It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Metallicus
Our basic rights are to go about our own business unfettered and free from Government interference. We also have the right to protection of our person and property.
If you were to say health care or education were rights I would disagree. Those are entitlements, not rights.
Behave, if the biggest gang in town (government) ever struggle to provide healthcare for whatever reason, it does not remove that as a right that the community agrees it is.
originally posted by: schuyler
so much for your "right" to health care: Doctor s in the UK voting to strike See what I mean? You guys can make up all the "rights" you want, but it's not a "right" if you must compel other people to provide it for you.
I assert that your 'rights' in the constitution are nothing more than any other law which can be changed by the government.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: grainofsand
Still you miss the point and try to fall back on the ability to change the constitution.
The point I am making is that it can be changed right back and the citizens that are armed win the battle.
It would do one no good to attempt to change the laws and get shot for it.
The same with freedom of speech. The man with a gun can say what he wants.
Being an unarmed citizen is a dangerous endeavor.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Boadicea
As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.
You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.
...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.
No they can not take away our defense by voting.
All voting against guns does is make targets for gun owners.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
they can change the constitution all they want but it will be changed back by people with guns
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: deadeyedick
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Boadicea
As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.
You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.
...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.
No they can not take away our defense by voting.
All voting against guns does is make targets for gun owners.
Dont be a fool.
The constitution can be changed, it would just be near impossible.
All that mean is some rights are easier to take away than others.
And the thread is about the definition of 'rights' not how you defend whatever you feel it is that defines them.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: crazyewok
I never made the claim that the us government does not make or change laws.
I made the claim that millions of guns pointed at the gov. keeps our ability to have a constitution and protect it.
I compared our ability to protect our freedoms to those of a country that does not allow weapons.
even a redcoat can understand that well
originally posted by: deadeyedick
I compared our ability to protect our freedoms to those of a country that does not allow weapons.
even a redcoat can understand that well
originally posted by: grainofsand
Behave, if the biggest gang in town (government) ever struggle to provide healthcare for whatever reason, it does not remove that as a right that the community agrees it is.
originally posted by: schuyler
so much for your "right" to health care: Doctor s in the UK voting to strike See what I mean? You guys can make up all the "rights" you want, but it's not a "right" if you must compel other people to provide it for you.
Try stick to the point fella, we are talking about 'rights' and I assert that your 'rights' in the constitution are nothing more than any other law which can be changed by the government.
The ability or inability of any government/community promising said 'rights' does not stop them being rights in principle.
Try again.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand
Ok, so those striking docs ... if you need health care and they are refusing to provide it ... does that give you the power to march up to one, put him or her in chains and beat the snot out of her until he or she complies and gives you care?
We had a system like that in the US once for getting forced labor. I'm not so sure I'd want my health care provided that way though.
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: schuyler
So, urm, who exactly defines and enforces these particular mahgical 'rights' you speak of?
The biggest gang in town? The community or wider society?
Different societies/nations, different rights.
Cultural semantics is all, and you take comfort or security deluding yourself with the trickery of rights/entitlements/privileges, they can all be taken away, and different cultures have different rights.
The biggest gang in town always controls the rights, don't delude yourself that the constitution defines 'rights' for the whole world and cannot be changed.