Are all rights created equal?

[bucs90]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OddINatuAXw&feature=related

Uhh.. that's not a "SWAT team".

That's just cops.

I never said "SWAT" teams, I said "tactical" teams, they are not the same thing. Although, a brief check of You Tube will show some "SWAT" teams also raiding organic farms.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Police Begin "Guns Drawn" Raids on Organic Food Stores in California - YouTube

I stand corrected, one of the cops had his gun out.

Still not a "tac team" or a "SWAT team".

 

[bucs90]

Police Begin "Guns Drawn" Raids on Organic Food Stores in California - YouTube

I stand corrected, one of the cops had his gun out.

Still not a "tac team" or a "SWAT team".

"Tactical Teams" aren't "SWAT" teams. "Tac teams" do search warrants, prisoner transports, the low risk stuff that patrol doesn't do. "SWAT" teams do active shooters, hostages, and extremely high risk arrest warrants. I did say "tac" team, not swat team. Although, in some PD's some of the same guys are on both teams.

 

[bucs90]

Anyway.........sell the cow's meat, you're ok. Sell it's milk, you go to jail. Yay freedom!

 

[auditor0007]

An always smarter-than-me liberal refused to answer this question. So, why not post it to all? Very simple. Are all rights created equal?

Do some rights warrant a permit to exercise that right, thus meaning it's not really a right but a privilege that the government can permit, or not?

Do some rights warrant a fine or payment of cash to be allowed to practice it?

Do some rights carry the burden of showing an ID or going through a background check to practice them?

Very simple question. Are rights created equal? If the govt can give/take the right, is it really a "right" or a privilege? If we have no rights, but only privileges that the govt can take, give, manage, then what exactly are we as a people?????????

The government cannot take any right away from us period; however, those who we elect to represent us can, with our support, set guidelines and parameters as to whether or not there might be restrictions set in regards to those rights. I suppose you could actually say that many of our rights are actually privileges but that is because, as a society, we have chosen it to be that way.

As an example, lets take a look at the right to own a gun. We generally deny that right to people who have committed felonies in the past. In certain circumstances there are waiting periods and background checks necessary before someone can purchase a gun. These are all guidelines set up by government to protect us, but again, we choose whom we elect to represent us and to make these rules in the first place. If, as a whole, we decide we want felons to have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then we will elect people who believe the same and will support our wishes.

 

[auditor0007]

"Rights" don't exist as anything more than "things the government lets you do".

Incorrect.

Right cease to exist when the individuals fail to fight back. Governments that take rights by force are tyrannies.

They are not tyrannies if we elect them.

 

[Darkwind]

"Rights" don't exist as anything more than "things the government lets you do".

Incorrect.

Right cease to exist when the individuals fail to fight back. Governments that take rights by force are tyrannies.

They are not tyrannies if we elect them.

Of course they are. By taking rights from individuals, they are stepping outside the boundaries of their authority.

 

[auditor0007]

An always smarter-than-me liberal refused to answer this question. So, why not post it to all? Very simple. Are all rights created equal?

Do some rights warrant a permit to exercise that right, thus meaning it's not really a right but a privilege that the government can permit, or not?

Do some rights warrant a fine or payment of cash to be allowed to practice it?

Do some rights carry the burden of showing an ID or going through a background check to practice them?

Very simple question. Are rights created equal? If the govt can give/take the right, is it really a "right" or a privilege? If we have no rights, but only privileges that the govt can take, give, manage, then what exactly are we as a people?????????

"Should there be a basic stupidity check prior to issuing a license to drive on roads shared with the rest of us?"


In the humble opinion of this average liberal, the answer is 'duh'.

The right to drive is an absolute privilege, not a right. I think even cons would agree to this one, but then again.....

 

[auditor0007]

"Rights" don't exist as anything more than "things the government lets you do".

No, they exist. Tyrannical governments simply use force to suppress people's ability to enjoy them.

For example, do you/should you have the right to eat any natural, edible product of the Earth? Weed, for example, which I think should be legal. How about other naturally occurring and edible food items? Does a human have a right to eat them?

We have a right to do anything we can. It's really simple.

Absolutely wrong. You don't have a right to rob someone else, or to rape them, or to murder them. You definitely do not have a right to do anything you can or want.

 

[auditor0007]

An always smarter-than-me liberal refused to answer this question. So, why not post it to all? Very simple. Are all rights created equal?

Do some rights warrant a permit to exercise that right, thus meaning it's not really a right but a privilege that the government can permit, or not?

Do some rights warrant a fine or payment of cash to be allowed to practice it?

Do some rights carry the burden of showing an ID or going through a background check to practice them?

Very simple question. Are rights created equal? If the govt can give/take the right, is it really a "right" or a privilege? If we have no rights, but only privileges that the govt can take, give, manage, then what exactly are we as a people?????????

"Should there be a basic stupidity check prior to issuing a license to drive on roads shared with the rest of us?"


In the humble opinion of this average liberal, the answer is 'duh'.

Roll eyes all you want, but how about think before you type.

Of coure driving is NOT a right, it's a privilege. The govt creates roads. You dont need a license to drive on your own private property, only on government roads.

But...there were no cars in the year 1600. People created cars. Government maintains roads. Both are 'created', thus, the use of them was created, and not a "right".

The right to attempt to survive, as an umbrella, meaning right to eat, sleep, drink, etc, etc, is more what I'm talking about. "Rights" government didn't create, and can't take.

Of course, if you lefties wanna take the stance that people have no rights, go for it.

I find it interesting that you include the right to eat as a right. Does that mean you support welfare programs for those who cannot afford to feed themselves?

 

[Darkwind]

"Should there be a basic stupidity check prior to issuing a license to drive on roads shared with the rest of us?"


In the humble opinion of this average liberal, the answer is 'duh'.

Roll eyes all you want, but how about think before you type.

Of coure driving is NOT a right, it's a privilege. The govt creates roads. You dont need a license to drive on your own private property, only on government roads.

But...there were no cars in the year 1600. People created cars. Government maintains roads. Both are 'created', thus, the use of them was created, and not a "right".

The right to attempt to survive, as an umbrella, meaning right to eat, sleep, drink, etc, etc, is more what I'm talking about. "Rights" government didn't create, and can't take.

Of course, if you lefties wanna take the stance that people have no rights, go for it.

I find it interesting that you include the right to eat as a right. Does that mean you support welfare programs for those who cannot afford to feed themselves?

Does the highlighted mean anything to you? I'm curious as to your comprehension skills as he never said anything about the right to eat, but the right to attempt to survive, which included eating. Meaning, of course, that you have to work at, or attempt, to survive.

Life requires full participation.. you knew that, right?

 

[bucs90]

"Should there be a basic stupidity check prior to issuing a license to drive on roads shared with the rest of us?"


In the humble opinion of this average liberal, the answer is 'duh'.

Roll eyes all you want, but how about think before you type.

Of coure driving is NOT a right, it's a privilege. The govt creates roads. You dont need a license to drive on your own private property, only on government roads.

But...there were no cars in the year 1600. People created cars. Government maintains roads. Both are 'created', thus, the use of them was created, and not a "right".

The right to attempt to survive, as an umbrella, meaning right to eat, sleep, drink, etc, etc, is more what I'm talking about. "Rights" government didn't create, and can't take.

Of course, if you lefties wanna take the stance that people have no rights, go for it.

I find it interesting that you include the right to eat as a right. Does that mean you support welfare programs for those who cannot afford to feed themselves?

Does the lack of me paying for their food.......prevent them from freely being able to eat? No. They have the right to eat. They do not have a right to other peoples money, however. Welfare is a privilege. Not a right. Despite what the left thinks.

 

[bucs90]

Roll eyes all you want, but how about think before you type.

Of coure driving is NOT a right, it's a privilege. The govt creates roads. You dont need a license to drive on your own private property, only on government roads.

But...there were no cars in the year 1600. People created cars. Government maintains roads. Both are 'created', thus, the use of them was created, and not a "right".

The right to attempt to survive, as an umbrella, meaning right to eat, sleep, drink, etc, etc, is more what I'm talking about. "Rights" government didn't create, and can't take.

Of course, if you lefties wanna take the stance that people have no rights, go for it.

I find it interesting that you include the right to eat as a right. Does that mean you support welfare programs for those who cannot afford to feed themselves?

Does the highlighted mean anything to you? I'm curious as to your comprehension skills as he never said anything about the right to eat, but the right to attempt to survive, which included eating. Meaning, of course, that you have to work at, or attempt, to survive.

Life requires full participation.. you knew that, right?

Couldn't have explained it any better.

 

[ladyliberal]

Weed should be legal. So should eating a deer. And owning a weapon to harvest that deer. However, Obama's EPA has sent armed tactical teams in to arrest people for drinking milk fresh from a cow. Eat a deer or pig, you're ok. Drink the cows milk, go to jail.

And yes, I got that from a show, saw it last night and was shocked by it.

That never happened.

Yes, it did:

U.S. News - Amish farmer targeted by FDA raids shuts down raw milk business

THere are MANY MANY more.

No it didn't, or at least your posts do not support that claim. You already noted in your previous post that your original post was incorrect. As I count it your claims are inaccurate in that:

- It was the FDA, not the EPA. This is important in that the EPA does not have the legal authority to do what the FDA did.

- The violation was transporting (unpasteurized) milk across state lines for sale, not drinking milk.

-Contrary to your claim, your source does not mention anyone being arrested.

So your claim was correct, except for what happened, why it happened, and who did it.

 

[auditor0007]

Obama's EPA has sent armed tactical teams in to arrest people for drinking milk fresh from a cow. Drink the cows milk, go to jail.

And yes, I got that from a show, saw it last night and was shocked by it.

I frankly find this very difficult to believe. Could I see a source on it?

A quick one: "Rawesome" Raw Milk Farm Raided...Again | The Healthy Advocate

Saw it on John Stossel last night. They had all the surveillance video of the tac teams raiding the farms. I found it hard to believe too, but it is. You cannot serve milk straight from a cow. Must be pasteurized. Raw milk will get you raided. My correction though, it was FDA, not EPA, that was my mistype.

Here is a better link. The story from your link seems to be an over-sensationalized version. It still has merit, but I think they over did it a bit.

L.A. County arrests 3 over raw milk - Los Angeles Times

What this seems to boil down to is that it is not illegal to sell raw milk, but in order to do so , you have to have certain permits, just as you do to sell just about anything. You can't open a restaurant without permits and you must pass inspections from the health department or they will shut you down.

Beyond this though, it does seem that there may be some high pressure persuasion taking place in various government agencies by a very powerful dairy industry to try to shut these guys down. Just saying, it seems like there is a lot more to this story than the bad guys coming in to harass and destroy this man's business.

 

[bucs90]

So it's like the lemonade situation. Pick your own lemonades, set up a stand on the sidewalk, sell lemonade, and do so without getting govt permission, and you get fined. Milk your cow, sell it, and you could go to jail.

Basically, getting to a point where we need government permission to take a shit.

 

[USMCSergeant]

Our founding fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution believed certain things to be rights given to us by our creator. Which to some is semantics, but these rights are the fundamental difference between our country and countries such as Cuba, the UK, Spain, and every other country. Do I think they are created equal... no I do not.

The second amendment should be very clear. It has over time become clouded with people interpreting it. It's very simple. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I see this as two parts. States need militias to maintain freedom, and that the rights of all people to own firearms shall not be infringed. Jefferson found this amendment to be so important that he ends it with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No other amendment ends like that. Jefferson's opinions on this matter are not hard to find. He has numerous quotes attributed to him about his feelings on firearms, as does George Washington. Also the Supreme Court has validated that the 2nd amendment does apply to individuals. There should no longer be a debate about the validity, or the meaning of this amendment.

What most worry about is the term "common sense gun laws" because to one person, a law could seem sensible, but to another, seem unconstitutional. That is where democracy comes into play, and exactly how rights can become priviledges. I do not think violators of certain felonies should ever own weapons. But I also think requiring me to pay 100 dollars to the local Sherrif, 10 dollars to local mental heatlh, an 8 hour safety class, a 3 month wait, in order for me to carry my weapon, to be very excessive. Common sense gun laws could also become slippery slope arguments, 3 day wait period could easily become a 3 month wait period. Mentally handicapped unable to own firearms could start enveloping PTSD patients, or anxiety patients, etc.. At what point do these laws stop. I also think a city making it virtually impossible, or extremely hard to obtain a permit to be in violation of the constitution. But there are cities out there that have these issues, and it remains so.

Our 2nd amendment rights have not been under attack recently, thankfully. I also doubt they will be anytime soon, as firearms are becoming very popular even to my liberal friends as of late. Which is a good thing.

 

[bripat9643]

"Rights" don't exist as anything more than "things the government lets you do".

So black slaves had no rights? Is that really what you're saying?

 

[bripat9643]

"Rights" don't exist as anything more than "things the government lets you do".

Incorrect.

Right cease to exist when the individuals fail to fight back. Governments that take rights by force are tyrannies.

They are not tyrannies if we elect them.

Wrong.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who gets to define a right?