Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Natural, inherent, inalienable rights versus privileges granted by Government

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:51 AM
Original message
Natural, inherent, inalienable rights versus privileges granted by Government
Those of us who support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense, that SCOTUS will hear this month in D.C. v. Heller, argue that RKBA is a natural, inherent, inalienable right of each law-abiding citizen (see PA, 1776 and VT 1777 constitutions) and that right existed before the people collectively entered into a social-contract and formed a government of We the People (Constitution 1788 and BOR 1791).

The pro-RKBA group point to the BOR which enumerated some of those rights and to the Ninth Amendment that required government to protect un-enumerated rights.

In opposition, the ban-RKBA group who would ban the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense argue that RKBA is not a natural, inherent, inalienable right but a privilege granted by government and can therefore be taken away by government.

The right to peacefully assemble is another enumerated natural, inherent, inalienable right and the First Amendment requires government to protect that right for each citizen.

The UK does not recognize natural, inherent, inalienable rights like the U.S. and UK governments are free to allow or grant a privilege like keeping handguns for self-defense or to peaceful assembly.

As so many pro-RKBA supporters have posted on DUs Guns Forum; all the natural, inherent, inalienable rights covered by the Constitution either survive together as one united set of rights or fall separately one right at a time.

The contrast is very simple either (a) an individual has natural, inherent, inalienable rights, e.g. peaceful assembly, and U.S. governments must protect those rights for a single individual or (b) such rights do not exist but are privileges, e.g. peacefully assembly, granted by government and exist only as long as UK government decrees.

The choice is tyranny of the simple majority as in the UK, i.e. 50% of the vote plus 1, versus supremacy of each individual with her/his natural, inherent, inalienable rights protected by government as in the U.S.

The article below demonstrates how law-abiding citizens in the UK can lose the privilege to peacefully assembly.

We shall (not) overcome... Nuclear protest survived six Tory governments. But not New Labour
It survived six Tory governments, the end of the Cold War and the rise and fall of mass marches against the British nuclear deterrent. But after 50 years in which the tradition of peaceful demonstration has been maintained outside the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, the New Labour era has finally done for one of the most famous symbols of protest in British political history.

Today would have seen the latest gathering of the band of women who have assembled on the second Saturday of each month since the 1980s to object to the continuing development of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent. Instead, following a High Court ruling this week, the protest tents are being removed, demonstrators are being threatened with arrest and "no camping" signs are being erected.

From being a symbol of the right to protest, Aldermaston has become the latest testament to the desire of successive New Labour governments to curtail the right to assemble, demonstrate and object to government policy.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"The governments at the time sometimes behaved very badly towards these protesters who were simply exercising their rights in a peaceful way. But these were Tory governments, the Labour Party supported them as I recall, I was the leader at the time. But times seem to have changed."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. jody, yer just the funniest thing on four legs

(referring, of course, to your "yellow dog democrat" persona)


The article below demonstrates how law-abiding citizens in the UK can lose the privilege to peacefully assembly.


Yes indeedy doody, it do do that.

A ban on setting up tents is a "loss" of the "privilege to peacefully assemble" (whatever the fuck that is).

I obviously won't express support for the move taken; I'd have to investigate why it was taken, and I don't care quite enough to do that. Not like you, jody, who cares so very very deeply about what happens to all those furriners.

But I will ask: what was the date and location of the last camp set up by protesters with tents on the perimeter of something roughly equivalent to the Atomic Weapons Establishment, in the US?

Oh yeah. And how are those "free speech zones" working out for you these days?



Please feel free to educate your apparently ignorant self, jody. You've probably missed where this has been offered before. Maybe someone will be kind enough to draw it to your attention somehow. Of course, when you have everybody who disagrees with you on ignore, and you decline to receive messages ... well you just don't have to notice what crap you're talking ever, do you?



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_...

Human Rights Act 1998

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; ... . (9th November 1998)

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

The European Convention on Human Rights
ROME 4 November 1950

ARTICLE 11

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. a yellow dog's breakfast it is
the ban-RKBA group who would ban the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense argue that RKBA is not a natural, inherent, inalienable right but a privilege granted by government and can therefore be taken away by government.


Er ... what group is that, jody? Does it have a name? a website?

The only ones I ever see around here arguing that this RKBA thing is "a privilege" is the crowd that refers to it as "a civil right" -- you being the leader of that pack.

Civil rights can indeed be taken away by the government -- which is exactly what your government does when it denies persons convicted of criminal offences the vote. The vote is a civil right.


The contrast is very simple either (a) an individual has natural, inherent, inalienable rights, e.g. peaceful assembly, and U.S. governments must protect those rights for a single individual or (b) such rights do not exist but are privileges, e.g. peacefully assembly, granted by government and exist only as long as UK government decrees.


You know what a dog's breakfast is, right? The vomit on the public pavements on the morning after the night before, that the dogs feast on?

Thank you for the lovely image conjured up by what you have puked up here. A quite unbelievable jumble of incoherency and putridity.


If an individual has the "natural, inherent, inalienable right" to possess firearms (on terms you approve, I gather the argument goes), HOW CAN A GOVERNMENT DENY ANYONE THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT merely because s/he has been conviced of, oh, pot possession?

Do people in the US really lose their natural, inherent, inalienable rights if they get caught with a spliff? All of them, or just this one?

How about if they're prone to talking to people who aren't there? Your governments sometimes don't let them have guns, I gather. Do people with mental illnesses lose their natural, inherent, inalienable rights? All of them, or just this one?


You seem to have made the point yourself, jody:
As so many pro-RKBA supporters have posted on DUs Guns Forum; all the natural, inherent, inalienable rights covered by the Constitution either survive together as one united set of rights or fall separately one right at a time.

So how exactly are you failing to get it?

When will you start standing up for the natural, inherent, inalienable rights of criminals, the mentally ill, ... children ...?


The UK does not recognize natural, inherent, inalienable rights like the U.S.

Was there a grade in which they taught stuff in the US, and did you skip it?


I offered you the beginning of the path to enlightenment in the previous post.

The UK has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights into its domestic law.

The European Convention on Human Rights starts out:
Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts out:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world


If you can pinpoint where you're going off the track here, it might be possible to straighten you out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. one more attempt ...

Did you, like, read the article you quoted, jody? Or did you just skip over the paragraph that appeared right where that

* * * * * *

appeared in your post? I mean, I won't even ask whether you were trying to, er, pretend it wasn't there. Heavens to betsy, quelle ide.

Here it is, with my emphasis for your assistance:

In their High Court appeal, legal representatives for the Aldermaston women argued that the by-law which ostensibly took effect last May banning "camping in tents, caravans, trees or otherwise" amounted to an unlawful interference with freedom of expression and the right of assembly guaranteed by articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


D'ya see it? There was an appeal of a negative decision by a court. In order to get any kind of decision by a court, you have to have some kind of cause of action.

If you don't have a right to assert, then a court doesn't tell you that a law isn't an unlawful interference with your right. It just tells you that you don't have a right.

D'ya see it at all?

D'ya wanna retract your false statement that UK governments are free to allow or grant a privilege like ... peaceful assembly at all?

Didn't think so. But hey, you might always surprise me and retract a statement you made that was false.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Great post Jody..
I thoroughly ENJOY your posts, keep up the good work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbo Teg Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I also enjoy your post. Keep it up.
It's good to see that there are PRO-RKBA Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kicked and Rec N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb

Just thought I'd join the party. Making nonsense noise is so much more fun than thinking critically and speaking honestly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. parties are fun arent they
you seem angry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. dogs are wet, aren't they?

You seem silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. silly willy
where is this going?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Looks like he's
just POed because nobody took the flame bait he posted the first three times. Maybe it is just best to ignore his nonsense.

After all his view on gun rights is very intolerant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbo Teg Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Your very right.
That's why I can't stand the Anti-RKBA crowd. Just a bunch of "nonsense noise"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Actually, my very left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. And just looking for an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. great post there Jody, but
alas, the trolls took their hiatus and have come back with nothing but their patented "nonsense noise". Sad that the only thing they can do is claim ignorance of anti-RKBA groups/websites such as the VPC, much less Fenty and his ilk.

Keep on keeping on Jody, we appreciate the factual education.
Let the rest drink the kool-aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. "the trolls took their hiatus"

Can you name two for me?

Or shall I just believe that you are referring to me, maybe in some kind of weird royal third person?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Actually, there are a number who seem to prefer Gen. Discussion...
Not sure why, but if you want a list of names go back a week or so in Gen. Discussion. The usual suspects. I haven't seen a post by them recently, however. As you know, they probably are intimidated by the sterling logic and overwhelmingly good data posted by pro-2A folks, and can't seem to find a forum in which to go unchallenged!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aldo Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. That is the 2nd Amendment
An inalienable right to self defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. Thanks for the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC