We have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS !

Rayce Bannon · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

We might be more effective as a whole, if we stop using mis-statements in describing things to our friends, associates, and especially thechildren being dummied down in public schools.

We (the people) have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.Please stop using the 'media' phrases. De-program urself from this stupid and ignort phrase. The state constitutions, and Fed territory constitutions are the RULES for state / fed guvts.Not WE THE PEOPLE!!

Instead, use the correct phrases......We have 'un/inalienable Rights'. We have 'fundamental Rights'. We have 'God given Rights.

We have the Right to bear arms w or w/o any Constitution. Get that FACT into ur dummied down in public school mind.

Even the justices in the Heller case recognize this very fact. And, WE THE PEOPLE have the God given Right to protectourselves, ourfamily,our property with whatever means humanly neccesary. PERIOD!!!

THERE IS NO OTHER AGRUMENT. Stay on point!

ODA 226 · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

No argument from me!

Aran · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

Ah yes, let us use terms that the average moron won't get, so that we have to stop and explain ourselves every time we use them, instead of conveying our thoughts in ways that are easy for those around us to "get".

Screw ease of communication.

Rayce Bannon · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

With that attitude Aran, it's no wonder lots of Americans think 'we thepeople' who chose to excerise their God given Rights are considered to bebording into the lunatic fringe.

U don't have a moment, to say, "I'm excersing my God given Right to self protection."(lol)

Please don't tell me Aran,if and /or when u were joinedintowholly matrimony u and ur ladybegged the govt to give u a'license' to marry?

Ur alsonot one of those guys who work w/ aSoc Sec number when using the number for work is completely voluntary?

Phssthpok · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

[font="COMIC SANS MS,ARIAL"]We don’t need no
steenking 2nd Amendment[/font]
[font="COMIC SANS MS,ARIAL"]Our "unenumerated" rights[/font]
[font="COMIC SANS MS,ARIAL"]Why we have no
“constitutional” rights[/font]

Theseus · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

It will matter little what language we use, and besides, how can we have "God given rights" when I don't believe in God?

AWDstylez · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

Theseus wrote:

It will matter little what language we use, and besides, how can we have "God given rights" when I don't believe in God?

:celebrate

I'd tend to argue the opposite (as grumpycoconut did quite successfully in the past). The ONLY rights you have arethe ones thatthe powers that be are willing (or forced) to give you. If rights were "god given" or "innate" then we wouldn't need to defend them because no one would be able to take them away.

I get your point and how it would work in ideal land, but this is reality land and I'm just fine with "constitutional" rights.

Citizen · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Theseus wrote:

It will matter little what language we use, and besides, how can we have "God given rights" when I don't believe in God?

Click to expand...

I'd tend to argue the opposite (as grumpycoconut did quite successfully in the past). The ONLY rights you have arethe ones thatthe powers that be are willing (or forced) to give you. If rights were "god given" or "innate" then we wouldn't need to defend them because no one would be able to take them away.

I get your point and how it would work in ideal land, but this is reality land and I'm just fine with "constitutional" rights.

This view contains a fair measure of truth. Yet, I feel it falls short.

I think there must be a distinction between the natural existence of a right and the recognition of that same right.

Addressing just for the moment the recognition angle, if the powers that be are forced to recognize a right, then they are not reallythe"power that be". The citizens that did the forcing, etc.were the power.

Ithink rights go deeper. Much, much deeper.Rights arefreedoms.It is my opinionthat rights--in fact, total freedom--is written on the very souls of men. Their innermost core. We can callthis circumstance God-given, unalienable, or inherent. These words are all speaking to this circumstance--written on the very hearts of men.

I am convinced this is the reason Jefferson's passagewhich begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."is so powerful. Its not the reference to God that stirs men.Itshow close to the truth he comes about rights, freedom.

God is mentioned daily in many contexts without stirring men the way Jefferson's passage does. His wordsspeak directly to the innate desire to be free, to think one's own thoughts, to create one's own life, to literally be oneself.

chris in va · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

how can we have "God given rights" when I don't believe in God

He still gave them to you.

Rayce Bannon · Apr 9, 2009

imported post

Regardless of whether some one believes in God or not...u r still born w/ fundamental Rights given to u by ur Creator.

"Constitutional Rights' are the Rights given to citizens when 51 % (or more) of some govt hacks decide on any given day to give to people. Whatever congress creates Congress can take away.

Besides, Freedom ain't free - u hav to fight for it. The only difference between a Republican and Democratic is the spelling.

Orygunner · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

I think the proper phrasing is "Constitutionally protected rights"

...Ya gotta get that middle word in there...
...Orygunner...

ChinChin · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

What is it lately?

Every few weeks now it seems; you get some new poster with a low post count come THUNDERING into the forums like some R Lee Ermy wannabe screaming about this and hollering about that. . .as if the topic have never been brought up before and what they're saying is some great epiphany that will suddenly open all of our eyes which have herefore been closed and now we can all get united and fight this good battle and win it!!!

(Pishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

Hey Spartacus, seriously now, do you go thundering into the living room of a new person you just met and start tossing out critiques like hand grenades? Are you THAT GUY?

Nice first impression.

Aran · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

Rayce Bannon wrote:

With that attitude Aran, it's no wonder lots of Americans think 'we thepeople' who chose to excerise their God given Rights are considered to bebording into the lunatic fringe.

U don't have a moment, to say, "I'm excersing my God given Right to self protection." (lol)

Please don't tell me Aran,if and /or when u were joinedintowholly matrimony u and ur ladybegged the govt to give u a'license' to marry?

Ur alsonot one of those guys who work w/ aSoc Sec number when using the number for work is completely voluntary?

You ARE "that guy" personified.

And there's no such thing as a god, so I'd be pretty silly to waste my time.

AWDstylez · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

This view contains a fair measure of truth. Yet, I feel it falls short.

I think there must be a distinction between the natural existence of a right and the recognition of that same right.

It's not that I wasarguing against the existence of natural or innate rights. I'm just making the point that, realistically, the only rights you actually have are the ones the state gives you. Innate/natural laws and rules do not have to be granted and cannot be taken away. The government can't take away gravity or energy conservation, those are innate and natural. I find it much harder to see rights asbeing innate and natural when they can come and go depending on who is in power. Are there certain rights people strive for and areunsatisfied without? Certainly. But are they innate and naturally granted? Not at all. They must be fought for against those would take them away.

AWDstylez · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

What is it lately?

Every few weeks now it seems; you get some new poster with a low post count come THUNDERING into the forums like some R Lee Ermy wannabe screaming about this and hollering about that. . .as if the topic have never been brought up before and what they're saying is some great epiphany that will suddenly open all of our eyes which have herefore been closed and now we can all get united and fight this good battle and win it!!!

(Pishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

Hey Spartacus, seriously now, do you go thundering into the living room of a new person you just met and start tossing out critiques like hand grenades? Are you THAT GUY?

Nice first impression.

So I'm not the only one that noticed that, huh?

Thundar · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

I think the proper phrasing is "Constitutionally protected rights"

...Ya gotta get that middle word in there...
...Orygunner...

I wish they were protected, but really they are just constitutionally affirmed.

We the people protect our rights.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

riverrat10k · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

Sometimes, late at night, when fear sets in,I believe that the newbys of this ilk are looking for incriminating statements to use against our cause or against the individuals who make them.

After a night like this, I usually buy another gun and more ammo and feel a little better.

Isn't this why the mods or so careful when a thread becomes cop bashing?

Spectre · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

Rayce Bannon wrote:

Hotheaded Rant Snipped

STFU. People like you I tend to ignore because you don't make a lick of sense, or you do no more than rant and rave over something trivial.

Oh and by the way. At least my "dummied" public school mind taught me how to spell correctly.

Gunslinger · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

Rayce Bannon wrote:

We might be more effective as a whole, if we stop using mis-statements in describing things to our friends, associates, and especially thechildren being dummied down in public schools.

We (the people) have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.Please stop using the 'media' phrases. De-program urself from this stupid and ignort phrase. The state constitutions, and Fed territory constitutions are the RULES for state / fed guvts.Not WE THE PEOPLE!!

Instead, use the correct phrases......We have 'un/inalienable Rights'. We have 'fundamental Rights'. We have 'God given Rights.

We have the Right to bear arms w or w/o any Constitution. Get that FACT into ur dummied down in public school mind.

Even the justices in the Heller case recognize this very fact. And, WE THE PEOPLE have the God given Right to protectourselves, ourfamily,our property with whatever means humanly neccesary. PERIOD!!!

THERE IS NO OTHER AGRUMENT. Stay on point!

Actually, we do have Constitutional rights enumerated therein. We have "inalienable rights" per the Declaration, not the Constitution. We have "legal" rights, per statutes. We have natural rights according to Rousseau, Locke, et al. There are all kinds of "rights." And all need to be protected.

Washintonian_For_Liberty · Apr 10, 2009

imported post

I think I understand where he was coming from when he said we have no Constitutional rights.... We have Constitutionally "Protected" rights is what I believe. Yes, the founders believed that there are certain rights that only came from God, but the right to a speedy trial or to a trial by a jury of our peers are not natural rights, but rights granted by our Constitution.

We have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS !

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member