• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Rant on Rights

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Rant on Rights

    A friend forwarded the link to this blog post to me today. I have never heard of Rich Weyand but he sure as hell nails it.

    Link:
    https://spoutingoffcom.wordpress.com...news.publishes


    A Rant on Rights

    Rich Weyand
    Posted on April 2, 2018


    This one’s been coming on for a while, so make sure your seat belts are fastened and your seat backs and tray tables are in their upright and locked positions, ladies and gentleman, as the captain has warned of turbulence ahead.

    I want to talk about rights. Human rights, if you will. Not civil rights, as I don’t intend to be civil. I intend to be honest.

    Human rights are the rights you have because you’re human. They’re yours. They’ve always been yours, and that is without regard to location or circumstance, time or place. In particular, they are not specific to this time or place.

    Consider, then, a primitive man, minding his own business. An animal sneaks up and attacks him. We are all generally agreed he has a right to fend off the animal, to defend himself against death or injury.

    Similarly, if he is sitting there minding his own business, and another human sneaks up and attacks him, we are all generally agreed he has a right to fend off the other human, to defend himself against death or injury.

    This is the basic formulation of a right to life and, as a corollary, the right to self defense. We can make similar arguments about liberty (were another human to sneak up on him and take him captive) and property (were another human to sneak up on him and take something which is his, which he gathered or fashioned with his own hands). Life, liberty, and property are things we all, generally speaking, acknowledge as things that a human being has the right to defend, with force, against those who would take them away.

    Note that healthcare is not a right in this formulation, as our primitive man has no healthcare. Similarly with other so-called rights to modern conveniences, like transportation and cell phones.

    You can make a similar argument on a religious basis, that such rights are bestowed on Man by God, as the founders of the United States often did, but we need not invoke the Deity to come to our current formulation. You are free to rely on the divine origin if you wish.

    There is an important distinction to be made between rights and privileges. A privilege is something one is granted by someone else. In our discussion, that will be the government, whether federal, state, or local. Driving is such a privilege. One is not born with it. One must pass a test, receive a certificate, fulfill other obligations while exercising it, such as having insurance, remaining free of the influence of alcohol and drugs, and so on. Taking one’s driving privileges away for failure to observe these rules is not the denial of a right.

    Back to rights. The U.S. Constitution, and particularly the eponymous Bill of Rights, recognizes several rights: the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be secure in one’s person, houses, papers, and effects; life, liberty and property; the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the accusation, to be confronted with witnesses, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and to have counsel; and the right of trial by jury.

    All of these are defined as rights in the Constitution, they are not granted by the Constitution. The wording of the Constitution makes this clear, as it always talks about rights in terms of not abridging them, not infringing them, not violating them, not depriving someone of them, preserving them. That is, there is no language of granting them, only language of protecting and not violating them.

    From this we see that the people, in the U.S. Constitution, are presumed to have these rights already. One cannot preserve something that is not already there. One cannot refrain from abridging, infringing, violating, or depriving someone of something that is not already there.

    There is a clause in the Bill of Rights that does address violating rights, that gives the government permission to violate one’s rights, under specific circumstances. The Fifth Amendment reads, in part: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . . ”

    Liberty here has been defined by the Courts: “Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.”

    In particular, the due process of law does not mean whatever Congress wants. Simply passing a law is not due process of law: “The due process article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.”

    Whether the government objective is proper or not depends on whether the right is considered a fundamental right, deeply rooted in American history and traditions. If so, strict scrutiny is applied, to determine whether there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation of the right, and whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

    Further, a specific individual’s rights can be taken away by due process of law. In this case, the specific individual must be brought up before a court, and the case to deny him one or more of his rights must proceed by the fair application of judicial process.

    Thus the government can deny the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms to felons, who have had their guilt of a felony determined in court by due process of law. The government can deprive someone of physical liberty, incarcerating them as the sentence for their guilt of a crime, which guilt has been determined in court by due process of law. The government can even deprive someone of life, executing them for their guilt of a crime, which guilt has been determined in court by due process of law.

    When we put this all together, we find that what the government cannot do is abridge, infringe, violate, or deprive, for large numbers of people, any right deeply rooted in American history and tradition, in a way that is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest.

    In particular, Mr. Hogg, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Bloomberg, et.al., what you cannot do is to ban sweeping categories of common firearms to large numbers of Americans because the occasional ***hole shoots up one of your gun-free zones.

    Go **** yourselves.

    P.S.
    Just for the record, drivers from 16 to 20 years old who text while driving are responsible for one thousand deaths and one hundred thousand injuries in car accidents every year. It took all U.S. mass shootings fifty years to total one thousand deaths, and teenagers texting while driving match that every year.


    A teenager with a gun killed seventeen kids in Parkland, FL, on February 14, and this is a Big Deal. Since that day, in less than seven weeks, teenagers texting while driving have killed over a hundred and twenty people nationwide, and — crickets.

    So when Mr. Hogg starts lobbying for banning the sale of cell phones to anyone under 21, I’ll consider that he’s a serious policy guy and not the latest pea-brained sock puppet for fascist gun-banners.
    "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

  • #2
    How are all the cities and states getting away with it?

    ban sweeping categories of common firearms to large numbers of Americans because the occasional ***hole shoots up one of your gun-free zones.

    have they been challenged in federal court yet? how is it legal for a state in our republic to ignore and go against the bill of rights?

    Comment


    • #3
      Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness. how many are you willing to give up before you stand up to stop this tyranny.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dino View Post
        How are all the cities and states getting away with it?
        ban sweeping categories of common firearms to large numbers of Americans because the occasional ***hole shoots up one of your gun-free zones.

        have they been challenged in federal court yet? how is it legal for a state in our republic to ignore and go against the bill of rights?

        How are they getting away with it? People are putting up with it, that's how.

        Frederick Douglass explained it clearly in a very to the point manner:

        "...Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will... Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
        So did Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in Gulag Archipelago:


        And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

        Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

        If... If...
        We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
        It appears that gun owners are simply too nice for their own good.

        Either that, or the self discipline, character, restraint and integrity that is part and parcel of being a responsible gun owner prevents us as a community from marching, blocking streets, rioting, destroying property, showing our asses and acting like psychobitches the way that the ANTIFA mutts, LGBTQ sodomites (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer), BLM, pro-abortion Nazis, etc. do.

        The bad thing about that is this: The fascist left anti-gun, anti-gun owner anti-freedom bigots mistake our restraint for weakness and/or cowardice. The result is that the Political Class thugs seem to think that we are "vajayjays" who are all talk and they can do whatever they want. This gives them misplaced bravery and causes them to egregiously miscalculate our intentions and our commitment to defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights at all costs.

        To paraphrase Richard Nixon in his book, The Real War:
        "Miscalculation is how wars are started."
        "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

        "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

        Comment

        Working...
        X