Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts? - Page 2

Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts?

This is a discussion on Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; George Carlin said something quite striking in his last HBO special before his death... he said (paraphrasing here) that in reality, you have no rights... ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 90

Thread: Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts?

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array PointnClick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    721
    George Carlin said something quite striking in his last HBO special before his death... he said (paraphrasing here) that in reality, you have no rights... you have a Bill of Temporary Privileges, because a right isn't a right if the government can take it away. If you need documentation, look up Japanese American internment camps 1942...

    American citizens who did nothing wrong, packed off to camps... no trial, no due process... the only right they got was "right this way..."
    "Who is to say that I am not an instrument of karma? Indeed, who is to say that I am not the very hand of God himself, dispatched by the Almighty to smite the Philistines and hypocrites, to lay low the dishonest and corrupt, and to bust the jawbone of some jackass that so desperately deserves it?"


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    The 2nd Amendment is a God-given right, it is backed up by historical precedence.

    Driving and owning a vehicle is a priviledge....
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array JJVP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes View Post
    My right to life is unanlienable, and self evident. I require no justification to claim a right to life.

    .
    If the Obama Health Plan goes thru, you might loose that right. You will have the right to life, as long as it does not cost anything to treat whatever ails you. You will be asked to be a good soldier and take one for the rest. No reason to spend money trying to keep you alive. Not cost effective.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array TucAzRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    792
    Amen to "It's a Right"... I totally agree with that,..

    For the record, I also believe that after a "felon" does his/her time, then they're rights should be reinstated. Put it this way, if he/she is really a felon at heart, they will have a weapon anyway.,.. By reinstating there rights to be able to CC, then they are more likely to NOT commit a crime,.. Become an upstanding citizen.. When your labeled as a "felon" for life, what do you have to lose by continuing your crime??? Under the old law, someone that stoled, was to pay back all plus 20percent (if my memory is right),.. Then they was to be restored,. Someone that killed/murdered - was put to death,.

    I understand that allot of people will not agree with me on this, and that is ok.. I'm not looking to debate it. I'm just putting my 2cents in..

    PS,.. I'm not a felon BTW.. LOL

  5. #20
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by MinistrMalic View Post
    It is a clearly enumerated right, not a privilege. The Bill of Rights was not even meant to GIVE us rights, merely to protect those rights that were inherent.

    Of course, 2A is patently clear, even if the lawyers can't read some days.

    WRT a felon, it is possible to have civil rights restored in court even after a felony. There is a petitioning process and it can be done. So that argument is not too strong in my opinion.
    The problem I have with the above is this.

    The sentence that you recieve upon conviction of an offense IS the punishment imposed for the commision of said offense. When that sentence is satisfied, the debt to society is PAID.

    I see no justification for limiting the rights of law abiding citizens based on past deeds. If you are free you are entitled to enjoy all the rights of all the other free citizens.

    "What about parolees?" When your on parole your not free.

    A free citizen reports to no master. Nor do they have to ask permission to exercise their rights. (spouse not included)

    MikeV
    Last edited by MIKEV; August 7th, 2009 at 04:35 PM. Reason: added content

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array TucAzRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    The problem I have with the above is this.

    The sentence that you recieve upon conviction of an offense IS the punishment imposed for the commision of said offense. When that sentence is satisfied, the debt to society is PAID.

    I see no justification for limiting the rights of law abiding citizens based on past deeds. If you are free you are entitled to enjoy all the rights of all the other free citizens.

    "What about parolees?" When your on parole your not free.

    A free citizen reports to no master. Nor do they have to ask permission to exercise their rights. (spouse not included)

    MikeV
    Mike,. I agree with you on this,. A Parolee has not done his/her time yet. They are just able to get out in the world (thanks to overcrowded prisons),.. When there time is done (out of prison and not reporting to a parole officer) then they should be restored... IMO ..

  7. #22
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Thank you.

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by TucAzRider View Post
    Amen to "It's a Right"... I totally agree with that,..

    For the record, I also believe that after a "felon" does his/her time, then they're rights should be reinstated. Put it this way, if he/she is really a felon at heart, they will have a weapon anyway.,.. By reinstating there rights to be able to CC, then they are more likely to NOT commit a crime,.. Become an upstanding citizen.. When your labeled as a "felon" for life, what do you have to lose by continuing your crime??? Under the old law, someone that stoled, was to pay back all plus 20percent (if my memory is right),.. Then they was to be restored,. Someone that killed/murdered - was put to death,.

    I understand that allot of people will not agree with me on this, and that is ok.. I'm not looking to debate it. I'm just putting my 2cents in..

    PS,.. I'm not a felon BTW.. LOL
    I agree. If they are dangerous, they should not be let out.
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    MikeV

    "I see no justification for limiting the rights of law abiding citizens based on past deeds. If you are free you are entitled to enjoy all the rights of all the other free citizens."

    I believe this statement expresses a misunderstanding regarding criminal penalities. The penality for committing a felon is the loss of your right to own a firearm in addition to whatever jail term and/or fine that might be a part of the penality. This penality (loss of right to own a firearm) isn't something added on after the fact.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  10. #25
    New Member Array Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    14
    All persons have a Natural Right to be secure in their person and possessions. The means through which that right can be enforced obviously could vary depending upon the circumstances.

    In today's world, the most realistic, effective way to enforce this right is through personal firearm ownership. Thus, in my opinion, firearm ownership is a right but only because no viable alternative exists. There's nothing particular to firearms that warrants their protected status other than this fact. For example, if something like Star Trek's phasors or forcefields were invented tomorrow the need for and protected status of firearms might be replaced.

    Which firearms one can have and how one can employ them are basically limitations and privileges which are vague and difficult to define in any objective manner. For instance, a strong argument could be made that machineguns and artillery might not be valid firearms for individual persons to own. Furthermore, the right to protect oneself and one's property would have to be in constant consideration of the rights of others. For example, brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner against an innocent person would violate that person's rights and would not be appropriate. It doesn't take long for this type of thinking exercise to become very complicated, controversial and potentially abused.

    This is where the constitution and its list of enumerated protections in the form of "The Bill of Rights" comes in. By listing specifically broad rights like habeas corpus, free speech, and firearm ownership the Bill of Rights serves as a bulwark against potential abuse or encroachment by the government through more specific laws, treaties, judicial cases or other actions. It's important to note that this small list of protections was never intended to be construed as *all* the rights of the populace. Nor was the Bill of Rights meant to convey the notion the government was in any kind of position to grant natural rights.

    I think what's important to take from all this is that the OP and his LEO friend are both right. Personal protection through firearms is a Constitutionally-protected RIGHT that is enforced through a very complex series of limitations and PRIVILEGES, the specifics of which (e.g. concealed carry, convicted felon eligibility, firearm registration, etc.) reasonable people can legitimately disagree.

  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Grym View Post
    All persons have a Natural Right to be secure in their person and possessions. The means through which that right can be enforced obviously could vary depending upon the circumstances.

    In today's world, the most realistic, effective way to enforce this right is through personal firearm ownership. Thus, in my opinion, firearm ownership is a right but only because no viable alternative exists. There's nothing particular to firearms that warrants their protected status other than this fact. For example, if something like Star Trek's phasors or forcefields were invented tomorrow the need for and protected status of firearms might be replaced.
    You missed part of the point: the natural right of self-defense extends not only to defense against everyday criminals, but also self-defense against attacks by a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic. That is why the 2a talks about the 'militia', a device with the clear purpose of allowing the people to defend themselves against tyrannical rule.

    With this in mind, it becomes clear that the 'protected' arms include anything necessary to defend against attacks by a regular army. The ruling in United States v. Miller supports this position implicitly.
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  12. #27
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Let's call a spade a spade. We confiscate the rights of felons in order that we can feeeel better about letting them out of prison early. Instead of allowing them to properly settle their debt with society, and return as whole men ready to start anew, we collect partial payment via an insufficient sentence and then steal what is most valuable to them -- their right to keep a firearm and their right to vote.

    Proper justice would be keeping felons in prison until their debt is fully paid (a few particular debts demand life in payment). Once the debt is paid, there is no justification for stripping a felon of his rights. We all would benefit in a few ways. First, felons would be off the street longer. A lot longer. Crime would be reduced. Second, everybody benefits when rights are recognized for what they truly are -- deception always prevents you from living your life to the fullest -- and a nation of people who don't know the difference between a right and a privilege are most definitely being deceived. Last and least, felons would benefit by getting a chance to start clean.

    I am obviously not a felon; I've never known a felon. I despise people who choose to do their crimes and live as scum. But I also despise the unjust usurpation of our fellow man's rights, without a second thought from many Americans.






    p.s. No, I'm not from the ACLU.

  13. #28
    Member Array Horsetrader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    now: here and there
    Posts
    225
    It is a natural right that the authors of our Constitution recognized and knew that NOT RECOGNIZING these INHERENT HUMAN RIGHTS in writing would lead to future government over-reaching. History tells us that many of those men in Philadelphia were Scotch-Irish with a 200 year history of religious, civil and economic persecution by the Crown. (See any history book on the "Ulster Plantation" ). They meant to enumerate what men were granted BY GOD to protect those rights from ANY GOVERNMENT even the one they were laboring so hard to produce. Their primary goal in forming the United States was difficult...trying to limit government power over its citizens to near null and still have the government strong enough to protect its citizens. The Great Experiment was a grand success until the States lost their power in the war of northern aggression.

    I know that until the 1920s in the west (Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota in particular) personal firearms were returned to convicts along with any personal effects upon release from custody at State Pens. Their "right" was not restricted or removed (how could it be if that right was GOD GIVEN or INHERENT) based upon past bad behavior. In fact the idea of life-long loss of the right to vote or be armed is a recent one in this country.
    "Improvise, adapt, overcome."

  14. #29
    Member Array Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    102
    I tend to believe that after a person pays their debt to society after being convicted of a crime then all of their rights are to be restored. However, our society has unfortunately made light of criminal acts with soft sentences and softer prisons leading me to reconsider my original thoughts.
    Now to toss another monkey wrench into the mess of confusion is the quote: I would rather have the dangers of liberty than the safety of slavery (I really can't remember who said that)
    I really don't know where I stand on the issue any more.

    Yes, I post as random as my thoughts.

  15. #30
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Rights and privileges are the same side of the same coin. There is no difference in theory or practice.

    I am continuously amused at the argument that felons should have their 'rights' restored. If they are 'rights' as some cling to endlessly, then no one can take them away. Thus, felons should be able to keep and bear arms while in prison. It is a right, not a privilege.

    What? You disagree? Society can determine who has 'rights?' How is that different than a privilege?

    The truth is that rights come from God and it is society that determines who has the privilege of exercising those rights. That is why libertarians are anarchists. They do not respect society.

    The Bill of Rights? A political appeasement that has no value whatsoever. It provides no power to government, the basic concept of limited power that is the foundation of the Federal government.

    In America, you are allowed the privilege of exercising your rights. And that is what makes America exceptional in the world.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Is air travel a right or a privilege?
    By Coder in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: November 26th, 2010, 09:03 AM
  2. Is It Your Right, or A Privilege?
    By varob in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 12:19 PM
  3. This privilege carries with it a significant responsibility
    By Treo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 12:12 PM
  4. Privilege? Wth...
    By OMEGA2669 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 31st, 2009, 09:10 PM
  5. Internet access is a right, but owning a handgun is a privilege?
    By Bob The Great in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 9th, 2007, 07:09 PM

Search tags for this page

alcatraz rights vs privledge
,
civil rights vs. privilege
,
gun rights vs privilege
,
home protection for felons
,
right v.s. privilege, responsibility
,
right vs privilege definition
,

rights vs privilege

,
rights vs privileges nra
,
www.rightsvsprivilege.com
Click on a term to search for related topics.