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; Originally Posted by MIKEV 2Edge Your right in that we do agree on more than we don't. Our point of disagreement is in how many ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90

Thread: Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts?

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    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
    Agreed. There should be some consideration given to the nature of the felony with respect to ultimately restoring rights. It doesn't make sense that someone convicted of a non-violent felony should suffer the same forfeiture of rights as a violent offender.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    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.
    What I believe, as far as length of sentences is concerned, is irellevant. I am not a Judge. However if a Representative of our Govt believes that is an appropriate sentence. so be it. Like other aspects of our Govt. we like it or not, that is the way it is until enough like minded people get together and facilitate a change.

    MikeV

  4. #48
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    I've known two people who were railroaded with "assault on a police officer" charges.

    I've known people convicted of (and guilty of) other felonies.

    And I would trust them behind me with a loaded weapon.

    I've also known other "upstanding citizens" who are out of prison because they had money and family connections to avoid it. They are alive only because it is illegal to kill them.

    I have heard plenty of "good" people gloat that when some child rapist, or serial killer gets sentenced that "the other convicts would kill him" (so there!) Why is it, that we almost unanimously agree that some people really have forfeited their right to stay in this world, but we keep allowing the justice system to hand out such piddly punishment?

    If we can't trust someone with a firearm, we can't trust them with a motor vehicle, gasoline, drano, a butter knife, or pretty much any freedom at all.

    In which case, we should either kill them, or put them in a gulag in Alaska, FOREVER.

    Don't expect convicts to clean up your hard cases, and pat yourself on the back that you are a moral person.

  5. #49
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    I agree, in fact that the commision of a crime in and of itself shall not be my guage of overall level of trust. I just really didn't want to get into that seeing as it maybe a bit offtopic to the original intent of this thread.

    MikeV

  6. #50
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    My view, coincidentally, is similar to what is expressed in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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,
    Government should only have whatever power we choose to give them.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    It is always our right to change how much power we give to the government.

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
    Should we suffer quietly when our collective right to keep and bear arms is whittled away or should we stand up and shake off that which we have become accustomed to? Is this evil sufferable?

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    I am not proposing revolution, but simply pointing out that Americans are becoming far too comfortable with unalienable rights being transformed into mere privileges. Why do we consent to this? We no longer realize that our government was instituted to secure our rights. Not to limit them when it becomes politically expedient or makes people feel good.

    It all boils down to whether you cheer when the goverment secures our rights or if you prefer instead a steady diet of infringement because it is the easy road. We consent to certain rights being suspended while in jail out of necessity. But can any single person here provide a rational response as to why it is necessary to let a felon out of prison with half of his rights missing?

    I say it is to distract us from the fact that we no longer bother to properly punish criminals. Politicians get more votes when they make people feel good. It is sleight of hand -- misdirection -- and so far we have consented to it. But that doesn't make it right.

  7. #51
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    Should we suffer quietly when our collective right to keep and bear arms is whittled away or should we stand up and shake off that which we have become accustomed to? Is this evil sufferable?
    What right is being whittled away? In my state, my rights have been expanded! We not only have concealed carry laws and 'Castle Doctrine' protection but rexently we passed resaurant carry.

    The rhetoric of our rights being taken away grows tiresome.

    I am not proposing revolution, but simply pointing out that Americans are becoming far too comfortable with unalienable rights being transformed into mere privileges.
    And what rights are those?

    Do you think incarcerated felons should carry guns in prison? Why not?

    We consent to certain rights being suspended while in jail out of necessity. But can any single person here provide a rational response as to why it is necessary to let a felon out of prison with half of his rights missing?
    Because we consent to certain rights being removed as part of the pnishment. It really is that easy. By the way, exactly how do you determine 'half his rights?'

  8. #52
    Member Array Horsetrader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    now: here and there
    Posts
    222
    We have only ourselves to blame for the path down this line of nuances and hairsplitting. Progressives have over the years changed the judicial system and wah-la here we are with housing convicted murderers for 60 years because we are too "enlightened" to kill them. Or paroling lifelong criminals for "good behavior".

    If the crime is to a certain standard then DEATH is the punishment upon conviction. (No real deterant if the execution is not PUBLIC, so make all executions PUBLIC on main street on a school holiday so the young can see.) Crimes below the death standard serve the time and return to full rights upon release. Too Harsh ? Maybe, but crime will go down and the state won't be housing 250,000 at $40,000 each. A deterrant like that would cut the backlog in courts I would guess also.

    Just so when I get jumped on you have the necessary info: I am against abortion, donate to child disease research, take care of an 80 year old mother and assume that Obamacare will ration death to the elderly.
    "Improvise, adapt, overcome."

  9. #53
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post
    But can any single person here provide a rational response as to why it is necessary to let a felon out of prison with half of his rights missing?

    I say it is to distract us from the fact that we no longer bother to properly punish criminals. Politicians get more votes when they make people feel good. It is sleight of hand -- misdirection -- and so far we have consented to it. But that doesn't make it right.
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Because we consent to certain rights being removed as part of the pnishment. It really is that easy. By the way, exactly how do you determine 'half his rights?'
    So it's necessary "because we consent"? Consent does not create necessity, so I'll take that as a "no", you don't have a rational response. Anyone else?

  10. #54
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    The real reason people who are incarcerated cannot have firearms is that if they had them, it would be impossible to keep them incarcerated. The inmates would just organize and shoot their way out.

    As a result of this disarmament, we the rest of the country have a duty to provide for their safety. Clearly since protecting criminals is not a popular sounding idea we have abrogated that duty. People even joke about how criminal X is going to be gang-raped and how they deserve it, yet the same people would probably revolt if a judge sentenced someone to gang rape.

    When you take away someone's right of self-defense, you are responsible for their safety. Of course, this same paradox also applies in states where carry is banned and yet the police have no duty to protect you.
    "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. ---

  11. #55
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    The real reason people who are incarcerated cannot have firearms is that if they had them, it would be impossible to keep them incarcerated. The inmates would just organize and shoot their way out.
    So, it is your opinion that under certain circumstances society has the right to remove or restrict these so called unalienable rights. How is that different than society allowing you the privilege of exercising your rights?


    When you take away someone's right of self-defense, you are responsible for their safety.
    Why? There is neither a duty nor responsibility to protect a criminal.

  12. #56
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Why? There is neither a duty nor responsibility to protect a criminal.
    Because there is a difference between a 5-year sentence and a death sentence.
    "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. ---

  13. #57
    Member Array vic40204's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    30
    As far as i am concerned the right to defend myself is God given and not governed by man.

  14. #58
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by rstickle View Post
    There is part of the problem, and sort of a contradiction in your two paragraphs above. Where do you draw the line, and who decides?
    Well see that is a contradiction in my own mind. I admitted it at the very beginning. While I understand that I don't want to put guns into the hands of those who commit violence, I also believe that if they have done their time (actually done it would be better than parole for time served) their rights should be restored. I have not resolved this in my own mind so I can't provide my answer to you.

    So a guy embezzles 1 million dollars and now can't ever carry a gun (or worse in my mind, can't vote)? I don't have the answers. I'm just stating what is floating around in my head given the topic.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  15. #59
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    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.

    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.
    I notice you attack Libertarianism a lot and I'm really not sure why or what you define it as.

    Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.
    How is that anarchism which seeks to remove government from the equation entirely?

    Harry Brown said
    "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution."
    I can hold with that statement. I do not think it means to dismantle the government but to hold them accountable to the people. If we did so, we would see far less problems.

    SD - Can you please explain what you mean by "society.. determines who has the privilege of exercising those rights. That is why libertarians are anarchists. They do not respect society."? I don't believe I follow. I consider myself a Libertarian but do not believe I don't respect society. And for the record, I am asking an innocent question to understand your point better. I would appreciate it if you do not reply with hostility. Maybe it's the fact that we are conversing over text but I always get this real hostile vibe from you and I'm trying to be open-minded.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  16. #60
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    So you think incarcerated criminals should be able to carry guns.



    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.



    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.
    It would seem that you are reading more into things than is there. If what you just said is true, the the right is god-given and unalienable, it cannot be taken away. Period. End of story.

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

Page 4 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.