• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What a massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”!

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA

French security forces have a “right” to use rubber ball launchers at protesters?!?

Governments, their agencies, and their agents, don’t have Rights. They have authorities, actions that they are allowed under the law. Persons exist apart from the law, and have Rights. Governments only exist under the law, which grants them authorities.

This fundamental misunderstanding of Rights and the misuse of the word are why folks wrongly think that government defines, grants, and can morally limit Rights. When we allow government to make these decisions, the idea of “reasonable restrictions on Rights” (such as “reasonable gun control”) becomes possible.

[Note: I am not passing judgment on the appropriateness of the the use of these particular weapons in these particular circumstances, just on the misuse of the word in the headline. I don’t even know who misused the word first: the council itself or the press.]
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,711
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Well, not exactly correct. As I have said hundreds of times: the three most important things in law is definition, definition and definition.
The term "person" as defined in any statute can mean anything from a very specific individual to the entire government and anything in between. Most people believe that the word "person" only means a human being (i.e. natural person), in law not so. And definition wise, the word "word" has a different meaning than the term "term."

Using the term people or the people has a totally different meaning, as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, We The People.

If you read France's constitution you will discover that the government has "rights." They define the term "right" differently than we do in this country.

Just say'n.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,979
Location
here nc
Eye95, have this nation’s LE agency[ies] gotten our citizens permission to use,

1. Pepperball rounds, https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=police+use+pepper+ball+rounds&go=Search&qs=n&form=QBVR&sp=-1&pq=police+use+pepper+ball+rounds&sc=0-29&sk=&cvid=BA3FB4AF28344B8495F2B187038CEFAE

2. Rubber bullets, https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=police+use+rubber+bullets&qpvt=police+use+rubber+bullets&FORM=VDRE

3. Automatic firearms, https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=police+using+automatic+firearms+video&qpvt=police+using+automatic+firearms+video&FORM=VDRE

4. Attire in tacticy kool gear,

5. Drive tacticy kool vehicles, https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=police+drive+armour+vehicle+images&qpvt=police+drive+arour+vehicle+images&FORM=IGRE

Who and why does any agency need this array of offensive/defensive items when the USSC rules, these agency[ies] do not need to respond to any citzen’s emergency, or to serve a warrant?

Further, you are comparing apples & veggies as our form of government is different than France’s
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Again, I was not discussing to appropriateness of the use of the weapons at issue, just the use off the word “Right” in a deceptive way that facilitates the usurpation of the Rights of persons (as opposed to governments, their agencies, and their agents).
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
843
Location
Kentucky
Gov does not grant rights

The same rights apply to the French citizen as an American or any other person

Rights. Such as the RTKABA are any humans birthright.

That gov uses brute force or threat thereof to oppress and restrict those rights does not change that fact. And no gov lasts forever. How long is directly influenced by how much they attempt to restrict those rights.

Gov has no money of its own. And no rights.

It creates nothing. All gov operates to perpetuate itself and increase its control over the people it governs.

That's why no gov remains in control of its people but for finite amounts of time.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,979
Location
here nc
Again, I was not discussing to appropriateness of the use of the weapons at issue, just the use off [sic] the word “Right” in a deceptive way that facilitates the usurpation of the Rights of persons (as opposed to governments, their agencies, and their agents).
Apples/vegies ~ OP’s whio newspeek article discusses France’s Council of State which per Wiki, quote:

A Council of State is a governmental body in a country, or a subdivision of a country, with a function that varies by jurisdiction. It may be the formal name for the cabinet or it may refer to a non-executives advisory body associated with a head of state. In some countries it also has a function as a supreme administrative court and sometimes regarded as the equivalent of a privy council. Unquote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_State

The North Carolina Council of State is the collective name for the ten most senior and prestigious executive offices in the Government of North Carolina. They are the popularly elected Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Labor and Commissioner of Insurance.

The Council of State is separate from the North Carolina Cabinet, which is appointed by the Governor, and makes up the rest of the State's executive leadership. However, members of the Council of State are often colloquially and erroneously called cabinet members. In modern times, the Council of State meets periodically, with the Governor as chair, to allow for coordination and exchange of information across executive branch agencies and to vote on certain decisions, especially regarding the sale of government property or the borrowing of money. Unquote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Council_of_State

Our country is considered a representative/constitutional democracy while as espoused by whio’s cited nonsensical article a Council of State functions under the president.

So sorry our citizen’s rights are not the same citizens rights throughout the globe’s countries
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Speaking of misusing the word Rights: In States which require a license to carry concealed, such as the depicted State, Texas, no one has a “concealed carry Right[ ]”. At best, they have is a permission slip from the government to exercise a State-granted privilege. At worst, they are barred from concealed carry (or any form of carry in Texas).

Here is the ad from the margin of OCDO:

13556
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
843
Location
Kentucky
Eye95 is correct.
But it's worse than that.

The RTKABA was taken long ago. To be exact when the first state or fed gun regulation passed and was allowed to stand.
What we all have regardless of what state we reside in is only gov permission .

My own state for example is extremely gun friendly but there is no RTKABA as the founders intended to protect with the 2A.
OC requires nothing here. Not even an ID. A permit is required to cc. But even if 's cc permit wasn't required to cc there are still weapons I cannot possess legally because of Fed regulation. Places I'm not supposed to carry according to gov.

As long as one regulation limits the RTKABA, that right does not exist. Only permission.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The underlying problem is that the People have been convinced that there is such an animal as a “reasonable regulation on a Right”. There isn’t.

Without due process removing a Right, Rights are absolute, court rulings notwithstanding.

The most common example provided of “reasonable regulation of a Right” is that one cannot shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Of course one has that absolute Right! What if the theater is on fire? What folks don’t have the Right to do is to shout, “Fire!” when there is not one and there is the predictable risk to life, limb, and property as a result of having shouted such.

What is at play here is what I have come to call eye95’s razor: If two seeming rights conflict, at least one of them is not a Right. Which is the real Right? Falsely claiming a fire? Or being allowed to enjoy the movie without being trampled upon?

In the above example, the answer is easy. Sometimes it is more complicated. However, I have yet to find a case where the application of the razor failed to resolve the paradox of “conflicting Rights”. Application of the razor does away with the perceived need for “reasonable regulation of a Right”.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,998
Location
White Oak Plantation
...court rulings notwithstanding...yeah, there's the rub. At this point rights are only what a judge says they are. Rights are created out of thin air by judges. Rights cannot be infringed by the state unless a judge says so...is there a reoccurring theme?

Rights will be recognized as inviolate when judges no longer enjoy absolute immunity. Don't count on a judge to revoke absolute immunity.
 

Beretta92fsQueer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
37
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
...

What is at play here is what I have come to call eye95’s razor: If two seeming rights conflict, at least one of them is not a Right. Which is the real Right? Falsely claiming a fire? Or being allowed to enjoy the movie without being trampled upon?

...
The only right amongst the two is falsely claiming a fire. You simply can't have a right to enjoy a movie without being trampled. With great power comes great responsibility. If your words cause substantive harm--and I'm not talking being triggered--then as much as your right to falsely claim a fire, the individual injured has a right to seek relief.

Now if you crapped your panties as a result of the false claim, that doesn't meet what I think is a reasonable threshold for substantive relief. On the other hand, if you were trampled then we have a judicial system where you can seek and possibly receive either/both criminal and civil relief.

Rights are the Liberty and Freedom to act upon, not be acted upon. When you are acted upon that is a judicial issue.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,998
Location
White Oak Plantation
I have a right to travel. I do not have the right to travel across your private property without your permission. I have a right to keep and bear arms. I do not have a right to keep and bear arms on your private property without your permission.

Two rights can conflict. One of the two citizens must respect the other citizen's rights. Some would say that the property owner is violating rights where guns are concerned.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I have a right to travel. I do not have the right to travel across your private property without your permission. I have a right to keep and bear arms. I do not have a right to keep and bear arms on your private property without your permission.

Two rights can conflict. One of the two citizens must respect the other citizen's rights. Some would say that the property owner is violating rights where guns are concerned.
Your examples actually PROVE the razor. Folks DON’T have (just as you recognize) the Rights to travel or carry on another’s property without permission. Therefore, no Rights are conflicting!

Any time that two Rights appear to conflict, simple analysis will determine, sometimes unintentionally, which action is a Right, and which is not.

In the cases cited, the Rights to travel and to carry (self-defense) can still be exercised, as long as the traveler respects property Rights by walking around or asking permission.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,979
Location
here nc
Please eye95...go start a letter campaign to French governmental officials saying they have no right to use ‘rubber ball launchers’ against their citizens!

That was your lead into this thread which has morph’d into a horrid philosophical discussion about what an ill defined & meaningless word whose definition changes like the wind, depending who is waving their personal flag about their cause, or the worse yet the definition is left to the LE, the judicial system, or to every tom, dick, and jane, as well as any citizen you bump into on the street as they scream at you ‘to get the h3ll out of their way’ as they believe you interferred with their RIGHT of their use of the street/sidewalk/free passage!

RIGHT..
Tell that to the baker who felt they had a right not to sell a wedding cake and lost!
Tell that to the late great Cassius Clay [aka Muhammad Ali] who pushed his RIGHT to the USSC and won!

Try not to slip on the ghee as you chase yourselves around the palm trees.
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,410
Location
Florida
Your examples actually PROVE the razor. Folks DON’T have (just as you recognize) the Rights to travel or carry on another’s property without permission. Therefore, no Rights are conflicting!

Any time that two Rights appear to conflict, simple analysis will determine, sometimes unintentionally, which action is a Right, and which is not.

In the cases cited, the Rights to travel and to carry (self-defense) can still be exercised, as long as the traveler respects property Rights by walking around or asking permission.
Do you agree with the 30.06 and 30.07 laws in texas?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,979
Location
here nc
Do you agree with the 30.06 and 30.07 laws in texas?
Signage in 30.06 & 30.07 carry weight of law - TRESPASS is the offense!

30.06 (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

30.07 (d)...see above ^^^
GHEE...
 
Top