Sorry--I was WRONG!!

[willy]

I've posted in numerous threads that I thought that anyone that wasn't behind bars had an inalienable right to all their rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS.
And I also said whenever the courts decided to take a right from a free man, then it was an unconstitutional law.
But alot of people think that it is fine.

So now I got to say I was wrong.

WRONG to think AMERICANS would ever bow down to government and give away their RIGHTS for government PRIVLEDGES!

Such as -
I have the privilege to keep and bare arms.(I have a permit that says I can!)
Unless I commit an offence that the government objects to.
Then I will lose the privilege to own guns.

It's like my privilege to drive on public roads and highways.
I have a licence that gives me that privilege.
Unless I break a law that results with me losing my privileges to drive.

Can you see a difference yet?

And I'm sorry.
Sorry that there is so many people that don't understand the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.
Because it is those that don't know,,, that makes it so easy for the government to pass unconstitutional laws!!

 

[Bassamatic]

It's silly to think that the government cannot limit, restrict or even take away our constitutional rights. They do it all the time. This is why the Supreme Court is so important, they decide whether those laws are in fact, unconstitutional.

 

[shortranger]

There is nothing that you do every day that is not regulated in some way or another. Nothing. It has been that way for some time and is a natural result of allowing elected officials to become professional meddlers.

David

 

[bk43]

I've posted in numerous threads that I thought that anyone that wasn't behind bars had an inalienable right to all their rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS.
And I also said whenever the courts decided to take a right from a free man, then it was an unconstitutional law.

First, it's unalienable, not inalienable rights. And there is nothing in either the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution about "behind bars". The unalienable thing is in the DofI and not the Constitution BTW.

Regarding the courts, our system of government has three co-equal branches, legislative, executive and judicial. The "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." Deciding what the Constitution is and means is clearly the domain of our courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.

You have to have an understanding of the base documents before you start interpreting rights and privileges.

Bob

 

[Aussie44]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson


Ken

 

[Crazy K38]

as far as I am concerned, the government and courts can tell you they are taking your rights, but until you deliver them they are still yours, personally I will continue to practice my rights long after they tell me I can't

 

[willy]

First, it's unalienable, not inalienable rights. And there is nothing in either the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution about "behind bars". The unalienable thing is in the DofI and not the Constitution BTW.

Deciding what the Constitution is and means is clearly the domain of our courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.



Bob

Inalienable?-Unalienable?

Unalienable / Inalienable

Your thinking that the courts decide what our Rights are reduces them to mere privileges.

 

[Climber]

Inalienable?-Unalienable?

Unalienable / Inalienable

Your thinking that the courts decide what our Rights are reduces them to mere privileges.

A big +++1 here.

 

[bk43]

Your thinking that the courts decide what our Rights are reduces them to mere privileges.

Didn't say anything about my thinking. Reread my post, including the parts you edited out before quoting me.

Don't bother replying. I won't see it.

Bob

 

[willy]

Didn't say anything about my thinking. Reread my post, including the parts you edited out before quoting me.

Don't bother replying. I won't see it.

Bob

Well, what you posted sure looks like you are onboard with whatever the courts tells you to do.

BTW- I bet it is driving you nuts, not being able to reply, eh?

 

[Zilmo]

Well, what you posted sure looks like you are onboard with whatever the courts tells you to do.

BTW- I bet it is driving you nuts, not being able to reply, eh?

Why be antagonistic just because someone has a different opinion?

 

[willy]

Why be antagonistic just because someone has a different opinion?

Well when someone quotes me ,,then ends with telling me not to reply.
I --JUST GOTTA-- say something!

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, what you posted sure looks like you are onboard with whatever the courts tells you to do.

Like I said in another thread, we need judges, lawyers, lawmakers and police to consult Willy for the proper Constitutional interpretation before they act. Life would sure be better if they did.

 

[willy]

Like I said in another thread, we need judges, lawyers, lawmakers and police to consult Willy for the proper Constitutional interpretation before they act. Life would sure be better if they did.

There you go, good idea!
Really if they learned the difference between inalienable rights and privileges granted by the government, we wouldn't have the eroding away of our rights that we do today.

 

[devildog66]

First, it's unalienable, not inalienable rights. And there is nothing in either the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution about "behind bars". The unalienable thing is in the DofI and not the Constitution BTW.

Regarding the courts, our system of government has three co-equal branches, legislative, executive and judicial. The "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." Deciding what the Constitution is and means is clearly the domain of our courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.

You have to have an understanding of the base documents before you start interpreting rights and privileges.

Bob

Umm, it is inalienable. I'll leave the grammar of the original poster to Msr Strunk and Msr White...

Now back to the the tenor of original post.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable 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 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." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

 

[bk43]

Umm, it is inalienable.

My post refered to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as passed and not any drafts prepared for the committee. The committee replaced Jefferson's inalienable with unalienable.

The difference between the terms was not trivial in 1776. The other members of the draft committee(Adams, Franklin, Livingston and Sherman) did not agree with Jeffferson's vision of our rights. And Jefferson was wrong BTW and thankfully lost out.

Bob

 

[willy]

My post refered to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as passed and not any drafts prepared for the committee. The committee replaced Jefferson's inalienable with unalienable.

The difference between the terms was not trivial in 1776. The other members of the draft committee(Adams, Franklin, Livingston and Sherman) did not agree with Jeffferson's vision of our rights. And Jefferson was wrong BTW and thankfully lost out.

Bob

Check out my earlier post for the link to explain the difference between
inalienable and unalienable.
Since you came back to this thread, maybe you could tell us the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.

 

[devildog66]

My post refered to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as passed and not any drafts prepared for the committee. The committee replaced Jefferson's inalienable with unalienable.

The difference between the terms was not trivial in 1776. The other members of the draft committee(Adams, Franklin, Livingston and Sherman) did not agree with Jeffferson's vision of our rights. And Jefferson was wrong BTW and thankfully lost out.

Bob

I stand corrected regarding the the term as used in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[cshoff]

I've posted in numerous threads that I thought that anyone that wasn't behind bars had an inalienable right to all their rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS.
And I also said whenever the courts decided to take a right from a free man, then it was an unconstitutional law.
But alot of people think that it is fine.

So now I got to say I was wrong.

WRONG to think AMERICANS would ever bow down to government and give away their RIGHTS for government PRIVLEDGES!

Such as -
I have the privilege to keep and bare arms.(I have a permit that says I can!)
Unless I commit an offence that the government objects to.
Then I will lose the privilege to own guns.

It's like my privilege to drive on public roads and highways.
I have a licence that gives me that privilege.
Unless I break a law that results with me losing my privileges to drive.

Can you see a difference yet?

And I'm sorry.
Sorry that there is so many people that don't understand the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.
Because it is those that don't know,,, that makes it so easy for the government to pass unconstitutional laws!!

Americans have been "selling" their freedoms and liberties to the highest bidder since this country was founded. It's just that now they are doing it at the expense of the economy, our health care system, our Second Amendment rights, etc., etc..

We must always remember that we collectively get the government we deserve. When we vote for big-government politicians (Republicans and Democrats), we shouldn't be surprised when big-government comes infringing on our rights. All in all, it seems most people are more than happy to give up essential freedoms and liberties in exchange for their preferred government handout.

 

[smitholdtimer]

Allies or Foes?

If I may, an observation please. Reading and trying to understand what each of you is upset about has escaped me. I was and still am of the opinion that we all are or should be fighting for the same cause. If the amount of energy and anger is funneled toward the defeat of those that would rob us of our rights then we should pool our talents to that end, not fight among ourselves. If there is a correction to be made let it be done as tactfully as possible so as not to alienate our comrades. I felt compelled to comment so I have been guilty of speaking before I was spoken to as no one asked my opinion and if I am out of line just say the word and I'll shut up. In fact, I have shut up! Thanks.