Ok, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but here goes. On another board, a member stated that firearms ownership is a privledge, NOT a God given RIGHT, as our fore fathers stated in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. So, were our forefathers wrong??? Is firearms ownership a privledge to be granted by our government??? And just so there is no mistaking the question I am asking, IS THE RIGHT TO SELF PROTECTION AND THEREFORE SELF DETERMINATION, AS ENFORCED, PROTECTED AND GRANTED BY FIREARMS OWNERSHIP, A RIGHT GRANTED US BY GOD, OR A PRIVLEDGE GRANTED BY OUR GOVERNMENT??? In case you don't know me by now, I believe it's a God given right, not a privledge. IMHO. Jim
Privledge or right?
- Thread starter Wallew
- Start date
Danger Dave
New member
Our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right; a right that belongs to every human being as his or her birthright. That's good enough for me.
I don't believe in god, I don't believe in god-given rights. But I do believe that every being has the instinct and the right to defend itself to the best of it's ability - society, civilization (whatever that is), laws, whatever - these can never take that right away. To me, life is a precious thing, never to be taken lightly or given away cheaply.
I don't believe in god, I don't believe in god-given rights. But I do believe that every being has the instinct and the right to defend itself to the best of it's ability - society, civilization (whatever that is), laws, whatever - these can never take that right away. To me, life is a precious thing, never to be taken lightly or given away cheaply.
KAM_Indianapolis
New member
The capability to defend your self, family, community, etc, is a natural right. Even a convicted felon has the right to defend their life (when not in the commission of a crime), even if we put limits on the means. The ability to arm yourself is an extension of this right.
These ____ liberals must feel that society has reached some elightened state where men and women no longer have to defend themselves from predatory criminals.
------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith
If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
These ____ liberals must feel that society has reached some elightened state where men and women no longer have to defend themselves from predatory criminals.
------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith
If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
Direct your attention to the Ninth Amendment (also known as the "Forgotten Amendment")
You've got lots of rights, baby. Its the GOVERNMENT that is limited in scope and powers. The powers of the Government are ENUMERATED, the rights of the people are UNLIMITED. Or so the theory goes, anyway. The Tenth covers this subject to some extent as well.
The sheep will always bleat loudly for a sheperd, however. Even if that sheperd grows fat on mutton.
------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." -- H.L. Mencken, February 12, 1923, Baltimore Evening Sun
"If God had not wanted them to be sheared, he would not have made them sheep." -- Bad guy from the Magnificent Seven.
"Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blow." -- Bob Dylan
You've got lots of rights, baby. Its the GOVERNMENT that is limited in scope and powers. The powers of the Government are ENUMERATED, the rights of the people are UNLIMITED. Or so the theory goes, anyway. The Tenth covers this subject to some extent as well.
The sheep will always bleat loudly for a sheperd, however. Even if that sheperd grows fat on mutton.
------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty - and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." -- H.L. Mencken, February 12, 1923, Baltimore Evening Sun
"If God had not wanted them to be sheared, he would not have made them sheep." -- Bad guy from the Magnificent Seven.
"Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blow." -- Bob Dylan
This is exactly where the driver's license analogy of the grabbers breaks down. RKBA, spelled out in the BOR, is on a higher plane than driving, which is a PRIVELEDGE, governed by DMV's and other gov't agencies.
Young drivers and DUI offenders are always reminded that driving is a priveledge, extended only to those who obey certain rules, pay fees, take tests.
Imagine for a minute if one had to pass a test or pay a fee to excercise other enumerated rights - say, freedoms of speech, or the press, or religious expression, or to be safe from unreasonable search. "OK, you can say what you want, just need to pay the Speech Tax first, and take a literacy test." or "Sure, you can be a Christian, just pay your fee to the jack-booted collector, and um, by the way...I can only validate your Christian status if you can recite John 3:16 to me" I guess it's started already - "yeah, you can protest all you want - outside of the 1/2 mile buffer zone where nobody can see you or hear you, and the TV cameras won't film you for the evening news"
Young drivers and DUI offenders are always reminded that driving is a priveledge, extended only to those who obey certain rules, pay fees, take tests.
Imagine for a minute if one had to pass a test or pay a fee to excercise other enumerated rights - say, freedoms of speech, or the press, or religious expression, or to be safe from unreasonable search. "OK, you can say what you want, just need to pay the Speech Tax first, and take a literacy test." or "Sure, you can be a Christian, just pay your fee to the jack-booted collector, and um, by the way...I can only validate your Christian status if you can recite John 3:16 to me" I guess it's started already - "yeah, you can protest all you want - outside of the 1/2 mile buffer zone where nobody can see you or hear you, and the TV cameras won't film you for the evening news"
The constitution limits government, not people. The bill of rights was required by the Anti-federalists to be included into the constitution to, in effect, list many of the natural (God given) rights that existed before the Constitution and are not to be abridged. The Federalists thought the "Bill of Rights" wasn't necessary because the Constitution would cover such "rights" anyway. Thanks to the insistance of the Anti-feds for it to be included we are still somewhat of a Constitutional Republic and not quite a Social Democracy --yet. You can bet that without the Bill of Rights, and the "Living Constitution" view that prevails today we would be a lot farther down the road to serfdom than we are now.
It all originates with the right to life. I think even the most rabid anti-gun type would agree that the right to life exists. If you prevent the defense of that life (by prohibiting the means) you have taken away the right to life. So, the right to bear arms is really the right to life. It's a matter of deductive logic.
There is, in fact, a right to drive, not subject to any government regulation. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
There is, in fact, a right to drive, not subject to any government regulation. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
Judge Blackhawk
New member
I must put my two cents into this wonderful discussion.
A right is something bestowed on a person simply for being born. Sadly, it is not extended to those souls still in mothers womb.
You need no government to bestow a right upon you, and infact a government can NOT bestow a right. They can only grant privileges.
Governments can and do restrict rights of free people, in order for the government to obtain power.
If the government in America is to have any power at all, it must come from somewhere or more specifically from some one (ie. individuals).
The government is like a virus that replicates itself. The virus can not live without the host (ie citizens) but the virus must make more virus in order to perpetuate itself. And by growing larger and more, the virus eventually will kill its host. Thus the virus kills the very thing that gave it life.
It is the same with our government. The people (host) gave the government (virus) life and it is now growning beyond the host and is killing the people and by doing so, is spelling it's own demise.
Well thats it for tonite.
God Bless you all
Judge Blackhawk
[This message has been edited by Judge Blackhawk (edited May 24, 2000).]
A right is something bestowed on a person simply for being born. Sadly, it is not extended to those souls still in mothers womb.
You need no government to bestow a right upon you, and infact a government can NOT bestow a right. They can only grant privileges.
Governments can and do restrict rights of free people, in order for the government to obtain power.
If the government in America is to have any power at all, it must come from somewhere or more specifically from some one (ie. individuals).
The government is like a virus that replicates itself. The virus can not live without the host (ie citizens) but the virus must make more virus in order to perpetuate itself. And by growing larger and more, the virus eventually will kill its host. Thus the virus kills the very thing that gave it life.
It is the same with our government. The people (host) gave the government (virus) life and it is now growning beyond the host and is killing the people and by doing so, is spelling it's own demise.
Well thats it for tonite.
God Bless you all
Judge Blackhawk
[This message has been edited by Judge Blackhawk (edited May 24, 2000).]
deanf
You'd be surprised, many people today do NOT believe in the right to life. I cornered an anti into this (although I also ended up taking him to a range to shoot glocks so there's hope) - he said you DO have a right to life; but only when your life doesn't cost someone else theirs or some rubbish (i.e. you having guns lets crims have guns).
An anti/communist believes in whatever feels good. When you corner him on the right to life, he'll either admit you don't have a right to life beyond the collective (stay a communist), or simeltaneously believe both (conflicting beliefs are ALSO necessary to be a communist).
Battler.
You'd be surprised, many people today do NOT believe in the right to life. I cornered an anti into this (although I also ended up taking him to a range to shoot glocks so there's hope) - he said you DO have a right to life; but only when your life doesn't cost someone else theirs or some rubbish (i.e. you having guns lets crims have guns).
An anti/communist believes in whatever feels good. When you corner him on the right to life, he'll either admit you don't have a right to life beyond the collective (stay a communist), or simeltaneously believe both (conflicting beliefs are ALSO necessary to be a communist).
Battler.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."-----The Declaration of Independence
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Dig out your "Citizens' Rule Book" and read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It clearly states therein that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to defend against abuse of power by government.
By definition, then, the Second Amendment cannot be a collective right belonging only to employees of government. It must be an individual right of all citizens.
Regards, Art
By definition, then, the Second Amendment cannot be a collective right belonging only to employees of government. It must be an individual right of all citizens.
Regards, Art
The Second Ammendment does not grant A Right. It reaffirms an acknowledged pre-existant Right.
Our fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a heritage of long standing whose origins date back to earliest civilization.
In England, popular armament began developing well before laws were issued in the Seventh Century governing misuse of the already recognized right to keep and bear arms. This right, as noted in Blackstone's Commentaries, became a formal duty when king Alfred "by his prudent discipline made all subjects of his dominion [citizen] soldiers." The fyrd (citizen militia) system and Trained Bands followed in later years in the process of firmly affixing the citizen's responsibility to arm himself, until it was catalogued as basic to the absolute rights of man in the English Bill of Rights.
Most of the english speaking countries have enjoyed the right and duty to keep and bear arms. Most of these same countries have pissed away their rights.
Are the Americans to be next to forfeit their standing as free CITIZENS, to become subjects?
About 140 years ago, a lot of people were weary of an ever growing federal government trampling on individual Rights and States Rights. The brave folks of South Carolina rose to their own defense. In the war to follow, both sides lost.
A revolution is due, may God permit that it be successful without violence. There may well still be a chance of regaining our lost freedoms through the vote, recall petition, peaceful protest, education etc.
http://users.erols.com/kfraser/bonnie.htm
The words to the song are frightenly appropriate.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
Our fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a heritage of long standing whose origins date back to earliest civilization.
In England, popular armament began developing well before laws were issued in the Seventh Century governing misuse of the already recognized right to keep and bear arms. This right, as noted in Blackstone's Commentaries, became a formal duty when king Alfred "by his prudent discipline made all subjects of his dominion [citizen] soldiers." The fyrd (citizen militia) system and Trained Bands followed in later years in the process of firmly affixing the citizen's responsibility to arm himself, until it was catalogued as basic to the absolute rights of man in the English Bill of Rights.
Most of the english speaking countries have enjoyed the right and duty to keep and bear arms. Most of these same countries have pissed away their rights.
Are the Americans to be next to forfeit their standing as free CITIZENS, to become subjects?
About 140 years ago, a lot of people were weary of an ever growing federal government trampling on individual Rights and States Rights. The brave folks of South Carolina rose to their own defense. In the war to follow, both sides lost.
A revolution is due, may God permit that it be successful without violence. There may well still be a chance of regaining our lost freedoms through the vote, recall petition, peaceful protest, education etc.
http://users.erols.com/kfraser/bonnie.htm
The words to the song are frightenly appropriate.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
Some random thoughts on what society in general is allowed to dictate. Copied from a post i did here.
I think a society/state (assuming the state is reasonably democratic/participatory) _does_ have the right to dictate what is acceptable in terms of levels/situations of violence. (or only society if you don't believe in the existance of a state) The society/state has the right to say (with regards to almost anything) "this is right and this is wrong". This doesn't mean we have to agree with the society/state and we certainly have the right to lobby/vote/discuss to change the societal opinions. We also have the choice of disregarding the opinions of society if we feel strongly enough opposed to them. (ie, if the state banned all guns you would have to choose if you would turn them in or hide them.) You do, however, have to recognize that society enforces its opinions by putting people in prison. I strongly disagree with society on some points and will probably end up doing at least jail time (if not prison) at some point in my life. The fact that I disagree with society does not mean that it does not have the right to its opinions. I, however, have the ethical/moral _responsibility_ to try to change/resist the societal position. If society can't say "what is wrong and what is right" it basically does not exist (ie, no laws of any sort could exist). Even most anarchist theory says that while laws/corporations wouldn't enforce a certain morality people would work together to decide what was right/wrong. (of course, it also argues that many societal problems are also based on/inherent in the current system and would disappear with a change in system... not sure I agree...)
I don't tend to think that there are any "inherent universal" rights above and beyond what society defines. We all have our own beliefs and have a responsibility to work for those beliefs but that doesn't make anything inherent.
[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 25, 2000).]
I think a society/state (assuming the state is reasonably democratic/participatory) _does_ have the right to dictate what is acceptable in terms of levels/situations of violence. (or only society if you don't believe in the existance of a state) The society/state has the right to say (with regards to almost anything) "this is right and this is wrong". This doesn't mean we have to agree with the society/state and we certainly have the right to lobby/vote/discuss to change the societal opinions. We also have the choice of disregarding the opinions of society if we feel strongly enough opposed to them. (ie, if the state banned all guns you would have to choose if you would turn them in or hide them.) You do, however, have to recognize that society enforces its opinions by putting people in prison. I strongly disagree with society on some points and will probably end up doing at least jail time (if not prison) at some point in my life. The fact that I disagree with society does not mean that it does not have the right to its opinions. I, however, have the ethical/moral _responsibility_ to try to change/resist the societal position. If society can't say "what is wrong and what is right" it basically does not exist (ie, no laws of any sort could exist). Even most anarchist theory says that while laws/corporations wouldn't enforce a certain morality people would work together to decide what was right/wrong. (of course, it also argues that many societal problems are also based on/inherent in the current system and would disappear with a change in system... not sure I agree...)
I don't tend to think that there are any "inherent universal" rights above and beyond what society defines. We all have our own beliefs and have a responsibility to work for those beliefs but that doesn't make anything inherent.
[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 25, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanf:
It all originates with the right to life. I think even the most rabid anti-gun type would agree that the right to life exists. If you prevent the defense of that life (by prohibiting the means) you have taken away the right to life. So, the right to bear arms is really the right to life. It's a matter of deductive logic.
There is, in fact, a right to drive, not subject to any government regulation. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
[/quote]
DeanF: I have just finished reading that entire script. If it is a fair and true offering, then it should have real impact on the non-ability of government to control our use of the roads and byways for our personal travel across state lines without predudice..
It is long in word, but certainly an enlightening document which I recommend strongly for each of us to invest the 3/4 hour or so to read carefully.
For my part - thank you for publishing that URL.
The real question though is, if this is already case law, then how and why do lawmakers usurp our right(s)? The power of the Internet - the power of communication.
Awesome source of information, this Internet.
Thanks again.
AB
------------------
2nd AMENdment - "So Be It."
It all originates with the right to life. I think even the most rabid anti-gun type would agree that the right to life exists. If you prevent the defense of that life (by prohibiting the means) you have taken away the right to life. So, the right to bear arms is really the right to life. It's a matter of deductive logic.
There is, in fact, a right to drive, not subject to any government regulation. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
[/quote]
DeanF: I have just finished reading that entire script. If it is a fair and true offering, then it should have real impact on the non-ability of government to control our use of the roads and byways for our personal travel across state lines without predudice..
It is long in word, but certainly an enlightening document which I recommend strongly for each of us to invest the 3/4 hour or so to read carefully.
For my part - thank you for publishing that URL.
The real question though is, if this is already case law, then how and why do lawmakers usurp our right(s)? The power of the Internet - the power of communication.
Awesome source of information, this Internet.
Thanks again.
AB
------------------
2nd AMENdment - "So Be It."
We can no longer consider RKBA a right. It has been perverted into a priveledge for those who call themselves "Law abiding". For those brave souls who call themselves free, and moral, the rights were never lost. Never will be, as a right cannot be lost to one who recognizes that right. If I refuse to abide by gun-control laws, then I still retain my right to keep and bear arms. The laws prohibiting me from possessing certain items I deem necessary to exercise my rights, are no more than words on paper, and I respect them that much too. I gave up on being a "Law abiding citizen" when I started learning the true meanings to rights and priveledges. The Constitution I swore to "protect" has more meaning than all the teary-eyed Sarah Brady's in the world. I urge each and every one of you to reaffirm that you are a free man (or woman) and entitled to certain inalienable rights. Practice a little civil disobedience each day, but do it for a moral reason.
------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The real question though is, if this is already case law, then how and why do lawmakers usurp our right(s)? The power of the Internet - the power of communication.[/quote]
It's because few of us have the financial or political resources to stand and fight when it comes time to defend our right to drive.
Others: Please read the link. Reading it won't change anything in the real world, but you should come away with an understanding that there actually is a right to drive, not subject to any license, as long as your're not engaging in commerce on the public roadways.
It's because few of us have the financial or political resources to stand and fight when it comes time to defend our right to drive.
Others: Please read the link. Reading it won't change anything in the real world, but you should come away with an understanding that there actually is a right to drive, not subject to any license, as long as your're not engaging in commerce on the public roadways.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>clipped///Others: Please read the link. Reading it won't change anything in the real world, but you should come away with an understanding that there actually is a right to drive, not subject to any license, as long as your're not engaging in commerce on the public roadways.[/B][/quote]
While the case subject was "drivers' licenses", I was caught up in the cited case law that appears strongly to support all rights!!
I'm interested in the opinions of others on this.
AB
------------------
2nd AMENdment - "So Be It."
While the case subject was "drivers' licenses", I was caught up in the cited case law that appears strongly to support all rights!!
I'm interested in the opinions of others on this.
AB
------------------
2nd AMENdment - "So Be It."
Question. I get into this arguement with my dad all the time. Rights vs priviledge. We talk about a "right to life". Yet, since the government (or any casual murderer) can kill me at any time, how is this different from a priviledge? This is probably obvious, but the blasted man is good with his logic (to me). Then again, his gun control attitude is mostly emotional now, due to ... someone on this board (proud hrrumph here 
)
------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
)------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...