• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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)?
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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.
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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.
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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. :rolleyes:

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?
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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

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?

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. :rolleyes:

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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 
Top