Time for a Coalition of Free American States

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, that's true.  A right is a right.   

Except when rescinded by law.

A convict in prison does not have the right to keep and bear arms.  That right, along with the right to move freely, has been revoked because he's been adjudicated guilty of a crime.  This is what the Fifth Amendment is about.

There's a difference between having a right and being able to exercise that right.  And in the end, if the Rodents get their wish and every person with a gun (who isn't (b)LM or Aunty Fa)  is deprived of their property and thrown in prison for having a gun, then the right is effectively nullified because it wasn't properly exercised when it needed to be.

 

As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, "Rights" are understood to be in the eye of free exercise thereof.  And yes, they have been whittled away over the centuries.

[Sled Dog]

As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, "Rights" are understood to be in the eye of free exercise thereof.  And yes, they have been whittled away over the centuries.

Rights are precious.   Which is why the Rodents demand to make evil ideas into "rights" when they are not.

There's no "right" to abortion.   A right cannot exist that violates a higher right held by another.   One cannot have the right to murder...that violates the other's right to life.

The Constitution, of course, does not grant a single right.  Nor does the Declaration of Independence.   They merely state on the one hand what lines the government may not cross, and the DOI merely states in the most general of terms, what might be considered a right.

Ah, that's what I forgot, here:
Rights cannot be paid for by others.  Nobody has a "right" to "health care", if that means some third party has to be taxed to fund the services provided.    People have a right to keep and bear arms, they get to buy their own guns and ammo.   People have a right to health care in that they are free to go to the doctor and pay him for services rendered.

[HoustonSam]

Rights are precious.   Which is why the Rodents demand to make evil ideas into "rights" when they are not.

There's no "right" to abortion.   A right cannot exist that violates a higher right held by another.   One cannot have the right to murder...that violates the other's right to life.

The Constitution, of course, does not grant a single right.  Nor does the Declaration of Independence.   They merely state on the one hand what lines the government may not cross, and the DOI merely states in the most general of terms, what might be considered a right.

Ah, that's what I forgot, here:
Rights cannot be paid for by others.  Nobody has a "right" to "health care", if that means some third party has to be taxed to fund the services provided.    People have a right to keep and bear arms, they get to buy their own guns and ammo.   People have a right to health care in that they are free to go to the doctor and pay him for services rendered.

I like your thinking here @Sled Dog.  We talk a lot about rights but I've never seen a good definition of "right".  The best I've been able to come up with is an interest someone has in an activity which is more compelling than anyone else's interest in preventing that activity.  I realize that's a weasel-word sounding approach but it's the best I've been able to do.

Rights do not come from government or from documents, but they have to be recognized by government to be effective, and government is not required to recognize that all people have the same rights in all places at all times.  Citizens have a right to vote for example, while non-citizens do not.

I don't think people have rights to goods or services, but they do have rights to purchase goods and services.  If someone has a right to healthcare for example, that means physicians and nurses can be compelled by force of law to provide that health care.  Now we might agree to such a requirement in the moment of an emergency, but I don't see how we could say that health care would *always* be a right in that sense; it would reduce the practice of medicine to forced labor.  Any time a physical condition of life is described as a "right" it implies that someone else can be required to provide that physical condition - adequate food, education, etc.  No one has a right to receive anything, but everyone has the same right to pursue goods, services, education, etc. through free commerce.

[goatprairie]

I like your thinking here @Sled Dog.  We talk a lot about rights but I've never seen a good definition of "right".  The best I've been able to come up with is an interest someone has in an activity which is more compelling than anyone else's interest in preventing that activity.  I realize that's a weasel-word sounding approach but it's the best I've been able to do.

Rights do not come from government or from documents, but they have to be recognized by government to be effective, and government is not required to recognize that all people have the same rights in all places at all times.  Citizens have a right to vote for example, while non-citizens do not.

I don't think people have rights to goods or services, but they do have rights to purchase goods and services.  If someone has a right to healthcare for example, that means physicians and nurses can be compelled by force of law to provide that health care.  Now we might agree to such a requirement in the moment of an emergency, but I don't see how we could say that health care would *always* be a right in that sense; it would reduce the practice of medicine to forced labor.  Any time a physical condition of life is described as a "right" it implies that someone else can be required to provide that physical condition - adequate food, education, etc.  No one has a right to receive anything, but everyone has the same right to pursue goods, services, education, etc. through free commerce.

Excellent summation. If everybody has a "right" to health care, home, food, water, etc., then if they are denied any of those things, they have the "right" to take them...forcibly if necessary.
That's how leftists twist the meaning of the word rights.
I certainly agree that democratic nations (yes, the U.S. is a democratic republic) should do the utmost to provide opportunities to its citizens to fairly access those things with the understanding that since nobody is equal in talents/ability to access what they need, some will have more than others. Some will have a lot more than others.
But leftists just can't accept that. Even though none of the numerous liberal multi-millionaires and billionaires  currently provide the "poor and oppressed" with a goodly share of their filthy lucre, they keep proclaiming that things just aren't fair. I haven't heard where Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etal are inviting the nation's homeless into any of their many mansions and giving them financial aid to boot.
Things are fair...they're just not what libs and leftists think is fair. That 99% of the adults in country are where they are because of who they are and not some evil other is an idea they can't tolerate.
They certainly don't want things to be exactly equal, they love being filthy rich, but they keep pounding the drum for total equality. Total equality= total misery ala Cuba, Venezuela with the people on top living like the kings and queens or yore while everybody else lives like serfs.

[Fishrrman]

Sleddog wrote:
"Secession requires war."

Yes, it might. So...?

"We should avoid war when legal alternatives still exist, such as Article V."

Article V can solve nothing now, with the DC government in the hands of communists -- particularly if they construct "underground election apparati" where needed to control elections and remain in power.

"You can't even trust that the US military will be on your side or that they won't shoot Americans"

They WON'T be "on our side". Why do you think the military is being transformed and "woke-un" the way it's going now?

They WILL shoot "Americans". At least the white ones.
That's why with the New Continental Congress, there must be raised a new Continental Army as well.

Sled Dog, there are four choices in your future:
1. A peaceful "separation of the states" (which will involve re-drawing some state lines);
2. A separation of the states as above, but one that will be achieved through "non-peaceful" means;
3. A separation of the states, after which the traditional-freedom states seek to defeat the new-slavery/communist states, and force them back into the Union, a la Reconstruction II;
or finally...
4. Submission to the newly communist DC government.

Choices 1 and 4 are "peaceful".
Choices 2 and 3 will not be.

Once more, Fishrrman's "American Timeline":
2019: USA -- United States of America
20??: USSA -- United Socialist States of America
20??: USSSA -- United Soviet Socialist States of America
20??:  ?????

[AARguy]

I didn't see states joining together to reject immigration laws as "SECESSION". I just see it as a crack in the moral and legal fiber of the USA. I do not see states banding together to defend 2d Amendment rights as "SECESSION". I simply see it as weakness in the federal government to defend our rights. I do not view anything currently going on as leading to "SECESSION".  I do see lots of things, though, leading to confusion and chaos. Most are due to ignorance. Here is an example: Some folks ask "Why do people need guns?" This question demonstrates that people do not understand the nature of God Given Rights. It's as logical a question as "Why do people need to vote?" We do not need to justify RIGHTS. We wrote a document that all agreed to that says we can speak freely. Congregate freely. Vote freely. Defend ourselves freely.

Every few years someone comes along and questions our RIGHT to seek happiness... work where and how we want... earn what we are willing to work for... raise our kids the way we wish... speak our minds... share ideas... eat what we are willing to earn... and defend ourselves along the way.

Every few years propaganda rears its ugly head... tyranny appears... and the few try to control the many. Now, in America, from the border to schools, from taxes to newscasts, and from elections to fuel to groceries... it is our turn to bear the tyranny of the few until the inevitable elimination of their influence is accomplished.