top