Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 150

Thread: Rights vs Priviledges, how do we convey the difference to people?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Rights vs Priviledges, how do we convey the difference to people?

    I had a conversation with someone this morning that does not seem to know what "shall not be infringed" means.
    He made the claim, through his choice of words, that the state grants rights.

    I was told that if you're not guilty of anything then you should have no problems proving that you're not to be able to even carry a gun.
    "Everyone should have to prove they are not a felon to be allowed to carry a gun."

    So, while I don't know about other people, the trigger words that tip me off to warn me that the person I am talking to/dealing with does not believe in rights is when they say words like "allow, permission, background check, not a criminal, etc".

    What are some of the warning words that you pick up on?

    How do we get these, self proclaimed, pro-gun people to understand that they are not, in-fact, pro-gun(freedom)?

    How do we open them to the truth?

    How do we them to drop their elitism when it comes to rights (guns)?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    It is not possible. It's like wrangling with a pig, you are both soiled but he enjoys the ordure.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    It is not possible. It's like wrangling with a pig, you are both soiled but he enjoys the ordure.
    I was hoping for a more, um, optimistic response.

    Are those that I described really that much more difficult to get to become truly pro-rights(guns) than some of the liberals who start out as anti-rights (guns)?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-22-2014 at 10:34 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I was hoping for a more, um, optimistic response.

    Are those that I described really that much more difficult to get to become truly pro-rights(guns) than some of the liberals who start out as anti-rights (guns)?
    To be honest freedom I think your mixing the two up. As you put in the op you said gun(freedom).

    That are not one in the same. I person can LOVE guns can own 19000 of them and shoot/carry everyday. Doesn't mean they didn't believe in the background check needed to get them. Doesn't mean they didn't think it was ok to get the license.


    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    To be honest freedom I think your mixing the two up. As you put in the op you said gun(freedom).

    That are not one in the same. I person can LOVE guns can own 19000 of them and shoot/carry everyday. Doesn't mean they didn't believe in the background check needed to get them. Doesn't mean they didn't think it was ok to get the license.


    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    If you're for the background check then you're not for freedom. Part of freedom is being able to say "no" and having the means to back up that answer.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I was hoping for a more, um, optimistic response.

    Are those that I described really that much more difficult to get to become truly pro-rights(guns) than some of the liberals who start out as anti-rights (guns)?
    The beatings will stop when morale improves....optimistically.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I was hoping for a more, um, optimistic response.

    Are those that I described really that much more difficult to get to become truly pro-rights(guns) than some of the liberals who start out as anti-rights (guns)?
    You're whacking at the limbs of the tree of anti-liberty, and this particular species of tree regenerates limbs as fast as you can whack them off. You need to examine the tree's roots and address the problem there.

    This tree's roots are nurtured by fear, the fear appeased by a belief "daddy government" is obligated to protect them from threats, real or imagined. Statism. The belief freedom and liberty invites threats and dangers a mere scrote citizen can not combat. That "daddy government" knows how to sort the wheat from the chaff, needs to be trusted to determine what to keep and allow, and what to discard.

    Firearms are too far removed from the root to make any meaningful confrontation to the fallacies in their philosophical foundations. You need to whack at the roots, which also seem to have a tendency to regenerate, if the fear is great enough. See, the Statist believes they are hanging on to security, the protections of daddy government, where you see them obstructing liberty. Your freedom. Oil and water. Two totally different value systems.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 01-22-2014 at 12:53 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I had a conversation with someone this morning that does not seem to know what "shall not be infringed" means.
    He made the claim, through his choice of words, that the state grants rights.

    I was told that if you're not guilty of anything then you should have no problems proving that you're not to be able to even carry a gun.
    "Everyone should have to prove they are not a felon to be allowed to carry a gun."

    So, while I don't know about other people, the trigger words that tip me off to warn me that the person I am talking to/dealing with does not believe in rights is when they say words like "allow, permission, background check, not a criminal, etc".

    What are some of the warning words that you pick up on?

    How do we get these, self proclaimed, pro-gun people to understand that they are not, in-fact, pro-gun(freedom)?

    How do we open them to the truth?

    How do we them to drop their elitism when it comes to rights (guns)?
    Ask that nitwit citizen if he agrees with the premise that he must prove that he will not misuse his privilege to speak freely. Apply his premise to the 1A and see what happens. Nitwits such as he will either change on the spot, or agree that our 1A needs a license and background check prior to "exercising" it.

    Any state mandated requirement to posses and bear arms is a infringement. Even a background check.

    A liberty centric citizen advances the premise that acts are addressed after the act. Preemptive "policing" of a future possible act is anti-liberty. Liberty is diminished as a result of citizens who believe that a background check, or a license, is a good idea to exercise a right.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If you're for the background check then you're not for freedom. Part of freedom is being able to say "no" and having the means to back up that answer.
    I agree.

    But again... just because you like guns doesn't mean your pro freedom or that your anti background checks.

    For example wasn't there a majority of gun owners that were ok with background checks the last time the polls came out? I'm nor asserting this because I can't remember if it was just gun owners or citizens in general. I'm asking it and open to any correction.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    A majority of folks might support background checks to exercise their 1A.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A majority of folks might support background checks to exercise their 1A.
    They might. Haven't seen any polls that indicate such but I guess its a possibility. Unlikely but a possibility.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I agree.

    But again... just because you like guns doesn't mean your pro freedom or that your anti background checks.

    For example wasn't there a majority of gun owners that were ok with background checks the last time the polls came out? I'm nor asserting this because I can't remember if it was just gun owners or citizens in general. I'm asking it and open to any correction.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    More nonsense. Who conducted the polls? What questions were asked of whom? Polls can produce whatever conclusion those conducting the polls want. NRA members could be polled and the result would indicate all guns should be kept under lock and key by the police....if the questions were posed correctly.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I agree.

    But again... just because you like guns doesn't mean your pro freedom or that your anti background checks.

    For example wasn't there a majority of gun owners that were ok with background checks the last time the polls came out? I'm nor asserting this because I can't remember if it was just gun owners or citizens in general. I'm asking it and open to any correction.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Majority rule gave us Jim Crow.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    They might. Haven't seen any polls that indicate such but I guess its a possibility. Unlikely but a possibility.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    When did polls become arbitrators of our rights?
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Majority rule gave us Jim Crow.
    Representative minority in power gave us Jim Crow.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Representative minority in power gave us Jim Crow.
    OK. On reflection, I agree.

    I can find other analogies to justify objections to the use of easily manipulated polls to establish as an indicator a majority opinion. Or none. The premise lies in the easily manipulated, not historical references.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    When did polls become arbitrators of our rights?
    When did legislators or judges?

    Any freeman should be able to own & carry w/o any impediments like a licensing scheme.

    This would include felons who have paid their debt fully.

    Gvo't officials cannot expand our rights but can only trample on them.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    When did polls become arbitrators of our rights?
    He didn't say that they did. Someone made an assertion about the majority of people. He correctly pointed out that no poll has established that assertion.

    It really is easy to win an argument when you make your own opposing arguments and then dismantle them.
    Last edited by eye95; 01-22-2014 at 07:48 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    He didn't say that they did. Someone made an assertion about the majority of people. He correctly pointed out that no poll has established that assertion.

    It really is easy to win an argument when you make your own opposing arguments and then dismantle them.
    The person I was directing that to deals in straw man fallacies. Just handing back what he dishes out.

    Or am I obligated to operate by YOUR concept of double standards?
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    SNIPPED
    For example wasn't there a majority of gun owners that were ok with background checks the last time the polls came out? I'm nor asserting this because I can't remember if it was just gun owners or citizens in general. I'm asking it and open to any correction.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    They might. Haven't seen any polls that indicate such but I guess its a possibility. Unlikely but a possibility.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    When did polls become arbitrators of our rights?
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    He didn't say that they did. Someone made an assertion about the majority of people. He correctly pointed out that no poll has established that assertion.

    It really is easy to win an argument when you make your own opposing arguments and then dismantle them.
    Sure looks to me he was using polls to determine majority opinion. And my contention was that polls don't mean squat as far as appealing to popularity, which is Primus's fall back fallacy.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 01-22-2014 at 09:29 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Sure looks to me he was using polls to determine majority opinion. And my contention was that polls don't mean squat as far as appealing to popularity, which is Primus's fall back fallacy.
    Lol.... don't be hurt because guys correctly called you out. I clearly stated I wasn't asserting it because I wasn't sure if it was a majority of citizens or just gun owners. I made that clear to prevent any of this ...... well.... malarkey (which is actually spelt wrong...) .

    I was making it clear I wasn't throwing it as fact because I didn't know.

    If it was a fact that majority of GUN OWNERS were ok with background checks then it would deflate the "pro gun means anti background checks" theory. This want some "appeal to popularity" concept. It was a clear reference to gun owners... IF that's what the poll said... which again I'm unsure of.

    I hope everyone is taking notes. I stuck with the thread topic.... the pro guns equals pro freedom assertion.

    This jack rabbit has jumped on the "well polls don't equal rights giving majority" etc. Etc.

    Pathetic kind of.....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    The person I was directing that to deals in straw man fallacies. Just handing back what he dishes out.

    Or am I obligated to operate by YOUR concept of double standards?
    And I am pointing out your dishonesty, regardless of your motivation.

    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Lol.... don't be hurt because guys correctly called you out. I clearly stated I wasn't asserting it because I wasn't sure if it was a majority of citizens or just gun owners. I made that clear to prevent any of this ...... well.... malarkey (which is actually spelt wrong...) .

    I was making it clear I wasn't throwing it as fact because I didn't know.

    If it was a fact that majority of GUN OWNERS were ok with background checks then it would deflate the "pro gun means anti background checks" theory. This want some "appeal to popularity" concept. It was a clear reference to gun owners... IF that's what the poll said... which again I'm unsure of.

    I hope everyone is taking notes. I stuck with the thread topic.... the pro guns equals pro freedom assertion.

    This jack rabbit has jumped on the "well polls don't equal rights giving majority" etc. Etc.

    Pathetic kind of.....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Just more of what I was explaining to you in another thread.

    The sad part is that they could probably alter your perspective, if that were their goal. However, I believe their goal is congratulations from other members of the cadre, not progress in changing the hearts and minds of others.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Majority rule gave us Jim Crow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Representative minority in power gave us Jim Crow.
    It must have been constitutional because SCOTUS ruled it was.......

    Too bad they did, because we probably would seen a much rapid disintegration of bigotry, by instituting it they than rationalized and justified the existence and instilled into culture.


    These unconstutional laws, that are against common law and natural law are good points to help in the OP's arguments against those who view rights as privileges.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Just more of what I was explaining to you in another thread.

    The sad part is that they could probably alter your perspective, if that were their goal. However, I believe their goal is congratulations from other members of the cadre, not progress in changing the hearts and minds of others.



    <o>
    Changing ones perspective means honest dialogue, the record shows many of us tried and still do, he refuses to engage in it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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