What is a "Right"?

imported post

Perusing the boards here I've come across a common analogy that is usually quickly countered. It usually has something to do that in the end has people stating "Driving a car isn't a right, but carrying a firearm is".

Which gets me to my point. Why isn't driving a right? Isn't it?

What are our "Rights"? Are they "rights" only if they are listed in the constitution? To my understanding a right was a "right" when it was understood to be given by some form of "higher power" and could not be taken away by anyone, even the government.

So what's a "right" and what's something that is a privilege that we take for granted.

Sure I need a license to drive a car, but in several states I also need a license to carry a gun.

Don't I have the right to own a house? Have a job? Raise chickens & goats? Etc. etc.

I hate to say it, but I can half see where some might argue that if it's not a right to drive a car, then it's not a right to carry a gun. I hope someone can correct that for me, because I don't really like the thought. And please don't even remotely come close to saying something about cars not having existed when they wrote the constitution, you'll just sound like an idiot.

imported post

Driving a car is a right. States are allowed to put restrictions on it based on the 10th Amendment. It is your right to do so under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Right to keep and bear arms is covered specifically under the 2nd amendment. It is, perhaps, a perversion of the 10th amendment to allow states to restrict firearm ownership and carrying any further, but they have been allowed and it can only be cleared up through legislation or through court decisions that bind all American states, districts, territories, and the CITIZENS there in.

To drive a car is a right. The right to drive on city, county, state, or federally owned roads is a privilege. You're not necessarily being restricted from driving but you must meet certain insurance and safety requirements. There is a thing called liability. Gun owners have similar liability restrictions as well. If someone is unlawfully shot by your gun, you are held accountable. If you run over someone in a crosswalk, you are held accountable. If someone jumps out into traffic and you hit them, you may not be held accountable. If someone takes your gun and shoots someone else or themselves, you may not be held accountable.

That's my opinion I could be wrong.

imported post

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Right there, it says Rights.

imported post

May I refer you to this link to learn all you may want to know about our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Mr. Badnarik's seven lectures are well worth watching.. the first one will certainly answer your question here.

All rights derive from property and are not given or imposed by some governmental or similar authority.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159#

imported post

I suppose that I take the original thoughts I have about rights from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator to certain unalianable rights, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

imported post

Floor Walker wrote:

Perusing the boards here I've come across a common analogy that is usually quickly countered. It usually has something to do that in the end has people stating "Driving a car isn't a right, but carrying a firearm is".

Which gets me to my point. Why isn't driving a right? Isn't it?

Driving a car is a "right"... and it is also a "privilege". Because of the "right to pursue happiness" you have the right to buy a car and drive it on your own property all you want. But if you want to drive it on the roads that are collectively owned by everyone else then you have to get permission to do it... and a driver's license is that permission.

What are our "Rights"? Are they "rights" only if they are listed in the constitution? To my understanding a right was a "right" when it was understood to be given by some form of "higher power" and could not be taken away by anyone, even the government.

So what's a "right" and what's something that is a privilege that we take for granted.

Sure I need a license to drive a car, but in several states I also need a license to carry a gun.

The 2nd Amendment tells the government that you have a right to keep and bear arms... and that the government cannot take that away from you. But the government (whether rightly or wrongly is food for a different discussion) has decreed that if you want to bear your gun in places other people own you have to get permission to do it.... and carry permits in all their forms is that permission.

Don't I have the right to own a house? Have a job? Raise chickens & goats? Etc. etc.

You have the right (the Liberty) to go find a job.. on your own... there is no "right" to be given a job you must earn it, earn money, use that money to buy a house and property where you can drive your car if you wish... raise chickens and goats if you wish (unless your neighbors have rules in place about noise and smells) and do pretty much as you please.... right up to the point where what you are doing infringes upon your neighbors "rights".

I hate to say it, but I can half see where some might argue that if it's not a right to drive a car, then it's not a right to carry a gun. I hope someone can correct that for me, because I don't really like the thought. And please don't even remotely come close to saying something about cars not having existed when they wrote the constitution, you'll just sound like an idiot.

Click to expand...

KansasMustang has it correct... these are the only "rights" each of us is born with....

Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator to certain inalienable rights, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I covered "Liberty" and "Pursuit of Happiness" above in your post in red.

Oh... and the "right to life" part? That does NOT mean the "right" to live comfortably so other folks must give you a job, a house, or anything at all... The "right to life" is the same "right", and only the same "right", every living thing has.. the "right" to protect your life so you may continue living.

Now... the Bill of Rights is a list of things that the people have told the government it is not allowed to do. They are "rights" that the people have reserved for themselves that the government cannot have. In short... those "rights" are put there by the people as protections for the people from the government.

Make no mistake... the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of things the government allows you to do. It is a list of things you will not allow the government to do!!!!!

In short... there is a difference between what is an "inalienable right" (a thing we are born with just because we are born) and a "right" the people have told the government it cannot have.

One is something we have because we are alive... the other is something we told the government it cannot take away from us.

Edited because, for some reason, I can't spmell worth a darn today... probably have a few other goofs in there yet.:uhoh:

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

In short... there is a difference between what is an "inalienable right" (a thing we are born with just because we are born) and a "right" the people have told the government it cannot have.

One is something we have because we are alive... the other is something we told the government it cannot take away from us.

Click to expand...

That I like and makes a good bit of sense.

imported post

It's actually very simple.

A right is anything you want to do which does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.

The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. It merely enumerates certain things that the government cannot do to infringe upon your rights.

Owning a house is a right- assuming you can find someone to sell a house to you at a price that you agree upon. Having a house provided to you is NOT a right, as that requires the rights of others to be infringed upon.

The same goes for health care: You have a right to health care, assuming you find a health care provider, and agree upon a fair exchange for their services. You do NOT have the right to have health care provided for you, as that requires the rights of others to be infringed upon.

Rights are a product of identity. You have rights because you are a living human, and for no other reason. That is why they cannot be TAKEN from you. One thing that most people seem not to realize about rights is that there is no right to have your rights protected. YOU and only you are responsible for protecting your own rights.

imported post

Comment removed and reposted here http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=23936&forum_id=65&jump_to=611103#p611103 where I think it hits the topic better.

imported post

Rights are given to us by the only "higher power" god, not the government and those rights are not to be infringed (even though they are now). If this were still the land of the free then we would be able to do anything we wish without any encroachment (like liscencing)so long as what we do does not infringe on others right to do anything they wish. government was established to prevent any such encroachments, not make them.

imported post

You have the right to do anything you want, so long as it does not require anything from other people or harm them or their property in any way. This is called "negative rights" and is the basis for liberty.

Basically, as long as I leave you alone, and you leave me alone, and everything is cool. We can deal with each other willingly, or leave each other be.

But if I have a "right to health care", you are required to pay for it. And if I have a "right to live without fear of guns", you are required to disarm yourself and expose yourself to danger for me. Thus these are fake rights, made up by other people who want to have control over you.

imported post

To be specific as it applies to the 2A, the right to "Keep and bear arms", does not explicidly refer to firearms, though they were considered inclusive to arms/weapons of all kinds.

IN that regard, all persons had the right to bear arms of the type they could afford to acquire. At the time of the ratification of the BoR the weapons available were swords, sabers, daggers, long gun muzzle loading muskets and pistols of the single shot variety. Advances in weaponry has changed that, since then. We still have to right to bear what ever arms we can afford.

That "afford" thing sort of turns "keeping a bearing firearms" into a bit of a priviledge, so to speek. If all you have or can afford to "Keep and bear" is an inherited old double barrel shotgun of your grandpappy's, then your right to bear it cannot be infringed. If you can afford better, then you are priviledged to be able to "keep and bear" the most high teck handgun and assault style weaponry available, and the right to do so.

We do not have the right to drive a car. We have the right to move about freely. How we move about depends on what we can afford. Remember folks there are some people in this country that don't own an automobile. Either they can't afford one or they choose not to own. They can still move about via walking, bicycle, horse and buggy,or public transit. Driving a car is a priviledge that we earn, by making enough money to buy one, keep the manditory insurance, maintainance on the vehicle.. and oh yeah... putting gas in it. We also have to abide by the rules of the road. If we start breaking the rules of the road, our priviledge to drive may be taken away. We'll stillhave the rightto move about, but we'll have to use another mode of transportation.

imported post

Rights do not require the infringement of anyone else's; individual rights can be excercised without burdening someone else. For example, I have the right to bear arms, but that does not mean I have the right to have the government buy me a gun. It just means I have the right to own and carry a gun without government interference. Likewise with health care. I have the right to health care, but this does not mean I have the right to have the government provide it for me. It simply meansI have the right to pursue health care without government interference.



Of course, the term rights isn't used by most in this manner, and the government does not allow us the free excercise of any of our rights. Although they do come close, arguably, to allowing us pretty complete 1A rights. Close.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

We do not have the right to drive a car. We have the right to move about freely. How we move about depends on what we can afford. Remember folks there are some people in this country that don't own an automobile. Either they can't afford one or they choose not to own. They can still move about via walking, bicycle, horse and buggy,or public transit. Driving a car is a priviledge that we earn, by making enough money to buy one, keep the manditory insurance, maintainance on the vehicle.. and oh yeah... putting gas in it. We also have to abide by the rules of the road. If we start breaking the rules of the road, our priviledge to drive may be taken away. We'll stillhave the rightto move about, but we'll have to use another mode of transportation.

Click to expand...

You don't have the right to possess a firearm. Possessing a firearm is something you earn by saving enough money to buy one, and enough money to put bullets in it. Rememebr there are some people in this country who still don't own a gun. If you start breaking the rules of society by shooting at stop signs, your privelidge to own a gun may be taken away. You'll still have the right to defend yourself, using sticks and rocks.

Makes the same amount of sense.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

We do not have the right to drive a car. We have the right to move about freely. How we move about depends on what we can afford. Remember folks there are some people in this country that don't own an automobile. Either they can't afford one or they choose not to own. They can still move about via walking, bicycle, horse and buggy,or public transit. Driving a car is a priviledge that we earn, by making enough money to buy one, keep the manditory insurance, maintainance on the vehicle.. and oh yeah... putting gas in it. We also have to abide by the rules of the road. If we start breaking the rules of the road, our priviledge to drive may be taken away. We'll stillhave the rightto move about, but we'll have to use another mode of transportation.

Click to expand...

You don't have the right to possess a firearm. Possessing a firearm is something you earn by saving enough money to buy one, and enough money to put bullets in it. Rememebr there are some people in this country who still don't own a gun. If you start breaking the rules of society by shooting at stop signs, your privelidge to own a gun may be taken away. You'll still have the right to defend yourself, using sticks and rocks.

Makes the same amount of sense.

Click to expand...

Ah, but purchasing/maintaining a firearm isn't as expensive as purchasing/maintaining an automobile.

A reasonably reliable firearm (pistol or long gun)can be purchsed for around $200 and no insurance is required to operate it.

A reliable car can cost thousands and does require insurance to operate. The insurance ain'tcheap, either.


What I should have said it that we are not denied the oppertunity to drive, except by our own ability to purchase and maintain an automobile. Unless, of course, after we've excersized that oppertunity, we've proven that we cannot do so without infringing on others peoples safety on the roadways.

imported post

I can buy a used car for as little as a handgun costs, and it runs just fine without insurance, of course, insurance being a man-made restriction not a physical one.

My point is that the "priviledge" is an artificial creation of law. In the absence of a law requiring a driver's liscence, operating a car is just as much a 9th Ammendment right as operating a power drill or a wristwatch.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I can buy a used car for as little as a handgun costs, and it runs just fine without insurance, of course, insurance being a man-made restriction not a physical one.

My point is that the "priviledge" is an artificial creation of law. In the absence of a law requiring a driver's liscence, operating a car is just as much a 9th Ammendment right as operating a power drill or a wristwatch.

Click to expand...

I agree, in that prerequisites (or mandates)set for exercising a right is an artificial creation of law.

My use of the term Priviledge stems form what my parents always told me as a kid. "Priviledges are something you work for and earn." I also use the term as has been used to define those with wealth (the priviledged) and those that have little or no wealth (the under-priviledged). One group has worked for and earned what they enjoy and the other group has not.

Maybe the best way to put this is that we all have the right to "life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness." Some of us are priviledged to excercise our rights to greater extent than others, depending for the most part, on how hard we are willing to work to pursue our own happiness.

imported post

I think that a lot of the confusion can be cleared up once one understands that you only have a right to that which you can create, acquire, maintain, use, and convey within your own capabilities. Also, almost all rights come with the burden that to be exercised, you must already possess that which is required to exercise any specific right.

A right to free speech is predicated on your ability to communicate. A right to liberty is predicated on you having ownership of your own body, etc.

One must also be able to exercise a right, without the necessary intervention of another person and without infringing on the rights of another person, in order for the action or state of existence in question to be identified as a right being exercised.