My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

[Rich Z]

"Power" being very flexible in this case.

Your neighbor has the capability of taking any of your rights, should they choose to do so. But like I said, this definition of rights is largely useless.

Excuse me, and with all due respect, but that's just plain silly and frivolous to use as an argument in this discussion. "Rights" here are being discussed in the context of governments recognition (and lack thereof) of this currently fluid term (subject to change without notice, apparently), and not at all related to a private individual commiting a crime against you.

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology."

Nothing in there about a right being invalidated by violation. A right isn't something that is inviolable, that cannot be taken by any means. A right is something defined by law, which is a construct of human society. Law isn't a tangible thing, but something we choose in order to belong to a community.

Sorry, but not as is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Emphasis added by me.

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Yes, the creation of the USA was based on the understanding that certain rights are inherent in simply by BEING born, and not privileges granted and withheld by any other agency proclaiming the RIGHT to do so. The purpose of the Constitution of the USA was to create the federal government and within that document define explicitly those powers granted to that federal government. Anything NOT granted within that document or subsequently added via amendments were NOT powers available to the US Government by default. Quite the reverse, actually. But the interpretation has now been perverted to where the government now has rights and WE only have privileges granted by the government.

Your splitting of hairs by trying to PC the definition of "right" with some arcane definition you found on the internet does not refute my observation in the least. Of course the official and politically correct definition will be molded by politically acceptable massaging to make it appear that those doing the defining are completely justified in transforming *true* rights to actual privileges doled and and controlled at their command by legislation. There is actually quite a bit of power in being able to alter the definitions of past laws to fit current political expediency. For example, examine the transformation of the term "felony" and see how it has expanded frighteningly to more widely expose greater sections of the populace to penalties once reserved for the most serious of violent crimes. This sort of thing is not at all unusual, but few people are aware of it till they find themselves with handcuffs on them.

Fact of the matter is, I see little difference between what is happening today and the time when the Declaration of Independence was penned. Only the object and focus of the REASON for that document has changed from a foreign subject to a domestic one.

IMHO, of course.

 

[beautifullywild77]

Wow very well put Rich!

 

[Nova_C]

"Endowed by their creator".

So what does that mean? Where does the government get that power that you are so paranoid about? The muzzle of a gun?

No, from the social agreement of the governed. The government acts with power granted by the governed, with the implicit agreement that the power granted will be used in order to protect and advance the interests of the governed.

I don't get why you're suddenly accusing me of collusion with some kind of political agenda by trying to 'pc' the definition of right. You show me any kind of definition of a right where it is not granted by law. The Declaration that is only an authority within the US (People outside of the US have rights as well) is just words. The power that you attribute to that document is power wielded by the law. A law, I might add, that is defined and changed by the government which acts with public consent.

And don't give me any lines about the government not acting with the public's consent. It absolutely has the public's consent. Every single person who votes, who pays their taxes, who depends on the infrastructure of roads, power, water, the protection of the police, fire and ambulance services all have given and continue to give their consent.

Including you, Rich. This board exists on infrastructure built mostly by government funds around the world. You give your consent every time you log on.

 

[ceduke]

Err...I'm sorry, I know this is a serious topic, but every time I scroll past the thread title I think of a ban on tank tops, and smile a little. Anywho, I'll go away now...

 

[Outcast]

"Endowed by their creator".
So what does that mean? Where does the government get that power that you are so paranoid about? The muzzle of a gun?

If you continue reading, it continues to say certain unalienable rights... And, goes on to tell us what we should do in case our rights repeatedly bet infringed upon by our government... At least that is what I am getting from it. No wonder our Government wants to remove the Constitution because it "gets in the way of progress".

 

[Rich Z]

"Endowed by their creator".

So what does that mean? Where does the government get that power that you are so paranoid about? The muzzle of a gun?

No, from the social agreement of the governed. The government acts with power granted by the governed, with the implicit agreement that the power granted will be used in order to protect and advance the interests of the governed.

I don't get why you're suddenly accusing me of collusion with some kind of political agenda by trying to 'pc' the definition of right. You show me any kind of definition of a right where it is not granted by law. The Declaration that is only an authority within the US (People outside of the US have rights as well) is just words. The power that you attribute to that document is power wielded by the law. A law, I might add, that is defined and changed by the government which acts with public consent.

And don't give me any lines about the government not acting with the public's consent. It absolutely has the public's consent. Every single person who votes, who pays their taxes, who depends on the infrastructure of roads, power, water, the protection of the police, fire and ambulance services all have given and continue to give their consent.

Including you, Rich. This board exists on infrastructure built mostly by government funds around the world. You give your consent every time you log on.

I presume that your definition of "consent" as indicated in your above post is something akin to "if you breath while on American soil, then you, by default, consent to everything the government decrees." Do I have that right?

So tell me, how would one withdraw this consent that you speak of?

And I AM giving you lines about the government NOT acting with the public's consent. How many people here have consented to the government being hell bent on wrecking this country by spending money that will not be possible to pay back to the entities it is borrowing from? How many people even KNOW where that money is all going to that is being borrowed to even know if they wish to consent to it or not?

And tell me, what exactly is it that I am consenting to, in your opinion, every time I log into this site?

Heck, the more I read your post, the less I think that the word "consent" means the same thing to you that it does to me. Because if you really believe that all of us US citizens truly, WILLINGLY consent to everything our government is doing, well, me thinks that you are suffering a bit from :noevil:

 

[tsst]

I would venture a bet that NOBODY consents to EVERYTHING our gov does. JMO

 

[Nova_C]

You do implicitly, though.

Unless you're withholding taxes, or actively sabotaging your government, your consent is implied. I'm not saying you agree with the government, because you clearly don't.

But you consent to their actions by participating in the system. You don't know everything the government does. You disagree with much of what the government does. But you make use of the services the government provides and the agreement of citizenship is that you will consent to being governed.

Why do you think they call direct actions against your government treason? Even if you disagree with the government, the lawful actions you can take to redress those grievances are also spelled out by that contract. You are consenting to abide by that contract.

Unless you really are actively sabotaging the government, or shooting civil servants. In which case, no, you are clearly not consenting to being governed.

 

[Rich Z]

You do implicitly, though.

Unless you're withholding taxes, or actively sabotaging your government, your consent is implied. I'm not saying you agree with the government, because you clearly don't.

But you consent to their actions by participating in the system. You don't know everything the government does. You disagree with much of what the government does. But you make use of the services the government provides and the agreement of citizenship is that you will consent to being governed.

Why do you think they call direct actions against your government treason? Even if you disagree with the government, the lawful actions you can take to redress those grievances are also spelled out by that contract. You are consenting to abide by that contract.

Unless you really are actively sabotaging the government, or shooting civil servants. In which case, no, you are clearly not consenting to being governed.

 

[Nova_C]

I get the feeling you're not debating in good faith.

All right then.

 

[Chip]

We have a right to be armed in this country; not a privilege like driving, but an absolute right. I would support gun ownership for convicted felons, also. If you are deemed fit to be in society, you should be able to defend yourself (or overthrow a tyrannical government). The Hughes amendment and other atrocities have severely hurt the ability of the citizens to form a well armed militia, but the subject at hand is not "Should we bow down to the infrastructure?" It is the government deciding that the very fighting men and women it sent to carry guns and use them on other country's people might now be too fragile -after what they put them through -to have guns as private citizens.

 

[Rich Z]

I get the feeling you're not debating in good faith.

All right then.

And I get the feeling that you just like to argue with me. No matter what the topic matter. I felt the smilie was sufficiently effective to show my feelings about your point of view.

 

[Rich Z]

We have a right to be armed in this country; not a privilege like driving, but an absolute right. I would support gun ownership for convicted felons, also. If you are deemed fit to be in society, you should be able to defend yourself (or overthrow a tyrannical government). The Hughes amendment and other atrocities have severely hurt the ability of the citizens to form a well armed militia, but the subject at hand is not "Should we bow down to the infrastructure?" It is the government deciding that the very fighting men and women it sent to carry guns and use them on other country's people might now be too fragile -after what they put them through -to have guns as private citizens.

Actually I don't think that is the reason at all. If civil unrest were to become violent, for whatever reason, who would be better able to engage in an effective armed conflict with the government than troops who actually were IN combat?

 

[Chip]

If that is the motivation, then it is even scarier.

 

[tsst]

Actually I don't think that is the reason at all. If civil unrest were to become violent, for whatever reason, who would be better able to engage in an effective armed conflict with the government than troops who actually were IN combat?

Interesting point Rich. When the gov oversteps to the point of pushback they would want young capable men like Outcast to be disarmed. And Chip is right if that indeed is the motivation, scary.

 

[Outcast]

Honestly, That is what I was feeling from the start. Not only are they trying to allow the VA to tell law enforcement to come to my house and take my guns. But, they are allowing the UN dictate what guns Civilians are allowed to have. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/gun-ban-back-on-obamas-agenda/#ixzz2DAdc1Goz

I got that from the FB page of the former Marine/current Law Enforcement officer who, every time I post something about Obama, calls me racist and tells me to move to Canada... It seems to be his only argument "if you don't like it, move to Canada. The US will be better for it."

 

[tsst]

 

[Michael823]

I really don't see anyone "overthrowing" our Gov't. Nuclear weapons kill that fantasy. If they wanted us gone, we'd be dust. Plain and simply.

As far as this discussion goes, I think it's quite clear why you would not want psychologically compromised people having guns (PTSD sufferers, felons, etc..). And it would make little sense that they would train someone to kill, if they were so afraid that it would lead to an "overthrowing of the Gov't" by doing so.

I'm with you from a human to human standpoint, though, 100%. You fought for this country, and it's a shame that this country does so little to fight for you when you return home. You should be able to receive the proper treatment without any hesitation on the part of this country's leaders. And if this country feels that it's in our best interest to have people serving overseas with arms, than it's quite hypocritical of them to say that it's against our best interest here at home.

 

[beautifullywild77]

I do not think PTSD should be considered in the ownership of guns. Sure it might play a role but it shouldn't be the sole reason to be denied the right to bare arms.

The problem is Michael is the government is not taking care of its veterans. They keep taking away right after right from them. They make getting help from the VA sometimes impossible. They will fight you tooth and nail to pay as little as they can get away with. Our veterans are suffering, yet I don't see it on the front lines of the news. I see our President and current congress doing nothing to help Veterans but take away more money from the GI bill or from VA disability health care.

 

[Outcast]

On the GI Bill note. The Montgomery GI bill will be going up in the monthly payments next year... again.... Yet, the Post 911 GI bill, the one the VA rep. talked me into using.. Has not seen a raise since I started using it in 2010...