Right versus Priviledge

[Guest nraforlife]

How can a right be a right IF an expensive, that some cannot afford, and lengthly process is required to be able to exercise it?

Why is it that liberals get their 'panties in a wad' over having to have a valid ID to exercise the privledge to vote, which by the way is not a constitutional right, but could care less about a real constitutional right, the 2nd, being 'dumped' on.

[Guest Liberty Seeker]

Well, we have a right to life, but we still have to afford to feed ourselves, or we will lose that right. Just a thought.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

To me, a right is something that's inherent at birth. It isn't something that's provided or afforded to me by the state or its laws. While the state may enact legislation that speaks to certain rights, these laws don't confer those rights. Among these is self-defense, and self-defense by the best available technology. Guns, for instance. I resent having to register with the state and having to be "approved" to utilize my right to self-defense. It's as though our carry permits will somehow prevent a felon from carrying a gun.

In the same vein, I don't think that driving is a "privilege" as my right to travel freely is also inherent.

[The Rabbi]

In the same vein, I don't think that driving is a "privilege" as my right to travel freely is also inherent.

People think Elvis is alive and OJ is innocent. Doesn't make it so.

Your driving on state maintained roads is a privilege. That's why you have a license to do so. You're free to walk or bike ride anywhere you want. And I never saw a Constitutional right of travel.

As for permits to carry: I am torn because in fact the state constitution makes it a right. But I like the permit scheme. My compromise is to institute a VA like system: anyone able to own a gun can open carry but concealed needs a permit.

[Okey]

Elvis died? 12 down 38 posts to go.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

People think Elvis is alive and OJ is innocent. Doesn't make it so.

Your driving on state maintained roads is a privilege. That's why you have a license to do so. You're free to walk or bike ride anywhere you want. And I never saw a Constitutional right of travel.

As for permits to carry: I am torn because in fact the state constitution makes it a right. But I like the permit scheme. My compromise is to institute a VA like system: anyone able to own a gun can open carry but concealed needs a permit.

I also "think" that two added to two is summed as four. Some quantum theorists would disagree, but I doubt you would. Why would you compare something as preposterous as a belief in OJ's innocence or the continued existence of Elvis to my statement?

So the difference between a privilege and a right is a license? That's some haute polemic. That goes well beyond chicken, eggs, and circuitous self-reference. All the anti-gunners would need with your argument is to point to Illinois. "See, they have FOID cards there. That makes owning a gun a privilege."

You would assert that by right of birth we don't generally have a right to travel freely? I'd like to hear your argument. The case law doesn't agree with you, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't clearly address the issue.

Why do you favor permits? It's already unlawful for a felon to carry a handgun. What purpose does the permit serve?

[jughead]

aint nothing in the constitution about a felon owning a gun either.

[DaveTN]

No rights are involved.

<O:p</O:p

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><ST1:pTennessee</st1:State> does not recognize the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment of the United States Constitution as an individual right. Like most states they see it as a protection for the state from the Federal government.

<O:p</O:p

The Tennessee State Constitution guarantees you the right to own firearms, but leaves the wearing of arms up to the state legislature.

<O:p</O:p

HCP is a privilege that you rent from the state. It has nothing to do with the average citizen and their rights under the Tennessee State Constitution. People buy guns legally in <st1:State>Tennessee </st1:State>everyday without a permit.

<O:p</O:p

So if you want to make a rights/privilege argument you need to define what right you are talking about.

<O:p</O:p

You are correct it is expensive and it takes a long time. An abused wife that is being threatened by her husband may not be able to afford a $110 carry class and the $115 state fee, plus the cost of a handgun. And she may not have the two months that it takes to get it; she could be dead by then. Does the state care about her? No. Do they acknowledge that she has a right to do whatever it takes to defend her life and the lives of her kids from and attacker? No, not unless she is in her home.

[The Rabbi]

So the difference between a privilege and a right is a license? That's some haute polemic. That goes well beyond chicken, eggs, and circuitous self-reference. All the anti-gunners would need with your argument is to point to Illinois. "See, they have FOID cards there. That makes owning a gun a privilege."

You would assert that by right of birth we don't generally have a right to travel freely? I'd like to hear your argument. The case law doesn't agree with you, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't clearly address the issue.

Why do you favor permits? It's already unlawful for a felon to carry a handgun. What purpose does the permit serve?

Something requiring a license by definition is a privilige. I didnt make that up. In IL owning a gun is clearly a privilege, not a right, because you need an FOID card. I think that runs counter to their constitution btw. BUt there you have it.

I'd like to see you travel freely to N.Korea. You'll quickly find out how much a privilege it is.

[Guest nraforlife]

HCP License should be

1) called an HCP ID and only be for Concealed Carry - OC requires no ID. After all felons can't have a firearm anyhow now can they?

2) background check should be free or at least revenue neutral

3) cost for ID cards itself should be revenue neutral

4) ID's should not require renewal

[Guest canynracer]

What "Should be" and what is is not the question....we all know what "should be"

We just need to get there.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

No rights are involved.

<o></o>

<st1:state><st1>:pTennessee</st1> does not recognize the 2^nd amendment of the United States Constitution as an individual right. Like most states they see it as a protection for the state from the Federal government.</st1:state>

<o></o>

The Tennessee State Constitution guarantees you the right to own firearms, but leaves the wearing of arms up to the state legislature.

<o></o>

HCP is a privilege that you rent from the state. It has nothing to do with the average citizen and their rights under the Tennessee State Constitution. People buy guns legally in <st1:state>Tennessee </st1:state>everyday without a permit.

<o></o>

So if you want to make a rights/privilege argument you need to define what right you are talking about.

<o></o>

You are correct it is expensive and it takes a long time. An abused wife that is being threatened by her husband may not be able to afford a $110 carry class and the $115 state fee, plus the cost of a handgun. And she may not have the two months that it takes to get it; she could be dead by then. Does the state care about her? No. Do they acknowledge that she has a right to do whatever it takes to defend her life and the lives of her kids from and attacker? No, not unless she is in her home.

So, like Rabbi, you don't believe that rights are inherent, but rather granted by the government?

Something requiring a license by definition is a privilige. I didnt make that up. In IL owning a gun is clearly a privilege, not a right, because you need an FOID card. I think that runs counter to their constitution btw. BUt there you have it.

I'd like to see you travel freely to N.Korea. You'll quickly find out how much a privilege it is.

I think the fundamental difference between the three of us is either feeling that you're freeborn, or that you're the subject of a government. I, like the men and women who founded this nation, have a sense of the former.

I'd be interested to see how other people define "right" and "privilege".

[The Rabbi]

No one has ever proven the existence of G-d-given inalienable rights. Nor has anyone provided a persuasive list of what these are and where they come from. If you can do so, please go ahead.

But in the absence of that, you would have to agree that rights flow from society's general agreement on what they are. There is no practical difference between a right denied and one that doesn't exist. If you can make such a distinction, please do so.

[DaveTN]

So, like Rabbi, you don't believe that rights are inherent, but rather granted by the government? .

No, I have made the argument several times that I believe I have a right to carry. Unfortunately the courts don’t agree.

I just know absolutely that it does not come from the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment or the Tennessee State Constitution.

I’ll even take that one step farther.. HCP’s should not be required and training should be the responsibility of the person carrying.

I think the fundamental difference between the three of us is either feeling that you're freeborn, or that you're the subject of a government.

Who cares? No one cares what you or I feel like; they want to know what the laws are. Making a bunch of noise about right that you don’t have and aren’t recognized by anyone serves no purpose.

I, like the men and women who founded this nation, have a sense of the former.

Who… give me an example? Our founding fathers put the framework in place; that is all they did. They expected the generations that followed to do as they saw fit and they gave them to tools to do so. We are seeing an example of this now. By the end of this month we are supposedly going to have the SCOTUS make a decision on whether or not the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment is an individual right. They gave the tools to totally remove the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> from the Constitution if we saw fit.

I'd be interested to see how other people define "right" and "privilege".

I don’t care how other people define it; I only care how the law defines it.

I was young and dumb and I believed that I had a right to carry in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Illinois</st1:State>. I was arrested and went through a lot of time and expense to see the errors of my ways. When they put handcuffs on you and lock you up in jail; I would say that you were doing something that you don’t have a right to do… would you agree?

[DaveTN]

No one has ever proven the existence of G-d-given inalienable rights.

Thanks for posting that. I couldn't remember what your exact words were, but I knew we were not in agreement.

<O:p</O:p

[The Rabbi]

Thanks for posting that. I couldn't remember what your exact words were, but I knew we were not in agreement.

<o></o>

What I said was a statement of fact. Do you have something to refute it? If so bring it on.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

No one has ever proven the existence of G-d-given inalienable rights. Nor has anyone provided a persuasive list of what these are and where they come from. If you can do so, please go ahead.

But in the absence of that, you would have to agree that rights flow from society's general agreement on what they are. There is no practical difference between a right denied and one that doesn't exist. If you can make such a distinction, please do so.

Prove the existence of a god-given right? Hmmmmm. That's a fairly complex philosophical endeavor. You've lain it in my lap rather than do the work yourself. Ok. Ball's in my court. I'd ask you to offer evidence that we don't have a right to defend ourselves against transgression.

If you really want to enter into questions of classic morality and such, we can, but I think you know you're reducing this to the absurd. You know that we have certain rights at birth, and that we'd have these same rights if we were born in some remote part of the jungle with no established government to regulate our behavior. Still, you're arguing with me about that assertion. But why? Does the concept of rejecting your own government frighten you that much?

There is a tremendous difference between a right denied and one that doesn't exist. That's like saying there's no difference between a false accusation of rape and a case of actual rape where that rapist can't be convicted for lack of evidence.

Another difference between the two is the fact that a right denied still exists. It's simply being restricted or its benefits forbidden. A right that doesn't exist doesn't exist. That's a grand difference.

Also, I'd like to know why you think that permits are beneficial.

No, I have made the argument several times that I believe I have a right to carry.

I just know absolutely that it does not come from the 2^nd amendment or the Tennessee State Constitution.

I would say that you were doing something that you don’t have a right to do… would you agree?

No. I wouldn't agree at all. And, excepting your conflicting statements above, you wouldn't agree either.

Again, independent of any law, does the government grant rights, or merely recognize them? Your beliefs aren't clear.

[The Rabbi]

Prove the existence of a god-given right? Hmmmmm. That's a fairly complex philosophical endeavor. You've lain it in my lap rather than do the work yourself. Ok. Ball's in my court. I'd ask you to offer evidence that we don't have a right to defend ourselves against transgression.

You are skirting the issue and shirking answering the question. To answer your question: in many countries, especially in Europe, if you defend yourself from attack and kill the aggressor in the process you are the one who will go to jail, regardless of circumstances. If there were a god-given right then it would not be so.

You know that we have certain rights at birth, and that we'd have these same rights if we were born in some remote part of the jungle with no established government to regulate our behavior.

I know no such thing. Neither do you. Neither do people actually born in remote parts of any jungle you'd care to name. You are merely asserting something, not proving it.

Still, you're arguing with me about that assertion. But why? Does the concept of rejecting your own government frighten you that much?

I am in a search for truth. The truth is that there is no such thing as some divine right, any more than there is a divine right of kings.

On your theory you can just sit around and assert some right that probably doesn't exist. On my theory we have to work actively to assure that society recognizes that right and acts to enforce it.

I realize it is easier just to mouth the Declaration of Independence and mumble on about "I have a right to this that and the other." Real thought is difficult and painful.

There is a tremendous difference between a right denied and one that doesn't exist.

If so, then please state what that is.

Another difference between the two is the fact that a right denied still exists. It's simply being restricted or its benefits forbidden. A right that doesn't exist doesn't exist. That's a grand difference.

You are merely asserting without showing what the difference is.

Also, I'd like to know why you think that permits are beneficial.

They separate between the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys have permits, the bad guys dont. It also makes for an easy way for people to become informed about their rights, duties, and responsibilities as gun owners/bearers. Sure they could go get it some other way, but most won't.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

You are skirting the issue and shirking answering the question. To answer your question: in many countries, especially in Europe, if you defend yourself from attack and kill the aggressor in the process you are the one who will go to jail, regardless of circumstances. If there were a god-given right then it would not be so.

I know no such thing. Neither do you. Neither do people actually born in remote parts of any jungle you'd care to name. You are merely asserting something, not proving it.

I am in a search for truth. The truth is that there is no such thing as some divine right, any more than there is a divine right of kings.

On your theory you can just sit around and assert some right that probably doesn't exist. On my theory we have to work actively to assure that society recognizes that right and acts to enforce it.

I realize it is easier just to mouth the Declaration of Independence and mumble on about "I have a right to this that and the other." Real thought is difficult and painful.

If so, then please state what that is.

You are merely asserting without showing what the difference is.

They separate between the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys have permits, the bad guys dont. It also makes for an easy way for people to become informed about their rights, duties, and responsibilities as gun owners/bearers. Sure they could go get it some other way, but most won't.

Are you really this obtuse? You don't know the difference between something that exists and something that doesn't exist? You don't know the difference between a false accusation of rape and the reality of a rape that can't be proven in a court of law? You really don't?

If you're truly searching for truth, you're going to have to stop expecting the government to inform you of it. You're going to actually have to search.

Your defense of the permits is insufficient. By your logic, the government need only require a permit to speak in conversational tone on the sidewalk. Then, any of us who converses thusly, without a permit, becomes a "bad guy". Tell me how the permits prevent crime.

[The Rabbi]

You obviously are not equipped to engage in this discussion. Thanks for playing.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

You obviously are not equipped to engage in this discussion. Thanks for playing.

Yeah. Uh-huh. You obviously don't have the stones to face your cynicism and your submission to an immoral and corrupt state.

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. Uh-huh. You obviously don't have the stones to face your cynicism and your submission to an immoral and corrupt state.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

That's about what I thought.

You let me know if you ever figure out the difference between something that exists as opposed to something that doesn't exist.

[DaveTN]

Again, independent of any law, does the government grant rights, or merely recognize them? Your beliefs aren't clear.

I thought my comments were pretty clear, but let me take another shot at it…..

No one gives a rip what you or I think. They don’t care what you or I think our rights are; they want to understand what their rights are.

You saying that you believe you have some right to carry a gun that comes from the state Constitution, U.S. Constitution , or inalienable rights is no more true than saying you have a right to do belly shots off naked strippers in the middle of Broadway in downtown Nashville.

I can read, and the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment of the United States Constitution does not give me any right to carry a gun. The Tennessee State Constitution clearly gives me a right to own a gun but not to carry one. That leaves inalienable rights or natural rights basic to the necessity of my survival.

Car jackings, armed robberies and muggings are not infrequent events. They are very real everyday events that all of us are exposed to. Our government has proven that they do not have the desire nor the resources to stop these events; and have gone so far as to have the top court in the land rule that they have no responsibility to do so.

Therefore I believe that all Americans have the basic natural right to use whatever tools are available to them to stop these very real threats to their life. But the courts do not agree and would rule me to be criminal if I did so without buying their permission. Therefore that may well be a right, but it is not a recognized right.

Yeah. Uh-huh. You obviously don't have the stones to face your cynicism and your submission to an immoral and corrupt state.

Submission?? I have been arrested once in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> for my beliefs; charged with no crime other than having a handgun in my car. Are you suggesting that you are somehow more of a man or a patriot than I because I won’t continue with what I believe is right, knowing that a second offense would result in jail time?

[Guest Mugster]

The only rights that we or any entity (like the state) have are the ones you can impose. The state has the firepower...they will impose the legal code upon you, and you break laws at your own peril.

Religion is no different. The nut cases down at waco had a belief system and some guns to back it up...in opposition of the legal code (granted, somewhat debatable). The .gov decided to impose its will and the result was a restriction of whatever rights they thought they had.

The US has the right to exist as long as it has more guns and better troops and so far, we remain on top. At one time the Nazi party decided to impose its will on the world. Their right to exist as a political party was terminated because they were weak. If they were stronger, it might have been a different tune.

The idea that you have a right to carry a gun or drive a car is absurd. You are granted these rights by society. You can always armor up your car and defiantly try to impose whatever you think your rights are on the state. I'll be watching it on the TV drinking a beer when they blast you with a main gun round out of a tank.