Text 11014, 145 rader
Skriven 2013-10-27 20:03:18 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 10984 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: APODs
=============
Hello Roy,

 LL>>>> You mean to tell me that Thomas Jefferson was *WRONG*???

 DD>>> What did he say?

 LL>> It is not so much what he said, but what he wrote.  And what Thomas
 LL>> Jefferson wrote was most certain *NOT* inalienable rights.

RW>Do you know the difference?

Yes.  But then, I was trained at Harvard (on the Bayou).  As
such, I would not expect Texans to understand.  Swedes, maybe.
But not Texans.

 LL>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
 LL>> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
 LL>> unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
 LL>> pursuit of happiness."

RW>Natural (aka unalienable rights) and legal (aka inalienble) rights.
RW>They are two different types of rights:

Natural rights and legal rights are two very different things.
Natural rights are based on natural law, legal rights are based
on whatever the fuck kind of rights a control freak might decide
to grant you.

RW>Inalienable rights are legal rights bestowed onto a person by
RW>a given legal system or government, while unalienable rights are
RW>natural rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs
RW>of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal
RW>and inalienable

Legal rights bestowed are not the same thing as rights endowed upon.
Thomas Jefferson understood the difference, as did every person who
signed the Declaration of Independence (not to mention the King of
England, who had quite a fit upon reading those traitorous words).

RW>i.e. "Creator" given rights.

"... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."

 DD>>>> Some give their life for the state (or the stripy rag).....

 LL>>>> "Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, American
 LL>>>> patriot

 DD>>> What did he get? - Ah, I see that he got death. That can happen when
 DD>>> you back people into a corner.

 LL>> Well, at least he was not a horse thief like Paul Revere.

RW>Actually there is no way to tell if that is truth or fiction.
RW>But, the poem written in 1860. It mentions that "Revere rides HIS
RW>horse through Medford, Lexington, and Concord to warn the patriots."

After Revere stole a horse from the injuns it became *his* horse.
And you know from your own history books, patriots never lie.

 DD>>>> There are NO inalienable rights - just privileges granted by the
 DD>>>> regime of the day.

 LL>>>> That's what the King of England thought - until the American
 LL>>>> colonists staged a successful revolution against his rule.

RW>Still, the King did bestow cerain inalienable rights on his
RW>subjects.

The King of England made no consent to give up any of his rights,
as the King of England got all of his rights directly from GOD.
What the Lord giveth the Lord can taketh away, but never kings as
kings are nothing but mere humans ...

RW>They were allowed to form a localized citizens congress, for
RW>instance.

What the King giveth the King can taketh away ...

RW>Y'all should know the differences between 'in' and 'un' alienable
RW>rights before expounding the same.

Yes, you really should.  It would also help if you understood
the term "consent of the governed" - as coined by Thomas Jefferson
in the Declaration of Independence.

 DD>> Even in the US today peoples' "inalienable right to life" is taken
 DD>> away from them.

 LL>> Most folks do not realize what the difference is between inalienable
 LL>> rights and unalienable rights.  The two are not the same.
 LL>> Inalienable rights can be defined as being "rights which are not
 LL>> capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of
 LL>> the one possessing such rights."

RW>Actually they can. All you have to do is look into any prison with
RW>a 'death row' to see that 'life' is or scheduled to be taken by the
RW>government, even though it is 'creator' given.

There are many prisons in America that have a `life row', but none
that have a `death row' ...

 LL>> Unalienable rights can be defined as being "the state of a thing or
 LL>> right which cannot be sold." (Definitions are from gemworld.com)

RW>I'd find a different source for you materials.

The gemworld site has an accurate definition for both words.  However,
I am sure you can find many other fine sites that can explain the terms
in even more detail than gemworld.  So please feel free to use google
to find other sites of interest.  Remember, google is your friend ...

 LL>> Thomas Jefferson was very deliberate in his choice of words.
 LL>> That is why he wrote "unalienable rights" that are "endowed by
 LL>> their Creator" - along with limited rights belonging to the
 LL>> government with the "consent of the governed".

 DD>> If the regime of the day passes legislation that you may not
 DD>> carry a firearm on a domestic flight then that "right " is taken
 DD>> away too.

RW>Not really. All one has to do to carry a firearm on a domestic
RW>flight is comply with the carrier's regulations.  It's done all
RW>the time.

Maybe in Texas, where folks are allowed to carry concealed weapons
into the Texas state capital ...

 LL>> Last week, NBA basketball legend Bill Russell tried to board an
 LL>> airplane with a loaded firearm, but was caught and arrested before
 LL>> he could do a 9/11 ...

RW>Last report was that between 9-27 and 10-17, there were a total
RW>of 99 handguns, 84 of which were loaded, found in carry on baggage.
RW>Bill Russell is a piker in the carry-on firearms department.

Russell was an idiot.  A complete and total idiot. He should have
checked his luggage before going to the airport, along with whatever
he was wearing.  I am assuming it was an honest mistake, and not a
failed attempt to hijack an airplane ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)