• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

From where do YOUR rights come?

Are your basic human rights related to your innate value established by a government authority?

  • Yes, governments set man's value and rights

    Votes: 3 2.7%

  • No, government can only protect or violate man's core rights/value

    Votes: 107 97.3%
  • Total voters
    110
T

TC.TURTLECREEK

Private
Minuteman
Apr 24, 2021
85
73
Tennessee
In light of the MSM commentary from Heidi Przybyla, I ask the question, where do you fall on the question of where your rights originate? Here is one quote if you haven't seen it, but you can google her name and read lots of comments of course.

"But the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority."

I'm curious how you see the origin of rights. The Christian nationalist vs Christian statement is just idiotic, so no need to beat that up. I'm very comfortable with the innate value of every human being and that along with that value come fixed rights that can be violated by governments, but are not created by them. It is also not established by a "free market". Certainly, your work value falls into that category, but your innate value and subsequent rights do not.

I can go on, but what say you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs
Reality...govt mandates your rights.

Go buy a gun and see if you feel any infringement on your rights.
 
Christian nationalist? Ponder on that honestly. Do you think knowing theology and sciencw behind christian movement that nationalism of any kind is compatible and used in the same sentence? Again some bullshit snake oil salesman coining up phrases to peddle bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supercorndogs and jrassy
quietmike said:
Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
Click to expand...
We often say that but is it true in practice? Rights get trampled all the time. People give up their rights daily. What I am trying to say is that where they come from is irrelevant if they are not maintained. And nobody is going to do anything about it so its not even a relevant discussion to anything other than philosophical musings.

My comments are going to ruffle feathers, but it’s true. There are no free places in the world any longer. And if You aren’t truly free then where you get these rights from is irrelevant if you are restrained in using them. Practically they don’t exist and never did, at least in the last few decades. Which means they really aren’t all that inalienable, especially when the ones allowing and restricting rights disagree with the whole notion of inalienable rights, where they come from and who controls them. That’s the reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armorpl8chikn, mosin46, diverdon and 1 other person
lariat said:
We often say that but is it true in practice? Rights get trampled all the time. People give up their rights daily. What I am trying to say is that where they come from is irrelevant if they are not maintained. And nobody is going to do anything about it so its not even a relevant discussion to anything other than philosophical musings.

My comments are going to ruffle feathers, but it’s true. There are no free places in the world any longer. And if You aren’t truly free then where you get these rights from is irrelevant if you are restrained in using them. Practically they don’t exist and never did, at least in the last few decades. Which means they really aren’t all that inalienable, especially when the ones allowing and restricting rights disagree with the whole notion of inalienable rights, where they come from and who controls them. That’s the reality.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. Americans have been complacent for far too long. More people should have taken Joe McCarthy seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kein Mitleid, armorpl8chikn, DarnYankeeUSMC and 1 other person
Rights are God given, but must be protected by us. We the people have been complacent for a century and allowed them to be taken from us by an authoritarian movement in our government. Jefferson's quote about the tree of Liberty is unfortunately proving out to be true. Force or reason are the only ways to control a people. We are being pushed beyond reason once again as a people. The last time was 1776.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: armorpl8chikn, eightyeight mag, Snipe260 and 4 others
To me, there is a specific legal reason for noting that our inalienable rights come from the Creator. Simply put, no man can take away what is given by God. And the Bill of Rights was saying this quiet part out loud.

Not that it makes sense or is even legal but if we were to say that our rights are granted to us by a democracy, then you have no rights, at all.

Hence the need to acknowledge that these rights came from God, not Man.

But Ted Nugent said it better than I have. Look at any animal with its defenses. Man, like any creature on this watery rock, has the right to self defense and to defend against tyranny. Simply as a function of being an animal, let alone a son of God. To deny that is purely illogical, regardless if believing in God or Darwin's supposition that we descended from apes, to irish people, to black people, to white northern europeans.

Surrendering or sublimating rights is another question and genitally speaking (spelling intentional,) all such actions are against the primal right of Man to exist. And any person who seeks to remove your guns is inhumane.

I know some people like to say "vote harder" as a sarcastic comment that it does not do any good.

Fuck that noise and the mule it rode in on. Vote harder, especially at smarter elections. Ones to small to use dominion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilentStalkr
Government’s sole purpose is for a select few to control, plunder, and ultimately conquer the many. This “legalized” criminal organization has never protected the “rights” of individuals as rights do not exist but if they did, gov is designed to destroy them anyhow. If you are now disillusioned, good for you. Glad I could help someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snipe260
You can argue all the stuff all you want.
But in the end, rights come from violence and force.

Those who win at using violence and force the best, tend to be the ones who decide what their "rights" will be, and they keep their "rights" so long as everybody else is scared enough of them to not want to test their resolve to use violence again.

Once they go soft, "rights" become "privileges".

Most folks who wax lyrical about the glories of the "revolution" and the "founding fathers" don't remember that the "founding fathers" turned out to be just as much or greater tyrants than the King had been.

It took a second almost mini revolution before we got our "bill of rights", the government was scared into either we get our rights or the politicians might get shot or they might get outed for being evil and not heroes.

Also remember while they wanted their "rights" most of those same "founding fathers" denied the rights of dark skinned humans and treated them as property with no rights at all. (Perhaps they forgot the same God created everyone?)
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1J04, DeathBeforeDismount, JM4590 and 7 others
Your rights are based on the size of your balls nothing else. When you let the government bend you over and you take it your a bitch, again in simple terms. Natural Selection my friend explains life not some government or authority telling you what you can or can't do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount
W54/XM-388 said:
You can argue all the stuff all you want.
But in the end, rights come from violence and force.

Those who win at using violence and force the best, tend to be the ones who decide what their "rights" will be, and they keep their "rights" so long as everybody else is scared enough of them to not want to test their resolve to use violence again.

Once they go soft, "rights" become "privileges".

Most folks who wax lyrical about the glories of the "revolution" and the "founding fathers" don't remember that the "founding fathers" turned out to be just as much or greater tyrants than the King had been.

It took a second almost mini revolution before we got our "bill of rights", the government was scared into either we get our rights or the politicians might get shot or they might get outed for being evil and not heroes.

Also remember while they wanted their "rights" most of those same "founding fathers" denied the rights of dark skinned humans and treated them as property with no rights at all. (Perhaps they forgot the same God created everyone?)
Click to expand...
Your right, even though I also say that our rights come from creation. Maintaining our exercising of our rights is only as good as our willingness to use those rights. And certainly the Federalist Papers and all the argument over that continues today.

Look at France during their revolution. Robes-Pierre and some of his ilk were just as bloodthirsty as any despot you would find. And where did all that land? No more king but not really so much freer than they were in the aristocracy. However, the people did use force because the uppity-ups were not listening.

But, in the end, I still feel we have the rights regardless of how hard we fight. My rights are not dependent upon the action or inaction of my neighbor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC.TURTLECREEK
Californio said:
I have an ancestor that left PA for deep woods KY to avoid paying Washington's Whiskey Tax.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even a Whiskey Tax

It was a truly evil horrible tax on equipment.
A tax on simply having still equipment regardless of if you made any, regardless of if it was working or not, regardless if you were broke or not.
The evil government revenue agents were traveling to the poorest people in the country and demanding they hand over money that they didn't have because they happened to have equipment.

It was basically the bankers wanted to get paid for their war profits in a huge hurry and the city slickers didn't want to pay so the city trash voted to screw the poor and really poor good and hard to make the bankers happy.

And that trend has continued to this day.

Even in the "glorious revolutionary war" it was all about war profits for the bankers...

A simple sales tax on the actual sale of Whiskey might have been fine, but then the city slickers would have had to pay that and they didn't want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosin46, camotoe, JoeZ and 2 others
W54/XM-388 said:
It wasn't even a Whiskey Tax

It was a truly evil horrible tax on equipment.
A tax on simply having still equipment regardless of if you made any, regardless of if it was working or not, regardless if you were broke or not.
The evil government revenue agents were traveling to the poorest people in the country and demanding they hand over money that they didn't have because they happened to have equipment.

It was basically the bankers wanted to get paid for their war profits in a huge hurry and the city slickers didn't want to pay so the city trash voted to screw the poor and really poor good and hard to make the bankers happy.

And that trend has continued to this day.

Even in the "glorious revolutionary war" it was all about war profits for the bankers...

A simple sales tax on the actual sale of Whiskey might have been fine, but then the city slickers would have had to pay that and they didn't want to.
Click to expand...
You mean like ad valorem taxes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs
OK, what troll or moron voted our rights are derived from the government? Maybe someone from Europe or an Aussie?

Even then, just because they live there doesn’t mean that’s where their rights are derived. Just that they’re allowing a government (i.e. men) to determine the course of their life and death.

Sad really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilentStalkr
W54/XM-388 said:
It wasn't even a Whiskey Tax

It was a truly evil horrible tax on equipment.
A tax on simply having still equipment regardless of if you made any, regardless of if it was working or not, regardless if you were broke or not.
The evil government revenue agents were traveling to the poorest people in the country and demanding they hand over money that they didn't have because they happened to have equipment.

It was basically the bankers wanted to get paid for their war profits in a huge hurry and the city slickers didn't want to pay so the city trash voted to screw the poor and really poor good and hard to make the bankers happy.

And that trend has continued to this day.

Even in the "glorious revolutionary war" it was all about war profits for the bankers...

A simple sales tax on the actual sale of Whiskey might have been fine, but then the city slickers would have had to pay that and they didn't want to.
Click to expand...
And to demonstrate that even then it really was the world elite (bankers) behind this, understand that Washington was given a bigger army to fight the Whiskey Rebellion than the War of Independence. What ever D.C. wants, you give it or be punished.

Shay's rebellion was the counties taking "delinquent" property from men who had fought in the war for years and denied the pay they were promised. Now they come home to a lien on their own property? That's some shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HD1911, W54/XM-388 and camotoe
W54/XM-388 said:
You can argue all the stuff all you want.
But in the end, rights come from violence and force.

Those who win at using violence and force the best, tend to be the ones who decide what their "rights" will be, and they keep their "rights" so long as everybody else is scared enough of them to not want to test their resolve to use violence again.

Once they go soft, "rights" become "privileges".

Most folks who wax lyrical about the glories of the "revolution" and the "founding fathers" don't remember that the "founding fathers" turned out to be just as much or greater tyrants than the King had been.

It took a second almost mini revolution before we got our "bill of rights", the government was scared into either we get our rights or the politicians might get shot or they might get outed for being evil and not heroes.

Also remember while they wanted their "rights" most of those same "founding fathers" denied the rights of dark skinned humans and treated them as property with no rights at all. (Perhaps they forgot the same God created everyone?)
Click to expand...

All true.

But until 1776, noone had ever put the philosophy that we are 'born with inalienable rights' in clear terms that serve as such a great beacon to humankind.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun, I think is the exact quote. But the power to defend rights does as well. As does the motivation to defend rights.

And the Founding Fathers made a deal with the devil when they allowed slavery. They recognized that it was problematic. And that it did not fit with the words of the Constitution (the bill of rights was still more than a decade away.) But in order to bring the Southern States into the Continental Congress and the Revolution (and later to ratify the Constitution) they needed to leave it in place. Because the Southern economy would have imploded without slavery. And there were hundreds of thousands of slaves in the South that noone knew what to do with if they were 'freed.' It was a deal with the devil. I think Jefferson called it "Holding a wolf by the ears. You didn't like it, but you didn't dare let go." And lest you think I am defending the 'northern' members of the Continental Congress and drafters of the Declaration of Independence and Constition/BoR... they definitely realized slavery was wrong. But they sure as hell didn't want the United State of America to have hundreds of thousands of black citizens at the outset. They were as racist as anyone in the 'Enlightenment.' Hey, it was what it was. We'd like to think we are better people now. Even if we make fun of the Amish.

As has been said many times, there is no First Amendment without the Second Amendment. And there is no Constitution without it, either. Or the other Amendments. Or a sovreign nation. They will ALL have to be defended. Hopefully without guns. But if it comes down to it, that's what it will come down to.

Sirhr
 
  • Like
Reactions: MediumSpeed, 91Eunozs, 79steeler and 2 others
diverdon said:
Your rights naturally attach to you at birth.
Click to expand...

No one is going to address this?

There are literally hundreds of posts on SH, many by the same members as can be found in this thread, vehemently asserting the personhood of the unborn. Do those persons not have inalienable rights attached to them?
 
Let’s think critically for a second. Hard to do for most I know. How does gov’t take “rights” away? I want a back the blue retard to answer this one.
 
candyx said:
Your rights are based on the size of your balls nothing else. When you let the government bend you over and you take it your a bitch, again in simple terms. Natural Selection my friend explains life not some government or authority telling you what you can or can't do.
Click to expand...
You must be bitch like the rest of us....taxes, background checks, car registration, etc, etc.
 
As I read all the replies, I think several do miss the point. YES, the government, by force (which if you haven't read Bastiat "The Law" you need to as it is quite relevant) can supress or impact the expression of my rights. However, my rights do not originate from any other man or entity on this planet. Why is that important? Because of the word HOPE. If people are hopeless, they are more controllable. If my rights come from the government and it says I have none, how can I hope to change that? "it" has spoken. However, if as it is, and as Sirh alluded to, it was first clearly documented in 1776, when it stated that the people were above the government, then the moral (and legal) relationship between the government and the people can be established....that being the people are above the government, not visa versa. It also eliminated the idea of rights from a king and sets the concept of social contract. Many things come from this one idea. When it is said "ideas are dangerous", this is why. Once you create the crazy concept that I AM, then I begin to get the notion I have the MORAL obligation to care for ME and those around me. I can defend those (and you) with force, but the moral idea has the real power. Also, this use of force is limited as it cannot be the force of oppression, because that violates the rights that someone else has (again, read Bastiat). If it is moral, then it is right and everyone who is decent should be willing to defend it. I don't do this to enhance myself or to gain something. Only because I AM (yes, obviously a biblical reference and I am not smart enough to state it another way). No matter whether I win or lose, I AM. Because I AM, I can never stop having the rights and they can never take them (supress, yes, but not take). My hope rests in this. As I watch our government continue to morph into something it wasn't supposed to be. As I watch it shake loose the shackles of the Constitution and become more opressive, I point to the idea established already to remind us all that might doesn't make right and as long as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness" exist in our minds, the fight isn't over.
 
TC.TURTLECREEK said:
As I read all the replies, I think several do miss the point. YES, the government, by force (which if you haven't read Bastiat "The Law" you need to as it is quite relevant) can supress or impact the expression of my rights. However, my rights do not originate from any other man or entity on this planet. Why is that important? Because of the word HOPE. If people are hopeless, they are more controllable. If my rights come from the government and it says I have none, how can I hope to change that? "it" has spoken. However, if as it is, and as Sirh alluded to, it was first clearly documented in 1776, when it stated that the people were above the government, then the moral (and legal) relationship between the government and the people can be established....that being the people are above the government, not visa versa. It also eliminated the idea of rights from a king and sets the concept of social contract. Many things come from this one idea. When it is said "ideas are dangerous", this is why. Once you create the crazy concept that I AM, then I begin to get the notion I have the MORAL obligation to care for ME and those around me. I can defend those (and you) with force, but the moral idea has the real power. Also, this use of force is limited as it cannot be the force of oppression, because that violates the rights that someone else has (again, read Bastiat). If it is moral, then it is right and everyone who is decent should be willing to defend it. I don't do this to enhance myself or to gain something. Only because I AM (yes, obviously a biblical reference and I am not smart enough to state it another way). No matter whether I win or lose, I AM. Because I AM, I can never stop having the rights and they can never take them (supress, yes, but not take). My hope rests in this. As I watch our government continue to morph into something it wasn't supposed to be. As I watch it shake loose the shackles of the Constitution and become more opressive, I point to the idea established already to remind us all that might doesn't make right and as long as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness" exist in our minds, the fight isn't over.
Click to expand...
Is this guy serious?
 
TC.TURTLECREEK said:
I AM.... :)
Click to expand...
You really need to go look at in context how these two words are used in Scripture. You admitted that you don’t know the Bible that well, so I assume what you are doing is out of ignorance. Either that or you are being intentionally heretical during the Easter season. I would prefer to think it is the former. You may have wanted to set up this thread to opine and seem intellectual, it doesn’t and the are red flags all over your posts, not the least of which is the not so subtle call to arms.
 
lariat said:
You really need to go look at in context how these two words are used in Scripture. You admitted that you don’t know the Bible that well, so I assume what you are doing is out of ignorance. Either that or you are being intentionally heretical during the Easter season. I would prefer to think it is the former. You may have wanted to set up this thread to opine and seem intellectual, it doesn’t and the are red flags all over your posts, not the least of which is the not so subtle call to arms.
Click to expand...
wow...triggered. 1st, i didn't say i dont know the bible well. 2nd, i didn't claim to be God. 3rd, i clearly stated that i wasn't being intellectual by using I AM. Now, i do apologize to YOU if you felt instulted by my use of God's words, but again, i wasn't claiming to be HIM. Instead, I was, without stating it, tying myself to HIM as He is the origin of the rights of which we are discussing. I stand firmly on the statement in the context of what I was saying.
 
lariat said:
You really need to go look at in context how these two words are used in Scripture. You admitted that you don’t know the Bible that well, so I assume what you are doing is out of ignorance. Either that or you are being intentionally heretical during the Easter season. I would prefer to think it is the former. You may have wanted to set up this thread to opine and seem intellectual, it doesn’t and the are red flags all over your posts, not the least of which is the not so subtle call to arms.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same impression I got. Dumb or a fed agitator? Flip a coin I guess.
 
Nobody that is a knowledgeable believer crosses that line out of reverence for God. Even as an esoteric object lesson, especially when it is capitalized repeatedly while referring to oneself. It’s a clue. It draws much suspicion about the rest of your posts and their holistic intention, especially the last comment calling for kinetic action. That’s why I am calling it out.
 
TC.TURTLECREEK said:
wow...triggered. 1st, i didn't say i dont know the bible well. 2nd, i didn't claim to be God. 3rd, i clearly stated that i wasn't being intellectual by using I AM. Now, i do apologize to YOU if you felt instulted by my use of God's words, but again, i wasn't claiming to be HIM. Instead, I was, without stating it, tying myself to HIM as He is the origin of the rights of which we are discussing. I stand firmly on the statement in the context of what I was saying.
Click to expand...
I got that and am confused by the other guy who made the assumptions. Then, again, some people are always looking for a fight, even if there is none to be had.

I get misunderstood and receive ad hominems, as well. But at least it only happens on the days that end in the letter 'y'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC.TURTLECREEK
I just read the key parts of the Magna Carta in the Salisbury Cathedral in the UK on Friday. Much of the concepts from that succinct document translated into our Declaration of Independence (go figure, right?). Fact is, your rights are granted to you by the Govt you are loyal to. If you don't agree, try a living under a different system, and post that same question publicly!
We far often assume the world is like ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jbell
People shouldn't be able to get away with this shit.
Replies
85
Views
3K
DocRDS
D
Jayjay1
How much do set your bullets back from the lands?
Replies
23
Views
626
Pharmseller
Pharmseller
Blue Sky Country
Social media psy-ops against statist supporters. How to do it right.
Replies
11
Views
744
DarnYankeeUSMC
DarnYankeeUSMC
Blue Sky Country
Your business. Your rules. You HAVE the right to not sell to potential enemy combatants. ANTIFA denied gun sale by Oregon FFL.
Replies
24
Views
2K
Threadcutter308
Threadcutter308
D
How to get a load in 50 bullets with Gordon's Reloading Tool (GRT)
Replies
23
Views
1K
Dstoenner
D
Top Bottom
Back