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; Last conversation I had about this all I said was "It says at the top of the page "Bill of Rights". The guy I was ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 90

Thread: Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts?

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    KCMO
    Posts
    3,408
    Last conversation I had about this all I said was "It says at the top of the page "Bill of Rights". The guy I was talking to had nothing to say. This is the same person who also claimed that he couldn't understand how a right can be taken away when an entire branch of our government has that power through due process, of course.

    Most criminals aren't caught their first time around and most criminals are recidivists so I don't see the logic in restoring their rights to own/carry firearms. There are steps to take for those that truly turn their lives around to have their rights fully restored.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    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.
    I fully understand the concept of Criminal Penalties. (former LEO)

    I still can see no justification in it. as another Poster stated it is done so that Society can "FEEL SAFE". I also stated that the concept of Parole is tool to limit this right. Once your debt is paid it's paid. Or is this not the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. If you ask me this Country is more and more become the Land of the Enslaved, Home of the Meek. (before someone says it let me tell you, if this is what the meek shall inherit, you can keep it!.)

    God Bless America, and help us get it back.

    MikeV

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    I fully understand the concept of Criminal Penalties. (former LEO)

    I still can see no justification in it. as another Poster stated it is done so that Society can "FEEL SAFE". I also stated that the concept of Parole is tool to limit this right. Once your debt is paid it's paid. Or is this not the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. If you ask me this Country is more and more become the Land of the Enslaved, Home of the Meek. (before someone says it let me tell you, if this is what the meek shall inherit, you can keep it!.)

    God Bless America, and help us get it back.

    MikeV
    MikeV

    A great many of our laws have been enacted so that "society can feel safe". Whether or not they are effective is a subject for great debate. But the concept of jail time or paying a fine as being the sum total of having "paid your debt to society" is erroneous. With respect to some crimes the debt may never be fully paid.

    I accept the argument that a person can do some pretty stupid things in their younger years and that some grace should be extended if over time they show themselves to be responsible and law abiding. However the burden of proof is on that individual to demonstrate that the rights forfeited by their actions should be restored. I don't think that the simple fact that they have served their jail time necessarily satisfies that burden of proof given the fact that a extremely high percentage of those that have served their time become repeat offenders.

    Again, the penality for being convicted of a felony is X amount of jail time and/or a fine plus an indefinite period in which their 2nd amendment rights have been forfeited. Simply serving the jail time does not amount to having paid your debt to society.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Rights and privileges are the same side of the same coin. There is no difference in theory or practice.
    There is a difference.

    Rights are granted. Privileges are earned.

    The Founders viewed the right of self-defense, including the bearing of arms for that defense, as a right granted by God and protected by government.

    Individuals are vested with and recognize to possess rights minus anything they have done to earn them. A one day old child has the right to life including the right of self-defense (although he may not be very well capable of exercising those rights).

    While the right to bear arms appears to be a privilege, given the current structure of our laws which seem to convey that concept, they are in fact an extension of the unearned, inalienable and individually vested right to life and self-defense.

    There is a fundamental difference in how societies and governments operate, especially with respect to setting boundaries for the exercise of power by societies and governments, depending on which exercises of freedom are seen as rights versus privileges.

    In theory there is a difference between rights and privileges and in practice, if you understand and accept the theory, there will also be a differences.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  6. #35
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    the penality for being convicted of a felony is X amount of jail time and/or a fine and an indefinite period in which their 2nd amendment rights have been forfeited so simply serving the jail time does not amount to having paid your debt to society.
    I understand what your saying. However, my own opinion is that this is just another way that the government proves its belief that it's citizenry can not be trusted. It all boils down to this. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

    I see nothing about unless......! that being said, until it is ruled otherwise an Idividual State can restrict this right to whomever they want it seems.

    MikeV
    Last edited by MIKEV; August 8th, 2009 at 11:50 AM. Reason: added

  7. #36
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    There is a difference.

    Rights are granted. Privileges are earned.

    The Founders viewed the right of self-defense, including the bearing of arms for that defense, as a right granted by God and protected by government.

    Individuals are vested with and recognize to possess rights minus anything they have done to earn them. A one day old child has the right to life including the right of self-defense (although he may not be very well capable of exercising those rights).
    Here you say that rights are not earned, they are God given. I agree.
    So tell me how is it that an unearned God given right may be taken away by mere Man? Morally, they cannot. Forcing a citizen to surrender their Right to protect the most Cherished gift God has give a man second only to His Son (God's Son) simply because he once went awry of Man's laws is an Immorall act and is WRONG!

    only my opinion.
    Thanks for your time, we can now agree to disagree if you wish.
    MikeV
    Last edited by MIKEV; August 8th, 2009 at 01:05 PM. Reason: spelling and still not sure. ;) added word for clarity

  8. #37
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    Here you say that rights are not earned, they are God given. I agree.
    So tell me how is it that an unearned God given right may be taken away by mere Man? Morally, they cannot. Forcing a citizen to surrender their Right to protect the most Cherished gift God has give a man second only to His Son (God's Son) simply because he went awry of Man's laws is an Immorall act and is WRONG!
    So, it is your opinion that incarcerated criminals should keep and bear arms?

    You think it is immoral for mere man to take away that right?

  9. #38
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    It is my opinion that even an incarcerated criminal has the right to defend himself.

    While serving his sentence his freedoms are restricted. He has caretakers there to oversee him. The state has taken it upon themselves to provide for this person until the term of his sentence is fulfilled.

    Once he is released the state bears no responsibilty either for his actions nor for his protection, therefore to restrict him the ability to protect himself is morally wrong IMO.

    MikeV

    p.s. I reread what I had posted and see how my position might have been confused. I edited in the word "once" between the words "he" and "went" I do hope that clears things abit more.
    Last edited by MIKEV; August 8th, 2009 at 01:08 PM. Reason: clarification of position for SD.

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    Here you say that rights are not earned, they are God given. I agree.
    So tell me how is it that an unearned God given right may be taken away by mere Man? Morally, they cannot. Forcing a citizen to surrender their Right to protect the most Cherished gift God has give a man second only to His Son (God's Son) simply because he went awry of Man's laws is an Immorall act and is WRONG!

    only my opinion.
    Thanks for your time, we can now agree to disagree if you wish.
    MikeV
    From the Judeo-Christian perspective the same God that grants us our rights established the concept of human government to protect those rights, even to the extreme of forfeiting the rights of some who through the abuse of their freedom trampled on the rights of others.

    Someone that has committed a felony has abused their rights and freedoms to victimize another. Human government was established to protect the freedom of all individuals BUT there is provision for curtailing the freedom of those that have abused their freedom to harm or infringe on the freedom of others. The penality for that abuse of freedom is the loss of freedom and certain rights.

    So yes, the same God that grants us our rights gave guidelines of establishing governments to protect the rights of the innocent over the rights of the guilty. And in some cases the punishment for an abuse of freedom was the loss of certain freedoms forever.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  11. #40
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,149
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    In America, you are allowed the privilege of exercising your rights. And that is what makes America exceptional in the world.
    True. The rights granted by God are not just American rights but rights for all mankind. We are just fortunate that our country's founders reconized that our government should reflect that.
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

  12. #41
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    It is my opinion that even an incarcerated criminal has the right to defend himself.
    So you think incarcerated criminals should be able to carry guns.

    While serving his sentence his freedoms are restricted. He has caretakers there to oversee him. The state has taken it upon themselves to provide for this person until the term of his sentence is fulfilled.
    So, what you are saying is that we (mere mortals) CAN restrict God given rights. But that is alright because we have a force in place to protect him.

    Once he is released the state bears no responsibilty either for his actions nor for his protection, therefore to restrict him the ability to protect himself is morally wrong IMO.
    So, the penalty of incarceration is that absolute limit of society's abilty to punish, even if the People pass legislation that has further penalties.

    What makes one penalty more morally unacceptable than another?

    The God given, unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, are a privilege allowed by the People if someone meets the required responsibilities to maintain those rights. Otherwise, society has every right to disallow that privilege.

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    While serving his sentence his freedoms are restricted.
    I think this statement is part of the reason we are having this disagreement. His sentence isn't just his jail time. His sentence (with respect to a felony) includes the forfeiture of his right to bear arms.

    The government has a duel responsibility. While our laws are meant to protect everyone there is a greater burden on government and society to protect the rights of the innocent over the rights of the guilty. If someone has shown themselves to be criminally irresponsible in infringing on the rights of others (committing a felony) it is grounds for curtailing their freedom in an effort to prevent them from repeating that offense.

    Again, I do think there should be an avenue for an individual to have their rights fully restored BUT I don't think it should be automatic based on having served jail time since jail time is only a portion of their penality and their debt to society.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  14. #43
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    2Edge
    Your right in that we do agree on more than we don't. Our point of disagreement is in how many hoops should one have to jump through before they are allowed to excercise all of their rights.

    MikeV

  15. #44
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    I think that the hang up for me is the use of these two words. Felon and Felony. I feel that there is a patent inequity in the fact that non'violent white collar felon can loose all of his rights just the same as the violent gangbanger who kills a store clerk to get cash for his next purchase of crack.

    There are so many things that are felonies because Govt said this action results in this amount of time. When if you look at them closely they aren't really a crime against society but a crime in order to ensure compliance with some bureaucratic regulation.

    so there. may be I am screwed up but I think that the burden should be on govt to show that I don't deserve my rights rather than me trying to prove to the govt That I deserve them back.

    (btw I am not a felon. I used myself as a mater of expedience in the last part.)

    MikeV

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    KCMO
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    I understand what your saying. However, my own opinion is that this is just another way that the government proves its belief that it's citizenry can not be trusted.
    MikeV
    In the case of felons, the felon has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they can not be trusted. Until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they can be trusted - no firearms or voting. How hard it is for them to do that is their burden, not society's or govt's.

    I hope you don't really believe being incarcerated for 8 or 15 years constitutes paying your debt in full for crimes such as rape and murder. As for white collar crimes, some can have far reaching effects destroying people's lives for decades, if not permanently, yet the sentences can be only a few years.

Page 3 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.