If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

false, set up a process that disputes over rights can be settled, true.

Da gub has nothing to do with making rights legal, thats the socially programmed model. All 'rights' are already legal.

sure when corruption sets in as it always does might takes over, no push, no shove required

 

Legal rights are those that are established by government. Period.

Maybe you mean "natural rights". But, there is no "natural right" to speech, guns, or whatever.

Nature doesn't adjudicate speech.

 

It is impossible to prove no god exists. You cannot logically prove a universal negative.

 

Too funny! I had never thought about it.

And if there are no rights, how can there be any lefts?

 

In the world of tyrants like King George, he did not acknowledge Rights. But, let's get past that to the foundational principles upon which this country was built. Here is an excerpt for you from an article that may shed some light on your question:

"Yet as Governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War, Jefferson welcomed a delegation from the Kaskaskia Indians. This followed a campaign in the Ohio Valley of Virginia militia led by George Rogers Clark, older brother of William Clark. There, Clark made alliances with some of the Indian nations, including the Kaskaskia of the Illinois country, and then attacked the British and the Indians allied with them at villages in present-day Illinois and Indiana. This warfare put Virginia's government into direct contact with western Indian nations and precipitated the visit of the Kaskaskia delegation with Virginia's governor.

In an exchange of speeches with the leader of the Kaskaskia, a chief of partial French ancestry named Jean Baptiste du Coigne, Jefferson expressed his ambitions for the future of the Anglo-American and Native American relationship. He looked forward to the day when the Indians would adopt white American ways and the two groups would live together in peace. Jefferson's speech prefigured the manner in which he, and most white Americans, would view American Indians in the decades to come. They worried about Indians becoming enemies in times of war, and they sought to keep them at peace through treaties and through a project of "civilization" that would try to make Indian culture resemble that of the Anglo-Americans."

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-j...he-expedition/jefferson-and-american-indians/

That was the direction the leadership of our forefathers wanted to go. But, far too many people do not understand the difference between unalienable Rights and the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

WHEN white people first began settling here, they were under the jurisdiction of King George. You want to blame the first Americans for the policies of a tyrant thousands of miles away.

 

I only advocate for unalienable Rights. The earliest court decisions say those Rights existed before the government was formed. Why don't you argue your position in the courts and tell them they were wrong? Why keep beating the same dead horse here every day?

 

false, true? Which is it. Nothing is legal without a gubmint

 

King George was the gov't. He set the rules and rights, if any.

Treaties? Legal rights. By the gov't. Granted and enforced. Not unalienable. Not Natural.

Name 1 unalienable right afforded every single human on earth. Afterall, unalienable is Natural.

 

"Unalienable" is a great adjective. But, our founders were forming a government, tthey weren't forming a religion. In fact, they were dividing between government and religion not even in terms of some particular religion, but of religion in generaal.

A better description is that they identified some rights that they believed to be required based on how humans are assembled - what human nature is. They are "unalienable" in that humans are not constructed such that being without them is a tollerable state.


So, our founders determined to create a government that honored and protected those human requirements.

 

and the failure to comprehend that by our opponents is why they dont belong in this thread.

He gets so much wrong its a waste of time even trying.

Like I said, fits a jtrig MO to a T.

 

He had the same rank as our president, and I have news for you, our president creates law in every EO he writes.

life

which is not to claim some dirty bastard would not violate your right to life and kill you, does not change the fact you have the right with or without gubmint.

if someone were to kill you they would be tried for murder because you had a right to life even after you are dead.

da gub is only chartered to be the enforcement arm, nothing more.

 

Life

 

That made no sense. In any rendering of the words, they are false and lack any substantiation. You're flailing about like a fish in a barrel.

I've come to the conclusion that you and the other guy don't have any cogent argument to make so you're now throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. All we can do is summarize what is factual:

1) The first governing document of the New World was unequivocal in its language:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith" (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

2) The colonists sought religious Liberty and, after much thoughtful debate, ratified the Declaration of Independence. That document states (in part):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

3) The colonists separated from King George, fought a war and won the Right to set up a government that embodied those presuppositional ideals for which they were willing to die for

4) The word unalienable had a very specific meaning that was defined by the earliest courts AND codified in the Bill of Rights

Those are the facts. No amount of fluff and bluff, filibustering or attempts to rewrite history can change the bottom line. If it takes force to compel people to respect your unalienable Rights, then BFD.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence) Sooo... our laws are built upon those principles of unalienable Rights and since you have Rights, there also comes the duty, obligation and the Right to protect those Rights. If I do not consent to tyranny; if I do not choose to be governed by those who would endanger my Life, Liberty and / or hinder my unalienable Right to pursue Happiness, then I'm not obligated to consent to a damn thing. As long as I don't infringe upon the Rights of another, the government has guaranteed us (under the Constitution) a Republican form of Government (Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States) and if it takes a force of arms to protect those unalienable Rights, then we are authorized by the laws of God, the laws of Nature, and the Constitution (as originally written and intended.)

Anything else is speculation.

 

What you say makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Even a small board like this could attract a number of people that read the message, but never post. The censorship and the daily filibustering by the same old usual suspects could explain their real motivation. After all, who in the Hell would oppose Freedom and Liberty to the degree that they stay on a discussion board 24 / 7 and throw up any kind of word salad and keep repeating points that have been refuted by historical facts and settled points of law within the courts?

I kind of feel like a rodent on a treadmill AND have noticed that these people exist on most discussion boards just to rehash the same crap seven days a week. You have to be awfully damn dedicated to work a computer 7 days a week, looking for ways to cast doubt on those who are advocating for Liberty and Freedom. It appears that they have no life outside of a pissant discussion board. Then you look at all the boards and find the same MO. There are three or four daily posters (7 day a week posters) who revel in attacking the core principles upon which the Republic rests. Truth be known, it's probably a dozen or fewer people working at the behest of anti-American groups or organizations - and probably paid to disrupt the flow of legitimate information in favor of B.S. arguments.

The one thing those critics have in common is that they never have an original idea. We supply the facts of history and law, be it scholarly articles, statutes, cases, court definitions, etc. and they simply attack it and cast aspersions on the people who wrote the material. They never offer up a factual refutation as NONE exists. They just keep filibustering, bluffing and posting utter nonsense. Once you've established a fact, they go into long harangues, hoping to hide the meaningful material in a sea of irrelevant posts so that most people won't read the substantive material and then we rehash the facts, get treated to their pointless harangues. It's just a vicious cycle where these people who have NO facts that give any credibility to their claims serve as disinformation agents for those who are against America. I think you're right.

 

Wrong. You and tRUMP might believe that. But our constitution doesn't believe or allow the prez to be king.

We agree, life might be, the only Natural right we have. And if someone wants to end it, might makes right will determine which life remains.
And if not for legal means, the winner gets to live on freely. But in the legal(gubmint) world, the winner likely goes to prison if deemed to be against the dead person's rights. Legal.

Without da gub, there is nothing chartered to be the enforcement arm. Without an enforcement arm, there are no rights, except might.

 

Wow, we agree.
But then I said the many many many posts ago.

The only Natural right all humans have is the right to life. In most aspects, since it's a Natural right, all living creatures basically have that right.

Why did it take so long for you and even Kokomojojo admits to.

Where we differ, is you seem to think there are other Natural rights. I don't see any more. Just constructs of legal means to grant more in civilized worlds.

 

The Mayflower compact of 1620 shows a dedication to the advent of Christianity - NOT any respect for "unalienable" rights of pursuit of happiness by those within their colony. In general, I don't know of any good examples of religion working to support a right for people to pursue their own happiness. The message of Jesus, for example, is about duty, not rights to seek life, liberty or happiness.

The idea that the rights enumerated in the constitution can not be limited by government is a fiction. Rights are limited all the time - here in the USA as well as abroad. In fact, that's the way it HAS to be.

What IS true is that if some constituency wants to limit a right (or take action not currently protected), there has to be a serious argument for doing so - an argument that is respected by the courts, since that's how we make such decisions. That's a whole area of constitutional law.

 

Nobody grants me an unalienable Right. I will use the best technology has to offer within my budget in order to defend and protect that life as they are extensions of the Right. Same with all the other unalienable Rights.

 

You need some new material. Somebody wake me if this guy gets it right.

I've come to the conclusion that you and the other guy don't have any cogent argument to make so you're now throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. All we can do is summarize what is factual:

1) The first governing document of the New World was unequivocal in its language:

'In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith" (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)

2) The colonists sought religious Liberty and, after much thoughtful debate, ratified the Declaration of Independence. That document states (in part):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

3) The colonists separated from King George, fought a war and won the Right to set up a government that embodied those presuppositional ideals for which they were willing to die for

4) The word unalienable had a very specific meaning that was defined by the earliest courts AND codified in the Bill of Rights

Those are the facts. No amount of fluff and bluff, filibustering or attempts to rewrite history can change the bottom line. If it takes force to compel people to respect your unalienable Rights, then BFD.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence) Sooo... our laws are built upon those principles of unalienable Rights and since you have Rights, there also comes the duty, obligation and the Right to protect those Rights. If I do not consent to tyranny; if I do not choose to be governed by those who would endanger my Life, Liberty and / or hinder my unalienable Right to pursue Happiness, then I'm not obligated to consent to a damn thing. As long as I don't infringe upon the Rights of another, the government has guaranteed us (under the Constitution) a Republican form of Government (Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States) and if it takes a force of arms to protect those unalienable Rights, then we are authorized by the laws of God, the laws of Nature, and the Constitution (as originally written and intended.)

Anything else is speculation.

 

Are you going to suggest that any of the numerous rights limits is a justification for crynig tyranny?

I think we need to remember that our rights are "unalienable", that they may be derived in some way from the nature of man, that they are built-in requirements for humans to live fullfilling lives, etc..

But, they aren't absolute. For example, our first amendment right of freedom of speech doesn't mean there can be no laws limiting our speech.

Our government has the rightful task of arbitrating the maze of conflicting rights posed by individuals and government objectives within our borders.

I'd point out that one of our rights is to be treated equally by government. But, we all know that government does NOT treat us equally. Are you going to suggest that there can be no justification for differences in how government treats those within our borders?

I just think you're overly tied up with your absolutism, your focus on your own personal happiness, and ideas of connecting this to your own religion in some way. As we see on a regular basis, the general direction of religion is not to hand out rights for personal pursuit of hapiness. The more common direction is to see ones own religion as defining how the full population must act - who can get married, the degree to which an individual may control treatment of ones person. Whether the more popular religion should have a special position in education. Etc. And, that's certainly true for Christianity, where Jesus did not suggest we have rights AT ALL! He pointed out that we have some fairly extensive duties I think it was Paul who stated that government leaders were chosen by god - even those of Rome at the time!! That's a long ways from suggesting that the government of Rome was illegitimate because of the many "unalienable" rights that Rome didn't allow..

Isn't that what makes America special for its time?

In the face of our religious colonies and their harsh restrictions, in the face of government history in England, and without other models in history, our founders were able to distill the needs of humans and find a way to create a government that recognizes those needs - even assurring freedom of religion.

Then, they sold that even to colonies that were enjoying full control over their people through their religious governments!

 

You need some new material. All of this has been asked, answered and refuted factually, point by point in this thread. You should quit repeating yourself.

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" II Corinthians 3: 17

"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof..." Leviticus 25 : 10 (Just one of many places we find the First Amendment)

"Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luke 12 : 3

Rehashing the same crap over and over every day is your feeble attempt to stomp out any productive conversation. We've already had this conversation. You were wrong then; you were proven wrong then and all we have today is a new day. You need some new material. You don't even have a citation to verify that the founders / framers thought ANYTHING like you claim. Did I mention, you need some new material?

 

I dont know about him but I damn sure will!
Its ****ing contract that we the people has no say what so ever when the tyrants use their bullshit interpretations to support their private agendas.

Bullshit, thats exactly what it means, UNLESS the people sign a stipulation otherwise.
Like I said and as usual you and your ilk dont get it,

Da gubmint is the judge , jury and executioner of the very contract it is a party to, that since you most likely dont know any better is racketeering.

He is 1000% correct, I dont have any problem what so ever if the gubmint wants to run a referendum for the people to vote in a stip, provided it is left open at the peoples behest to modify it in the future if the gubmint reneges as they always do.

Only the name changes.

The mormon religion, polyamory outlawed by da gub religion.

No cancer drugs without da gubmint permission. I dont give a **** if they might hurt themselves, its their ****ing body so spare evengelizing their protection racket.

Yes atheist agenda and false god, like darwin, gubmint dependencey.

They could have been but they chose corruption instead which is why so much of the world hastes us.

Theres no freedom of religion when the gub regulates it, that kookoo ****.

noting has changed but the name.

 

Your verses are coming from the perspective of religion, not government.

The Pauline letters were written to young churches that certainly didn't have Earthly liberty. Any liberty they had was the liberty of the soul, not of Earthly life. The "spirit" had been carried to Rome, for example. But, in Rome there was no Earthly liberty for Christians.

And, pointing to Leviticus as a source of liberty is absolutely hilarious!

Have you ever read Leviticus?

I based my comments on our founders' actions, which are well documented.

 

I don't see any evidence that our founders actually thought our rights were absolute.

That's just not a feasable position to take.