Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts? - Page 6

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; There are a lot of references to State and U.S. Constitutions here and statements that they grant us these rights. Please note these the rights ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 90 of 90

Thread: Rights VS Privilege? What Are Your Thoughts?

  1. #76
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    There are a lot of references to State and U.S. Constitutions here and statements that they grant us these rights. Please note these the rights listed in these Constitutions are, in the words of our founders, Inalienable meaning we are born with them. they are not granted by the government. Even without them being listed in these documents they are still rights. The BOR was only added to appease some of the original signers of the COTUS. Many thought it was foolish to list them out as it should be obvious what rights we have and listing them would assist a tyrant in encroaching on them, as we are seeing these days from our Federal Government.

    JMHO,
    MT
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment


  2. #77
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Faitmaker View Post
    I'm thinking that if your answer is inappropriate to the forum than maybe, just maybe the offhand comment you made in regards to it might be as well.
    No, because it is important to distinguish that certain ideas are antithetical to the system of government the Founders designed. It is less important to delve into those details as it often results in political conflict.

    You have clarified your opinion but really haven't answered how an non-surrenderable right can be surrendered. In another post, you beat to death that states cannot make compacts without Congressional approval. I don't understand how you can feel that absolute about something like that and be so giving with something as absolute as non-surrenderable. You should be beating your chest about the illegality of removing any citizens rights. I really just don't get you.
    It is really quite simple. I believe in the concept of self governance. The Constitution mandates Congressional consent concerning state compacts. State laws (and US Code) mandate specific punishments for specfic criminal behavior. We the People govern ourselves in a manner prescribed by a Republican form of government. That is the guarantee the Founders codified in the Constitution.

    You may think incarcerated prisoners should carry guns (or not be incarerated at all!) because it is their 'right' but the People deem that the privilege of exercising that right is removed for certain individuals.

    It is our perogative as a society of self governance.

  3. #78
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    SD,
    I don't think a single person has advocated convicts in prison being permitted weapons.

    To twist others' words as you do is just dishonest.

    The concepts that life liberty and property are unalienable is high sounding language for responsible citizens. We have a formalized justice system to guarantee those rights for most, and restricting and revoking them for criminals. AFTER due process, and opportunity to appeal the sentence. It is difficult, AND IT SHOULD BE.

    Even so, while an ex-con has the legal and moral right to self defense, he is banned from doing so with the most effective tool, a firearm.

    We don't throw ex-cons in prison for verbal protest, we don't revoke their rights to a jury trial, if they get arrested again. We don't torture them because their right to not be tortured is revoked. If a criminal has been to prison, paid his fines, made his restitution, if any, we don't send the sheriff to take all his property every couple years, because "society" is still mad at him, and he doesn't have rights.

  4. #79
    Member Array SCbuckeye12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    53
    I believe it is a right given to law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Break the law and lose your right to maintain a firearm.

    I also believe a CCW is an additional privilege granted to law abiding citizens who have received the proper training and license. Much like a car, you have the right to own it but need a license to drive it.

  5. #80
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    I don't think a single person has advocated convicts in prison being permitted weapons.

    To twist others' words as you do is just dishonest.
    That is EXACTLY the point I am trying to drive home. Some suggest that that since certain rights are God given and unalienable (I agree) that we cannot restrict or remove the privilege of exercising them. Just the fact that everyone agrees that prisoners hould not carry guns refutes their own argument.

    The concepts that life liberty and property are unalienable is high sounding language for responsible citizens. We have a formalized justice system to guarantee those rights for most, and restricting and revoking them for criminals. AFTER due process, and opportunity to appeal the sentence. It is difficult, AND IT SHOULD BE.
    You are getting to the meat. Due process involves a systematic and fair comparison of one's actions with the law. The law is determined by the People. The law states that we can (and should) restrict the exercise of unalienable rights and we determine the law.

    By the way, the concepts are life, liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Property is not addressed in the Declaration. Though a certain segment of society tries to distort the words of the Founders to further their personal ideaology.

    We don't throw ex-cons in prison for verbal protest, we don't revoke their rights to a jury trial, if they get arrested again. We don't torture them because their right to not be tortured is revoked. If a criminal has been to prison, paid his fines, made his restitution, if any, we don't send the sheriff to take all his property every couple years, because "society" is still mad at him, and he doesn't have rights.
    Part of his 'fines' is that he does not have the privilege of exercising certain rights, unalienable or any other adjective used to describe them.

    With rights come responsibility. And as a self governing society, We the People make the rules.

  6. #81
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by SCbuckeye12 View Post
    I believe it is a right given to law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Break the law and lose your right to maintain a firearm.

    I also believe a CCW is an additional privilege granted to law abiding citizens who have received the proper training and license. Much like a car, you have the right to own it but need a license to drive it.
    Realistically, why should there be any difference in licensing or training for carrying concealed as opposed to openly? If someone carries openly is he somehow more accurate, more aware of threatening situations, or applicable laws?

    While 150 years ago, concealed carry began to become illegal because it was considered cowardly, sneaky, and suspicious.

    But I have lost count of the people I've heard and read who consider OPEN carry to be "looking for trouble", rude, confrontational, and vulgar. (vulgar?)

    It sounds a lot like the insults I heard in high school when I wore a cowboy hat and an earring.

    After NM passed CCW, it was still illegal to carry into a grocery store or any other store which sells package alcohol. Now it is legal to carry concealed, there, but not OPENLY.

    Overall, I see no constitutional, or rational justification for distinguishing between bearing arms openly, or covertly.

    Call me crazy, but why aren't we teaching gun safety all through school, and training kids to qualify for CCW before they graduate High School? SOme are stupid and will kill themselves? Yeah, we accept the casualties resulting from giving cars to sixteen year olds. So whats the big deal?

    Our society and our government treats people like criminals and infants, and we are surprised when people act like responsibility is alien.

  7. #82
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,877
    I believe it is my privilege to live in a country where it is my right to keep & bear arms. And the privilege of U.S. Citizenship should be as carefully & rigidly protected as are my 2nd Amendment Rights. We're leaking in all directions folks!
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  8. #83
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Many of you are missing the point....the right to self protection is inalienable, and is not granted by the second amendment. The 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government from denying that right. I know it sounds like symantics but its more than that.

    JMHO,
    MT
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  9. #84
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    That is EXACTLY the point I am trying to drive home. Some suggest that that since certain rights are God given and unalienable (I agree) that we cannot restrict or remove the privilege of exercising them. Just the fact that everyone agrees that prisoners hould not carry guns refutes their own argument.
    I didn't suggest it. I am pointing out that you said they are unalienable which means they cannot be surrendered. Yet you then state that Society can then take them away.

    The whole point is that this novel idea of unalienable is ********. We talk out of both sides of our mouth. Unalienable is absolute. Absolute.

    You are getting to the meat. Due process involves a systematic and fair comparison of one's actions with the law. The law is determined by the People. The law states that we can (and should) restrict the exercise of unalienable rights and we determine the law.
    So the law states that we can (and should) restrict the exercise of unremovable rights and we determine the law. I guess we also get to determine when a citizen can and cannot exercise those rights. So basically, you have your rights until someone decides you don't and as long as they duly process you to remove them, life is grand. That does sound like a privilege to me, but what do I know? I'm just a Libertarian... or an Anarchist.. or whatever label I'm to be painted by.

    By the way, the concepts are life, liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Property is not addressed in the Declaration. Though a certain segment of society tries to distort the words of the Founders to further their personal ideaology.
    You do realize that the Declaration was nothing more than a Declaration. It carries no weight. The Constitution mentions Life, Liberty, and Property in regard to due process and the taking of it. The Constitution does have weight. And there you go again with the vague offhand comments about certain segments who distort. I guess they lie, cheat, and steal to push their own ideaology. Call a hammer a hammer and say what you really mean.

    I'm fairly certain the Founders never intended for a lot of what we got but we got it nonetheless.

    Part of his 'fines' is that he does not have the privilege of exercising certain rights, unalienable or any other adjective used to describe them.

    With rights come responsibility. And as a self governing society, We the People make the rules.
    Well, we use to. It's been a long time since we were self-governing.. btw, isn't that an Anarchist idealogy? "I am the only government that matters?" "I am self-governing".
    Last edited by Faitmaker; August 11th, 2009 at 06:50 AM. Reason: Spelling
    "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

  10. #85
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    My take on this:

    Never talk to the police.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  11. #86
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,752
    The law states that we can (and should) restrict the exercise of unalienable rights and we determine the law.
    We cannot pass laws in conflict with the constitution. 2A is a right, guaranteed by the constitution. We have a constitutional republic, so according to my limited reasoning, a majority vote by the people cannot revoke the unalienable rights to the minority. If the people want to change 2A to a privilege, they'll have to change the constitution first.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  12. #87
    Member Array GoldenSaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    306
    How could we possibly need to even discuss something like this? Seriously? On this forum? This continued erosion of our rights and liberty's is disturbing let alone even asking the question. We are already allowing many in government to bit by bit convince vast majorities of that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are amendable by saying they are living documents. Their argument is that they are to be interrupted as times dictate instead of strictly adhered to as the founding fathers intended. When that happens we have lost the battle completely. We have already started down the road, lets hope that somewhere we can stop it before we drive off a cliff... cue video... burning piles of books, no guns, police states, "PAPERS please"...

  13. #88
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Right
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  14. #89
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    "You do realize that the Declaration was nothing more than a Declaration. It carries no weight."

    I disagree with this statement.

    The Declaration lays the foundation on which the Constitution stands. The Declaration outlines our individual, fundamental rights and the Constitution was crafted as the guidelines for creating a government that is suppose to protect those rights. The Declaration is an express of "natural law" that supercedes all other laws.

    The idea that the ability of government to limit individual rights, so that the expression of those rights do not infringe on the rights of others or that actions by an individual might be just cause for government to forfeit individual rights, is relegating those rights to the status of being privileges is an expression of a misunderstanding of the source (God) and nature (inalienable) of those rights and the role of government.

    The power to limit individual rights is granted to governments by the people with the aim of expanding the expression of individual rights to the extreme, only limited by the recognition that we live in a civil society where the rights of all individuals are honored.

    The definition of "inalienable" is is not able to be taken away or transferred to another. But this definition disregards the fact that the God who grants these inalienable rights is the same God that sanctioned human government to protect and administer them, including in extreme case forfeiting an individuals right to life (capital punishment). Having said this the sanctioning of human government to administer these rights doesn't diminish them to status of being privileges.

    A privilege is granting A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. The rights declared in the Declaration are not "special" but granted to all men.
    Last edited by 2edgesword; August 14th, 2009 at 01:44 PM.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  15. #90
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    It is a right, no valid argument against that fact.

    However, rights are not absolute. The logic of our government is that the government acknowledges individual rights, but it does not prevent the government from restricting an individual's right (like sending a felon to prison) as justice is as important (or more important) of a concept as freedom or rights.

    Ownership of a firearm might be considered a privilege, because if you can't afford it, you are not guarantied ownership. That is why it is not unconstitutional to require registration or require the carry of firearms only registered to the carrier. Even limitations on types of firearms or rounds is not unconstitutional so long as it does not regulate to the point of infringing on the right to bear arms. There are pros and coms to regulation, but strictly speaking, it is not unconstitutional. In addition, permits for CC are not unconstitutional, but you would assume, OC, should be unrestricted for the most part, and requiring a Cc permit should be a shall-issue.

    If you own a firearm, or are provided the use of a firearm by another (if that act is legal), you would have the right to bear (carry) it.
    Last edited by Thanis; August 14th, 2009 at 05:40 PM.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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.