PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

"Even if I am locked in Gtmo and being tortured, and am made to wipe my ass with copies of the american bill of rights, that doesnt alter the fact that those rights are still mine. Yes they are being violated, but they are still intact. I still have the right to life, even when that right is violated. I have the right to be secure in my person and property, even if the right is violated. I have the right to free speech, even if that right is violated. "

I totally agree. But are you saying that if you came on a vacation here in europe and were arrested for carrying a gun, would your rights still be violated?

Actually I live in europe, but yes. If i was arrested for owning a gun then I believe my rights are being violated.

At this moment in time I own no firearms, I do have many other items that would be called weapons, I also have many tools that could be used as weapons . It is my right to have these things and I wouldnt give any of them up without a fight. They are mine.

Me$$iah wrote:hey alfonso.
I still have the right to life, even when that right is violated.

This is simplistic. You don't have the right to life if you are in a mall randomly shooting people.

Many people in here are talking about their rights but they don't consider the rights of the rest of us that are affected by these so called rights.

braincell wrote:

Me$$iah wrote:hey alfonso.
I still have the right to life, even when that right is violated.

This is simplistic. You don't have the right to life if you are in a mall randomly shooting people.

I do not understand this. Why not ?

Its not natural. I do not aprove of it, however you can still do it, thus its your right!

Me$$iah wrote:hey alfonso.

Sorry to tell ya this, but your definition of rights and privelidges is wrong.
Its about permission. A right is somthing you dont need permission for, ie I can walk up and down on my property. A privelidge is something where need to get permission from someone else.

Well, it fits. Rights are the area of your freedom that no one can touch, so it's practically a negative prescription to the others. You are free to walk in your property because no one can limit you. A privilege is something you are allowed to do not related to a limitation of the others' action against you. For example you can hunt in some periods in the year and not in others, because there is a stronger right of the community to preserve the wildlife equilibrium, without which you couldn't even get that privilege because there wouldn't be anything to hunt after a while.

But I've seen there is a basic confusion between the sources of the rights and the privileges and also a confusion between two powers that have to be considered as separate, the executive one and the legislative. The government doesn't make the laws, but the representatives do. The Constitution has a different degree of importance than the laws voted in the Congress. In fact Constitution prevails. Or should. A big fault of the American system i.m.o. is that the jurisdictional power that should be the third separate power, and independent from the other 2, is too political, for two reasons.
1) The Supreme Court, which comes in the game when a conflict arises between the legislative power or the executive one and the Constitution is too politically determined.
2) The election of judges makes them sensitive to public opinion more than the observation of the law. A judge's career could be favored or destroyed if the public opinion is manouvred in a way or another. There is an evident conflict of interest between the judge's career and the strict observation of the law. The election makes an office political. That's nasty, i.m.o. Well, probably the majority of them resist, but few of them can make disasters.

Now, not because the rights don't need permission can be said that they don't have a juridical foundation. It's just that the source of the rights is mainly constitutional , but the constitution is a piece of paper that says different things in different countries. And the source of Constitutions is recognized as the people. In fact the different Constitutions and the different rights reflect the different cultures that you find in different areas of the world.

The cool thing is that also the people is a part of the juridical system and, guess what, in many European Constitutions it is recognized as the ultimate and superior source of the law. As I already said, in our concept the government, the representatives and the officers are all employees of ours. What has to be respected is the function, not the man in charge as such.

Whether is this possible to be achieved is obviously a progression in history. It's evident that democracy works if there is participation, if everything is left to the lobbies because the common citizen has to walk back and forth in his property nervously and with a gun in his hands to hit the probable trespasser
that's his choice, very much favored by the lobbies, be sure of that.

I agree with most of that alfonso.

Cept ... the source of rights isnt any particular constitution, these rights are granted inalienalbly by 'the creator' himself. This doesnt mean in any religious way... not The Creator.... but from the very act of being born as a human animal in this natural world of many animals.
Rights are inalienable... not granted by any document or decree... if rights were granted then again they wouldnt be rights.... they would have been relegated to privelidge

braincell wrote: This is simplistic.

Rights are simple.... even a two year old understands them....

ITS MINE...

thats pretty simple. rights are derived from property. If its mine its mine .... it aint yours so leave it alone.

its only when we older that we start to become confused, thatnks education system and the media etc.

Me$$iah wrote:I agree with most of that alfonso.

Cept ... the source of rights isnt any particular constitution, these rights are granted inalienalbly by 'the creator' himself. This doesnt mean in any religious way... not The Creator.... but from the very act of being born as a human animal in this natural world of many animals.
Rights are inalienable... not granted by any document or decree... if rights were granted then again they wouldnt be rights.... they would have been relegated to privelidge

All right then...we disagree on this. Not a problem, we are not alone!

Cheers.

Not sure what Mr Heston would make of all this. Less than a page of obituary and more than seven of the usual bickering.

While I didn't agree with some of his political views and activities, surely he deserves a bit more respect than this. Don't get me wrong, it may be a worthwhile discussion, but could it not have taken place on another thread?

For what it's worth, once again ....Rest in Peace Charlton Heston.

piddi(or next to nothing)-
the example you gave about the coast is a good one. it demonstrates the importance of the balance between the right to control one's property(an important right) and the right to pass freely. still even with the right to pass freely, one ahs no right to invade another's home.

the health of the community BEGINS with the respect of the rights of the individual.

let's not be foolish here either for those folks who wish to reduce to the absurd, having the right to be armed and defend one's self does NOT mean that one has the right to go around shooting up the place.

alfonso, do you know why they have those square hats when one graduates from university? they are called a mortar or hod. they represent the tools of the mason for carrying bricks and mortar up a wall. if seen from the eye of an architect(top view, bottom view, exploded view, etc), one's head has been squared off into a block. indeed, the block is called "the perfected ashlar stone", representing man's perfecting of God's imperfect works(the hubris gets pretty thick at this point). basically, it means one has become a "block head", incapable of thinking freely(thought is now directed) and fit to help create the artificial, stupid reality we now inhabit. when you want to know why there is so little logic in the world and why there's so much confusion, this little story is a good place to start.

He's dead not sleeping.

sharc wrote:Not sure what Mr Heston would make of all this. Less than a page of obituary and more than seven of the usual bickering.

While I didn't agree with some of his political views and activities, surely he deserves a bit more respect than this. Don't get me wrong, it may be a worthwhile discussion, but could it not have taken place on another thread?

For what it's worth, once again ....Rest in Peace Charlton Heston.

Most people don't own guns. One day we will outlaw guns. You will be free to leave if you wish.

Some people think the water beneath them is theirs, then they end up draining the water from a nearby town and the folks over there go "Hey! Stop that!".

Very few things are as simple as they seem to be.

Once again, whatever your rights may be, they may not infringe on the rights of others.

Me$$iah wrote:

braincell wrote: This is simplistic.

Rights are simple.... even a two year old understands them....

ITS MINE...

thats pretty simple. rights are derived from property. If its mine its mine .... it aint yours so leave it alone.

its only when we older that we start to become confused, thatnks education system and the media etc.

like you know what that means...

Chuck was vilified by some for protecting the second amendment. he was made to look like an old idiot for saying that he had a right to be armed by a man who has armed bodygaurds. the thread hasn't been very somber, but that's understandable because of his politics. certainly, his acting and movies are more important, that's why i keep mentioning Soylent Green. while doing that, the Omerga Man is another fine example of predictive programming and the need of the priest to explain to the sacrificed what is to happen.....

Rather than think about what Heston would think of this thread, let's think about what John Lennon would think about it. He adopted our nation and look at the thanks he got for it.

I love the way people think all these needless deaths are worth it just so they can feel personally safer. It's just like the war in Iraq.

garyb wrote: alfonso, do you know why they have those square hats when one graduates from university? they are called a mortar or hod. they represent the tools of the mason for carrying bricks and mortar up a wall. if seen from the eye of an architect(top view, bottom view, exploded view, etc), one's head has been squared off into a block. indeed, the block is called "the perfected ashlar stone", representing man's perfecting of God's imperfect works(the hubris gets pretty thick at this point). basically, it means one has become a "block head", incapable of thinking freely(thought is now directed) and fit to help create the artificial, stupid reality we now inhabit. when you want to know why there is so little logic in the world and why there's so much confusion, this little story is a good place to start.

Fortunately we don't have that habit here. When I graduated I was dressed normally, well, as I was dressed everyday at that time, with a jacket and a T-shirt and very long hair. I graduated while I was a working musician, in 1984 because I wanted to follow courses of philosophy, constitutional law, history and international relations because I was interested in it. Fortunately some of our best universities are public and taxes where low. I've met professors of any kind and numerous points of view. I wasn't there for a career, I already had my preferred one, just wanting to spend in a different way all the time left from gigs and sessions. I don't think this made a block head of me, nor I think that studying what the others think or listening to lessons is the way to stop having a critical approach. My life has never been made of choices for an "easy way". I don't think i inhabit a stupid reality, I don't feel that much better than the world I'm in, I think only that while the mind works by categories and the limited but useful instruments of logic, the reality is determined by necessities and forces that is quite impossible to define previously in all it's aspects. My relation with the unknown is that I simply accept my limits and I'm skeptical towards anyone who talks of gods or other absurdities, because this is what I think of the supernatural. My big problem is not with an eventual creator that I can't really see, but with all those men who claim they know the truth.

A block head is different to define....many just integrate in a system of money or beliefs because it's convenient. They are not really block heads, I'd rather say subtly assholes and hypocrite.....what I see as a symptom of mental rigidity, instead, is to think by generalizations and to extend (the real hubris) the simple but useful mechanics of our minds as the ontological essence of the universe.

I don't think the world is logic. Our mind is, or should be.

sharc wrote:
Not sure what Mr Heston would make of all this. Less than a page of obituary and more than seven of the usual bickering.

While I didn't agree with some of his political views and activities, surely he deserves a bit more respect than this. Don't get me wrong, it may be a worthwhile discussion, but could it not have taken place on another thread?

I don't think it is that important what Mr. Heston would make of all this. If his death was the start for a discussion here, that's positive, don't you think? After all we are the forum members and we exchange ideas on what we think about what he represented.
A forum is for discussion, I think...

I feel everyone in this thread everyone wants to have a debate, however, in other threads debate is not welcome.

Point taken Alfonso. Please accept my apologies if it came across like I was preaching to you guys. I just found it a little dissrespectful. Of course the forum is here for discussion and there have been some decent arguments on both sides. All the same, I think I've said all I want to say on the subject.

sharc wrote: I think I've said all I want to say on the subject.

And that is your right. And as a Scotsman one could say it was your Scottish right.

Go on Gary......



HEHEHEHE


I am so funny


sorry , I just couldnt resist it... please ignore this post

oooo ... there's no need to take the fact that I'm a cheeky bastard out on sharc now.

likewise alfonso, respect! it's good to argue, it's the only chance for understanding and growth, as long as it's not just a fight....

you're certainly no dummy, and i can always see that you are well educated. that's half of the equation. one must always ask, "what is the purpose of the education?". for you, it's one thing, for the creator of the program, it's another. a program, after all is a set of instructions to hardware, telling it how to operate. a program is software....locate the appropriate hardware. also, the "blockhead" analogy is theirs, not mine. i didn't invent it in any way.

yes, you are absolutely correct according to your teachings, but i refuse to be so limited just because someone teaches it.

bad pun there messianic one....