• 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?

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Majority rule gave us Jim Crow.

Representative minority in power gave us Jim Crow.

It must have been constitutional because SCOTUS ruled it was.......:p

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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

I think I agree with much of this. Pro gun guys are often our worse enemies when it comes to liberty.

Many will disparage OC.

Many will believe in state background checks.

Many will believe in state licensing schemes for CC.

Many will believe in mandated training programs.

Many will believe in catering to the fear of others and not OC'ing just in case someone might not like it. Like in a bank.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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)?

A big key point is when they equate having to get a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle (on public highways) to having a license to possess a firearm.

"Well since you have to have a license to drive a car then why shouldn't you also have to get a license to own a gun?"

Their logic is flawed for the simple fact that the keeping and bearing of arms is a fundamental right which is NOT handed out by some government by rather by the Creator at one's birth. It's called self preservation. Humans are not endowed with fangs or claws or speed of pursuit or bear-like strength to take down game and with which to defend themselves. What they are endowed with is a brain, vastly superior to any other creature on the planet. Our weaknesses are more than made up by our ability to use this instrument for the creation of arms to give us power over the more powerful creatures, and over other of our kind who are of a mind to do us harm... be they individuals or despotic governments.

It's not a Buffet of Rights, it's a Bill of Rights. You can't pick and choose which ones you like and will accept and which ones you don't care for and believe should be rejected. They come as a package deal. They feed and build upon one another. Several of our Founders believed that the Bill of Rights was unamendable for the simple fact that once that door is opened, this nation will cease to be America.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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)?

I'll take a crack at it.

The first thing I would say is that no matter what, always keep in the back of your mind that a certain percentage of the population prefers to see others doing worse, not getting ahead, and so forth, and are even happy to actively trip things up. So, if the person you're talking to just refuses in the face of all sensible arguments, then realize that he may have an emotional investment in others not being free.

With that said, ask plenty of questions. Gently.

For example, "Oh, the state grants rights?" "Wow, hadn't looked at it that way, before." "Hmmm. I wonder where government gets the rights it grants?" Of course, he can't answer that sensibly because there is no sensible answer. Government is not some vague, shapeless abstract. It is actual people, doing actual things. So, if a government agent, say a judge, grants a right, he must have had it somewhere or somehow in order to grant it. But, since he and the rest of government are people, they couldn't possibly have any rights to grant that a citizen himself didn't also already possess.

Just to continue this example, lets say that when you ask where government gets the rights it grants, your target replies, "Well, its government. It just can." The first thing to understand is that since there is no sensible answer, you are guaranteed to get a nonsense answer. Just know you're going to get a nonsense answer. Expect it. It is entirely too predictable. Just be ready for it. Expect it. Its guaranteed the reply will be nonsense.

So, he replies, "Well, its government. It just can." So, you gently start pulling it apart from there. For example, "Okay. But, where does government get the power to dispense rights?" "Unless the people delegate the power to government, then government is just making it up out of thin air and doing whatever it wants, in which case rights depend not on government, but who has the muscle to back up their viewpoint, which is hardly a definition of rights. Its just force."

Him, "Yeah, that's it! The people delegate the power to government to grant rights!"

You, "Which people?"

Him, "Why, the people. Its just the people." This, of course, is a socialist vagueness, so the trick is to take it down to individuals.

You, "You must mean some of the people because not everybody--by a very long shot--agrees on which are rights and which aren't. So, at best, government is claiming a power to dispense rights that only some of the people have agreed it can dispense. And, those some people can't possibly delegate to government a power to dispense a right those some people don't already possess themselves. And, if those some people possess that right themselves, then, necessarily everybody else must also already possess that right. So, at best, government is dispensing rights people already possess." (Which is just another way of saying government denies rights so it can dispense some rights--the rights it sees fit to dispense, the rights it doesn't perceive as a threat, the rights it can dispense profitably.)

And, once you've got it to that point of delegating or some people, you just keep taking apart his answers, gently, by figuring out the fallacy and either explaining it gently or reversing a statement of fact into a question.

The key factors, near as I can tell, are:
  • consent
  • force/coercion
  • equality
  • unalienable rights (you're born with them; they're based on you being alive; they can't be removed from you)

All statist arguments reduce to force. Every time. I've never encountered one that didn't. If its not based on consent, the only other option is force/coercion. By this I mean, whoever controls the force gets to enforce their opinion, coercing others to do what they want.

But, statists never dare cleanly admit to force/coercion. The instant he does, the statist exposes his lie: he thinks he's more equal than you. For, if all are equal, then where does he get his authority to rule/govern/coerce you? The statist will resort to the most fallacious arguments to divert you. He might claim, "Majority rules!" Just ask, "Oh? Where did they get that power? Who gave it to them? How are they more equal than the people who dissented or refused their consent?" Of course, the statist goes thru the most deceptive gyrations to avoid the equality question; because as soon as it is exposed that he thinks he's more equal than others, or you, the pseudo-legitimacy of his power is destroyed. From another angle, as soon as people recognize it is a pseudo-legitimacy, his power starts to evaportate. Now that I think about it, its no wonder government argues so hard, and so deceptively. Their "legitimacy" depends entirely on enough people agreeing with their deceptive statements/buying into their lies.

The only other thing I might add is to think through on the various points I mentioned yourself from a number of different angles until you are pretty familiar.

So, if I had to summarize, I would say,
1. Reduce the argument to individuals.
2. Ask how those individuals are more equal than others?
3. All arguments are either consent or force.
4. If its not based on consent, it necessarily is based on force, and it necessarily means somebody is more equal than others.


So, there you go. I'm not much of a philosopher, so I can't guarantee I've presented it well. You understand, I've never tried to codify it before. But, to the degree I can articulate them and organize them, those ideas have served me well. I guess the most important thing is to understand the subject matter well, and then apply gentle debate tactics--like asking questions.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
A big key point is when they equate having to get a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle (on public highways) to having a license to possess a firearm.

"Well since you have to have a license to drive a car then why shouldn't you also have to get a license to own a gun?"

Their logic is flawed for the simple fact that the keeping and bearing of arms is a fundamental right which is NOT handed out by some government by rather by the Creator at one's birth. It's called self preservation. Humans are not endowed with fangs or claws or speed of pursuit or bear-like strength to take down game and with which to defend themselves. What they are endowed with is a brain, vastly superior to any other creature on the planet. Our weaknesses are more than made up by our ability to use this instrument for the creation of arms to give us power over the more powerful creatures, and over other of our kind who are of a mind to do us harm... be they individuals or despotic governments.

It's not a Buffet of Rights, it's a Bill of Rights. You can't pick and choose which ones you like and will accept and which ones you don't care for and believe should be rejected. They come as a package deal. They feed and build upon one another. Several of our Founders believed that the Bill of Rights was unamendable for the simple fact that once that door is opened, this nation will cease to be America.

Hi Southernboy---

The main concern should be both. One should not need a license to travel, nor should one need a license to keep and bear arms..
More on this subject at a later time.

My .02

Regard

CCJ
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
+1

And to all the folks who want to say or snivel that "you need a DL to operate a motor vehicle" ... you can tell tell them, even if you think a DL is needed...that a person can drive on their own private property w/o a license.

Heck, you can have 500 vehicular manslaughter convictions, 100 DUIs for drunk driving, and STILL be able to drive on your own property w/o a license.

So, these goofs who want to say that you need a license to carry on your own property (and yes, there are states that require it) are total windbags.....
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I think I agree with much of this. Pro gun guys are often our worse enemies when it comes to liberty.

Many will disparage OC.

Many will believe in state background checks.

Many will believe in state licensing schemes for CC.

Many will believe in mandated training programs.

Many will believe in catering to the fear of others and not OC'ing just in case someone might not like it. Like in a bank.

Hi Folks
Hi SVG- The " Many" are in fact LAC--- In my opinion LAC is a Government established term. The G wants us all to be law abiding citizens, they want us all to enter into contracts via drivers licenses, gun owner licenses, a license to fish, etc. They want to extend to us a privilege for surrendering a right.. Hence we then become a Law abiding citizen. If we do not enter into these contracts where we exchange our rights for the so call state privilege, then we get labeled a "sovereign citizen", a rebel against government, a cop killer etc... However more on "sovereign citizens" at a later time...
Your paraphrase from United States v Minker says it best.. Waiving rights due to ignorance.

Now lets address the State(s) role in society if I may. The State owes nothing to anybody except peace, order and the guarantee of rights. Nothing more nothing less. Their role is simply to be a protector of rights and not an invader of rights. The task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health,liberty and private property against violent attacks. John Stuart Mill espoused this principle in his popular tract On Liberty, first published in 1859, which maintained that government should be limited to the rule of protecting individuals from harming one another;

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection... {T}he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good,either physical or moral,is not a sufficient warrant.....
"Over himself,over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill concluded..

When government goes beyond this minimal role of protecting persons or property against harm by others and instead seeks to protect persons from harming themselves--- when government invades the realm of individual sovereignty described by John Stuart Mill-- it loses its legitimacy and becomes an invader rather than a protector of rights..

My .02

Best regards

CCJ
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
We have the unalienable right of self-preservation.

I choose a car and truck as my defensive arms.

To require licensing, training and/or registration would be an infringement under 2A.

Right?
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Hi Folks
Hi SVG- The " Many" are in fact LAC--- In my opinion LAC is a Government established term. The G wants us all to be law abiding citizens, they want us all to enter into contracts via drivers licenses, gun owner licenses, a license to fish, etc. They want to extend to us a privilege for surrendering a right.. Hence we then become a Law abiding citizen. If we do not enter into these contracts where we exchange our rights for the so call state privilege, then we get labeled a "sovereign citizen", a rebel against government, a cop killer etc... However more on "sovereign citizens" at a later time...
Your paraphrase from United States v Minker says it best.. Waiving rights due to ignorance.

Now lets address the State(s) role in society if I may. The State owes nothing to anybody except peace, order and the guarantee of rights. Nothing more nothing less. Their role is simply to be a protector of rights and not an invader of rights. The task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health,liberty and private property against violent attacks. John Stuart Mill espoused this principle in his popular tract On Liberty, first published in 1859, which maintained that government should be limited to the rule of protecting individuals from harming one another;

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection... {T}he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good,either physical or moral,is not a sufficient warrant.....
"Over himself,over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill concluded..

When government goes beyond this minimal role of protecting persons or property against harm by others and instead seeks to protect persons from harming themselves--- when government invades the realm of individual sovereignty described by John Stuart Mill-- it loses its legitimacy and becomes an invader rather than a protector of rights..

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"

Isn't that how the antis get away with saying we can't have guns and they can regulate them away? By saying they can/do harm kids?

Isn't that how licenses are upheld for vehicles? Safety of others walking along the street to make sure the driver knows right pedal is go pedal left pedal is stop etc. Etc....

I'm pretty certain most of not all of the crazy laws somehow fall under the "hurt someone else" category. Drug laws (sell them to kids directly hurting them) gun laws (sell machine gun easy to kill lots of kids so your helping hurt them). Hell even a lot of crazy administrative laws. Drinking water? Can't pollute and dump in that water. Business? Can't employ kids it'll hurt them...

I mean the list goes on and on.

IMHO early it sounds that post and statement actually opens a whole can of worms.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Hi Southernboy---

The main concern should be both. One should not need a license to travel, nor should one need a license to keep and bear arms..
More on this subject at a later time.

My .02

Regard

CCJ

And a good morning to you.

You don't need a license to travel. You could walk, take a bus, train, or plane, or hitchhike for that matter. States only require a license for operating a motor vehicle on public highways. They also require registration of your vehicle, primarily for taxing purposes (those that do this, that is). However, there is a way around this. Obtain the Statement of Origin.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think I agree with much of this. Pro gun guys are often our worse enemies when it comes to liberty.
<snip>
Owning a gun does not make you "pro gun." Liberals own guns and they actively work to limit the 2A to near extinction.

<snip>John Stuart Mill espoused this principle in his popular tract On Liberty, first published in 1859, which maintained that government should be limited to the rule of protecting individuals from harming one another; <snip>
This is the root of the problem. Liberty is eroded when folks believe this drivel. Government must be limited to holding to account those citizens who harm another citizen. This mitigates vigilante justice and ultimately chaos.

The goal should be a government that is reactive not proactive. A proactive government erodes liberty and infringes upon rights. laws should be used only to "inform" a citizen of the consequences of his acts that harm another citizen.

Drivers licenses, as an example because it has been raised in this thread, do not fit this definition. A DL is nothing but a revenue scheme. A DL does nothing to prevent a citizen from harming another citizen.

The continued association of the word government with protect is the same mindset as owning a gun makes you pro gun, or pro 2A. Nonsense.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Changing ones perspective means honest dialogue, the record shows many of us tried and still do, he refuses to engage in it.

I do not count you as being among the cadre. You almost always post quite rationally. Please do not think my comments are directed at you.

However, what you and I post is getting lost in page after page of swamp.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Hi Southernboy---

The main concern should be both. One should not need a license to travel, nor should one need a license to keep and bear arms..
More on this subject at a later time.

My .02

Regard

CCJ

Operating thousands of pounds of machinery on publicly-funded roads is not the only means of travel. One can be determined not to be suitable to be licensed to drive without denying them the right to travel.

Driving is a privilege. Rightly so.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
First, thanks for the on-topic response.

SNIP

For example, "Oh, the state grants rights?" "Wow, hadn't looked at it that way, before." "Hmmm. I wonder where government gets the rights it grants?" Of course, he can't answer that sensibly because there is no sensible answer. Government is not some vague, shapeless abstract. It is actual people, doing actual things. So, if a government agent, say a judge, grants a right, he must have had it somewhere or somehow in order to grant it. But, since he and the rest of government are people, they couldn't possibly have any rights to grant that a citizen himself didn't also already possess.

Just to continue this example, lets say that when you ask where government gets the rights it grants, your target replies, "Well, its government. It just can." The first thing to understand is that since there is no sensible answer, you are guaranteed to get a nonsense answer. Just know you're going to get a nonsense answer. Expect it. It is entirely too predictable. Just be ready for it. Expect it. Its guaranteed the reply will be nonsense.

So, he replies, "Well, its government. It just can." So, you gently start pulling it apart from there. For example, "Okay. But, where does government get the power to dispense rights?" "Unless the people delegate the power to government, then government is just making it up out of thin air and doing whatever it wants, in which case rights depend not on government, but who has the muscle to back up their viewpoint, which is hardly a definition of rights. Its just force."

Him, "Yeah, that's it! The people delegate the power to government to grant rights!"

You, "Which people?"

Him, "Why, the people. Its just the people." This, of course, is a socialist vagueness, so the trick is to take it down to individuals.

You, "You must mean some of the people because not everybody--by a very long shot--agrees on which are rights and which aren't. So, at best, government is claiming a power to dispense rights that only some of the people have agreed it can dispense. And, those some people can't possibly delegate to government a power to dispense a right those some people don't already possess themselves. And, if those some people possess that right themselves, then, necessarily everybody else must also already possess that right. So, at best, government is dispensing rights people already possess." (Which is just another way of saying government denies rights so it can dispense some rights--the rights it sees fit to dispense, the rights it doesn't perceive as a threat, the rights it can dispense profitably.)

SNIP

Snipped to save space.

I was following this part until I took a different path. I like your response though.

So, might it work also if we get the "other side" to agree that rights exist without government?

Then ask if the government has the power to grant rights, like a "driver license" or a "concealed carry license" etc.

Then ask; "So if the government ceased to exist tomorrow you would not have any right to use a car or carry a gun anymore?"
.....

I like where you went with it too, it gave me another idea that would be good to share,
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Operating thousands of pounds of machinery on publicly-funded roads is not the only means of travel. One can be determined not to be suitable to be licensed to drive without denying them the right to travel.

Driving is a privilege. Rightly so.

A team of horses with wagon more often than not weight more than a car. The car stops better and does not spook at anything.

The team of horses does not need a license to use on the public road ways.


Which is why "driving" is defined as a commercial activity, in Title 18 USC., which is why the courts have ruled that "driving" is privilege while using your automobile on the public road ways is a right.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If local or State governments had felt the need to regulate the operation of horses and wagons on publicly-funded byways, that would have been reasonable. They apparently didn't. That is reasonable too. Today's State and local governments feel the need to regulate the operation of thousands of pounds of machinery at high speeds on publicly-funded byways. That is not only reasonable, it is responsible.

Again, it is the operation of the machinery, not the travel, that is a privilege and is being regulated.
 
Top