Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Abuse of rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    A Constitutional right by its own definition is infinite. Therefore, it cannot in any way, shape, or form be abused. If I have the right to own a firearm and it clearly states in the Constitution that that right cannot be infringed and since the Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land”[4] and all laws are to be made “in pursuance thereof”[4], then it is a violation of the law for anyone to abridge the RKBA.

    In the “Declaration of Independence”[5] our forefathers pointed out certain inalienable rights stating “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”[5]. From this we can easily establish that the rights written in the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of United States, are among these inalienable rights as well. Perhaps this is not true throughout the world and the universe. However, it is the philosophy that was implemented in the construction of this country’s supreme laws! And we can all agree that the Bill of Rights did not establish any rights, rather it created more laws forbidding any form of government from ever abridging on any of those rights already in existence.

    It may just be me but, it sounds absolutely f***ing ridiculous when people say that others abuse their rights. I could be wrong but, let me try to share my reasoning with you. Explaining reason to an unreasonable man or a man falsely conditioned by society may be quite difficult but, I do not believe it is impossible. It will be difficult and done without haste. However, I believe it is my duty to at least try to inform fellow Americans of the principles on which this country’s laws were based.

    Let’s look at the word privilege:

    “privilege[priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] noun, verb, -leged, -leg⋅ing.
    –noun
    1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.

    2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.

    3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

    4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.

    5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

    6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It's my privilege to be here.

    –verb (used with object)
    8. to grant a privilege to.

    9. to exempt (usually fol. by from).

    10. to authorize or license (something otherwise forbidden).”[1]


    Also:

    “A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

    In a broader sense, 'privilege' can refer to special powers or 'de facto' immunities held as a consequence of political power or wealth. Privilege of this sort may be transmitted by birth into a privileged class or achieved through individual actions.”[2]

    I first want to address the appearance of the word 'right' within the definitions of the word privilege. You can sum it up into two different categories. There are inalienable rights as expressed by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence, and then there is what people call ‘legal rights’[6]. The term ‘legal rights’ is a smokescreen invented to give subjects/citizens a false sense of freedom, safety, and hope. However, some are necessary in some instances if they do not the ability of the country's citizens to be free. ‘Legal rights’ are obviously special immunities given to citizens/subjects. For example, a driver’s permit or driver’s license (glorified permit) is something government issues to citizens/subjects that meet their standards to be able to safely drive. Simply google 'legal rights' and you should not find anything to the contrary. Let’s compare; drivers ‘permit’, drivers ‘license’, special exemptions, immunities, revocability, and benefits are all definitions of a privilege. Eerily similar to ‘legal rights’ don’t you think.

    We shall now look at inalienable rights.

    “in·alien·able—adjective
    -incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>”[3]


    By the definitions that I presented to you an inalienable right CANNOT be revoked, surrendered, or given away. There is no logical argument that can be made against this. Some could however, try to argue that maybe this was not the intention of the founders of our country’s legal system. This argument is easily debunked by two simple facts. Firstly, the Constitution was written to define the Federal government’s composition, few specific powers, and all gov’t limitations. In order to secure a free nation for years to come, laws against gov’t abridgment were and still are essential. The amendments were thought to be central and inherent to a free people by all of their time; and so the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were written by the framers to prevent any form of government oppression of liberties essential to freedom.

    Secondly, citizens made all branches of our government out of whole cloth; except for the Militia which is identified in the Constitution as a Federal gov’t institution on the basis that it is in the original Constitution; Congress is to ‘provide for’ the Militia and may call them into duty, the President will act as Commander in Chief ‘only’ while their services are needed. Neither Congress nor the President has the right to take any authority away from the Militia in the same respect as none of the three main branches of the Federal government may take away rights from any of the other branches. Many do not realize that the Militia is a government institution because there’s not a definition provided for it in the Constitution, the definition was not provided because all at the time of the framing of the Constitution already knew exactly what the Militia was. The Militia, like the Bill of Rights, was not created by our founders. Since neither the Militia nor the Bill of Rights was created by our founders we must look to the understandings the people of the late 18th century had of these concepts. And their understandings were that the Militia and the rights protected by, not given from, the Bill of Rights needed to be inalienable in order to preserve freedom in the newly born United States of America.

    With the definition of inalienable, the rights protected by the Constitution are unconditional. And since the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the" (Article IV); Anyone who infringes upon another citizens rights protected by the Constitution are committing a criminal act. Therefore, any form of prior restraint on a constitutionally protected right is criminal. Gun control and Brady background checks are a violation of the second amendment and are criminal. Gun registration is a violation of the fourth amendment and is criminal. All rights lost by felons who are no longer in prison are violations of the Constitution. If you wish to lower the rate of armed crime and still be a law - abiding citizen then you must use the legal form of deterrence, which is punishment. If short prison sentences and even life without parole are not lowering the crime rate to your satisfaction then you need to up the ante, such as capital punishment.

    This is not simply my theory, this is historically documented fact. If you do not like the laws put in place and you do not want to be a criminal then you have two options. You can shut up and move on with your life as a law-abiding citizen like the rest of us or you can do that in the meantime while trying to repeal Bill of Rights amendments. And if you succeed then you can watch as our country becomes a war zone in Civil War/Revolution Part II, I'm not entirely sure which one it will be but, I assure you it would happen upon a repeal of one of the first 10 Amendments. If your moral compass allows you to commit crimes against the biggest guarantee of freedom this world has ever seen, you might need to buy a new compass.

    Inalienable rights are what separate citizens from subjects, free men from slaves, freedom from oppression. The rights designated as inalienable in our Bill of Rights are what our forefathers felt was necessary to establish and keep a country of citizens. All rights can be alienated if you possess enough power and force; this has been proven for millenniums. That is why our forefathers established the Militia, composed of ALL able bodied citizens, as a part of the Federal gov't and protected ALL able bodied citizen’s ability to keep and bear arms. Only a criminal has the mental capacity to infringe on these constitutionally protected inalienable rights. Only a criminal will abridge these rights. The constitutional militia is still alive and well in our country and at some point all who commit violations against the constitution will be brought to justice. That is why, in this country, the United States of America, constitutionally protected rights are unconditional.

    This is just a lil something I wrote up on my day off messing around with my speech recognition software... Let me know what y'all think.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I think this should be copy/pasted into emails and sent to every legislator in Fed and State government, including that mobster in the White House. You should post this on the Examiner web site as well.

    I think I'll send the link to this thread to a couple talk radio hosts, too.

    I believe you got the "privilege" and "inalienable right" definitions right on the money. We are "privileged" to be able to own and drive a motor vehicle because we have the means to buy and maintain it and buy a permit to do so. We do not have an "inalienable right" to do the formentioned. We do have the "inalienable right" to move about freely. How we do that is determined by how privileged we are.


    edited: I just emailed the link to this thread to both Tn Senators and Rep Washburn, as well as a whole bunch of folks in my email address book.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    You might want to add to this that US Codes define 2 types of militia.

    Organized Militia : Army, Navy, Marines, USAF, NG

    Un-organized Miltitia: All able bodied men 18 to 64 yoa (including women in NG) not in the organized militia.

    All of us are part of one militia or the other.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Sometimes we (jokingly of course) refer to the National Guard as the 'Dis-organized Militia.'

    When I am not in uniform, I am proudly part of the 'un-organized militia.'

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Not gun related, but if you look at BHO closely...
    He is talking about selling gitmo people, after Bush bought them. This
    is in clear violation of the 14 amend. I believe it is called slavery when you
    buy and sell people. Our own county commissioners have stated that slavery
    is legal in Jefferson County, and are fighting to keep it legal in court.
    The press just winks and nods, not one outraged activist raises a finger of complaint.
    Guess they like the massa's in charge.

    But I guess we all flunked gov education because we actually read and think.
    Besides with the new 'professionals' strip searching you for the privilege to
    fly on a plane they violate both travel and search clauses. Guess if you exercise
    two rights at the same time they cancel each other out.
    So by this logic keeping and bearing is two rights, so they cancel each other out.
    Out state constitution spells out the only way state law can be written to
    infringe on our guns, and they only use it in the bathroom in a pinch I guess.
    I figure it is the federal law trumps state law thing. Since you don't have to
    follow federal law, you don't have to follow state law.



  6. #6
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    You might want to add to this that US Codes define 2 types of militia.

    Organized Militia : Army, Navy, Marines, USAF, NG

    Un-organized Miltitia: All able bodied men 18 to 64 yoa (including women in NG) not in the organized militia.

    All of us are part of one militia or the other.
    We have remember it is not what we define as a militia but what our founding fathers defined as a militia. That is the bases of the 2nd amendment.

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    You might want to add to this that US Codes define 2 types of militia.

    Organized Militia : Army, Navy, Marines, USAF, NG

    Un-organized Miltitia: All able bodied men 18 to 64 yoa (including women in NG) not in the organized militia.

    All of us are part of one militia or the other.
    Yea I deleted like 6 paragraphs from this, or cut and pasted them somewhere else to write a different day. I was trying to stick to my point that there is no such thing as 'abusing' a Constitutionally protected right, because they are unconditional.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I read the link and this is what I find to be most pertinent.

    II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.
    From that it seems that back in 1792 anyone between 18 and 45 who wasn't already employed by the federal government in certain roles or exempted by state law was part of the militia ( or at least they had the potential to be part of the militia).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    With regards to the OP's original post first paragraph.

    Ones constitutional right should also mean that no state, city, municipal, federal etc... should have the right to even pass laws/ordinances that require one to have to have a permit to carry a weapon concealed or not. The same can also be said of denying one the right to carry based on criminal history. After all they didn't mandate this back in the day...why should they now? Granted I'm not one for allowing criminals to carry but if you wish to get technical you must look at what the Constitution allows all individuals. Criminals or not. All our current leaders talk about how great our founding fore fathers were but they sure have made a mess of the Constitution & Bill of Rights. If our fore fathers could speak now they would be very ashamed & disgusted.

    After all the right is infinite and cannot in any way shape or form be abused.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    You might want to add to this that US Codes define 2 types of militia.

    Organized Militia : Army, Navy, Marines, USAF, NG

    Un-organized Miltitia: All able bodied men 18 to 64 yoa (including women in NG) not in the organized militia.

    All of us are part of one militia or the other.
    Actually the "Organized" militia only consists of the NG and Naval Militia. Standing Armies such as the Army, AF, Marines are NOT part of any militia.

    There is a very important reason to keep this distinction in mind. Militia have the duty to " execute the laws of the union", whereas the Army has no power to uphold the laws.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Militia defined:

    "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


    In other words...We the people.


    People also need to realize that the fight in Iraq as well as Afghanistan is also against militia. Just not nearly as well trained. Essentially we're fighting civilians. So the next time you hear about civilians being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan(Boo-Hoo:celebrate), remember who we're fighting.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    The collateral damage of non-combatants is not cool no matter what way you want to put it. We may be fighting civilians, but the battle is against the combatants.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Try and make that same assumption when a ten year old picks up an AK and takes aim at you or a fellow soldier. Collateral damage is part of war. No one has to like it, it just is. This is why war is hell.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    jerg_064 wrote:
    The collateral damage of non-combatants is not cool no matter what way you want to put it. We may be fighting civilians, but the battle is against the combatants.
    Good thing we didn't think like that during WWII. We may have lost a whole lot more men if we did.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    udidwht wrote:
    Militia defined:

    "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."
    I'm not entirely happy with that definition. I'm officially "4-F" - ineligible for military service for medical reasons - but if it came down to a case of some foreign army invading the country, I would certainly be willing and able to bear arms as part of some militia, whatever the military physicians think of my fitness.

    -ljp

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    udidwht wrote:
    Try and make that same assumption when a ten year old picks up an AK and takes aim at you or a fellow soldier. Collateral damage is part of war. No one has to like it, it just is. This is why war is hell.
    I do, anyone carrying a weapon on the battle field is a combatant and fair game. And I will say that anyone supporting the war effort is fair game too.

    War used to be hell, now you got your geneva conventions.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    jerg_064 wrote:
    The collateral damage of non-combatants is not cool no matter what way you want to put it. We may be fighting civilians, but the battle is against the combatants.
    Good thing we didn't think like that during WWII. We may have lost a whole lot more men if we did.
    Amen. My father was with the 321st Engineer Combat Battalion in the beach head of Okinawa during WWII. While it was seldom that we could ever get him to talk about his experience there, the one time I remember vividly was during the Vietnam War when the media were complaining about the "civilians" being killed. He told us that one thing he learned while on Okinawa is that there is no such thing as a "civilian" in a war zone. He went on to tell us about numerous times when the little children would come beg chocolate bars from the GIs and then when the GI turned around the kid would drop a grenade in the GI's backpack.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    My father was told during WWII (Pacific theater) that he would have to feed any Japanese prisoners out of his own rations (nudge, wink) - the clear implication being that you are not to bother us about taking prisoners. He was also in Manila and the whole city had been destroyed, with little regard for the civilian population on either side. Ugly business.

    -ljp

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    jerg_064 wrote:
    udidwht wrote:
    Try and make that same assumption when a ten year old picks up an AK and takes aim at you or a fellow soldier. Collateral damage is part of war. No one has to like it, it just is. This is why war is hell.
    I do, anyone carrying a weapon on the battle field is a combatant and fair game. And I will say that anyone supporting the war effort is fair game too.

    War used to be hell, now you got your geneva conventions.
    The Geneva Convention Act has been around a loooooong time, not just this current war we're in. As for the Geneva Convention it was written at a time when things were much different. Keep in mind that it was created at a time when everyone believed a WAR would be ones army against another countries army. Not the case now. IMO the Geneva Convention does/should not apply.

    Things have changed indeed.

    It needs to be abolished and re-written. Much like NATO (created during the cold war we're no longer in.)

    War is and always will be hell. Once you lose that distinction you only become more of an easy kill yourself. When that round goes flying by you all those rules fade away in an instant.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    I certainly agree that the geneva conventions shouldn't apply these days.

    And to make it clear I just said killing non-combatants wasn't cool, I never said it wasn't acceptable if it saves our peoples lives.

Posting Permissions

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