imported post
Pace wrote:
Eye, what you say is 100% true, I agree with you.
For those who say "It's our right" and then don't fight for it, I question what they actually know. Saying "It's a right to bear arms" as a fact, without actually trying to change the situation, doesn't do any of us much good.
Bikenut: I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. For example, it is "allowed" or not prohibited to go into a bookstore and ask who bought a book, we restrict the government however from doing this (or used to) implicitly. I don't think we disagree. I believe that we've been giving unncessary power for the last 70 years to the government to fight the "war on drugs" the "war on terrorism" the war against broccoli. You name it.
The government derives it's power completely from the people.
Unfortunately, it's the nature of government and those in power to abuse, so you have to make laws that limit their ability to abuse. That's the entire reason the BIll of Rights was created (read the preamble) in order to restrict what they could do. Read some of the writings during that time, and the fears they have.
I am disagreeing with the use of the word "allowed", and the subsequent word's meaning implying that consent must be had before engaging in an activity.
Now... "not prohibited" would be the correct wording to use since "not prohibited" means there are no laws against said activity... but it also means no consent must be garnered to engage in that activity whereas "allowed" means consent, either explicit or implied, must be had from some agent or agency that has the authority to either give, or deny, consent.
"Not prohibited" also does not imply consent... "not prohibited" is neutral since there are no penalties for doing the activity.. and no consent must be had to engage in the activity... and there is no agent or agency that has the authority to control in the first place.
A fine point of perspective to be sure... but an understanding of that fine point is necessary when dealing with rights since... not only is no consent needed to exercise a right but even if an authority did prohibit it... the right still remains because rights, true rights, cannot be taken away... or "allowed"... not even by law.
Ok... I actually do live in the real world and understand how messed up things have become so that politicians, the education system, and the media, have perverted the understanding of rights into things that can be regulated, controlled, and permits must be asked for in order to exercise those rights with penalties attached for not asking to be "allowed". Which has done much to foster an acceptance of being required to prove innocence (prove someone has "allowed") by providing ID or permits when confronted by authority.
But even today entirely too many people (not you specifically but in general) think that the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government "allows" the citizens to do....
I'm not picking on you personally Sir... just arguing this important fine point of perspective.