jerg_064
Regular Member
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”[sup][4][/sup] and all laws are to be made “in pursuance thereof”[sup][4][/sup], then it is a violation of the law for anyone to abridge the RKBA.
In the “Declaration of Independence”[sup][5][/sup] our forefathers pointed out certain inalienable rights stating “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”[sup][5][/sup]. 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:
“priv⋅i⋅lege [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).”[[sup]1[/sup]]
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.”[sup][2][/sup]
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’[sup][6][/sup]. 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>”[sup][3][/sup]
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 18[sup]th[/sup] 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.
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”[sup][4][/sup] and all laws are to be made “in pursuance thereof”[sup][4][/sup], then it is a violation of the law for anyone to abridge the RKBA.
In the “Declaration of Independence”[sup][5][/sup] our forefathers pointed out certain inalienable rights stating “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”[sup][5][/sup]. 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:
“priv⋅i⋅lege [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).”[[sup]1[/sup]]
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.”[sup][2][/sup]
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’[sup][6][/sup]. 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>”[sup][3][/sup]
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 18[sup]th[/sup] 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.