Date: 23 Feb 2003 11:38:25 -0800 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: jtn@jtn.cx, rob spellberg <emailrob@emailrob.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: was this really necessary? Message-ID: <w68yw623f2.yw6@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3E58778A.CD67C07@mindspring.com> References: <00bc01c2d93e$452d1f60$0502000a@sentinel> <4.3.2.7.2.20030221181620.01b7ded8@threespace.com> <20030222010251.Y318@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> <3E56F25F.3B09AB9F@emailrob.com> <20030222204314.GA52476@jtn.cx> <3E58778A.CD67C07@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> "Jason T. Nelson" wrote:
> >
> > And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US
> > federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to
> > defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone, I
> > assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting
> > this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests.
>
> The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely
> acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-).
Did anybody here say the Constitution grants rights? Jason used "defined".
As for "inalienable", that's from the Declaration of Independence, which
can be easily ignored by those amending the Constitution. (Of course,
The People may claim their rights, regardless of the Constitution.)
There is a language problem here, though. The word "right" has many
meanings, so that our language is often misinterpreted and discussions
become babble. There are two main meanings, with a big difference:
"Privilege":
This the obvious and most practical meaning -- the most useful one.
When people mean something different, they should use more words;
but they don't, leading to the creation of this definition:
"Claim of Privilege":
This meaning is usually rendered fuzzy by an implied or explicit
prefixing with the word "Just". At one extreme, "Just" is defined
metaphysically as coming from a god. At the other extreme, it's
defined as coming from some law/regulation/rule. In the middle,
it comes from tradition and/or supreme law as from our Declaration
of Independence and/or Constitution (as misinterpreted by a Court).
It's unclear what people are thinking when they say "driving's not a
right, it's a privilege". (Most are probably not thinking at all, but
merely quoting a mantra tought to them by their teachers who, in turn,
learned it from their socialist college professors.) Driving can be
considered either a priviledge or a just claim to a privilege as granted
by law to those who qualify (i.e., a right).
Changing the subject somewhat, I'll note that regardless of what
*claims* people have on any privileges, the *enjoyment* of those
privileges are ultimately dependent on explicit or implicit *grants* of
privilege by the people controlling the force of arms, who are usually,
in turn, controlled by means of money. If you want to try to ensure
your enjoyment of rights, you need to strive after control of the guns
and money.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?w68yw623f2.yw6>