If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

Life can end "naturally" if there is such a thing. What happens in between is the natural flow of life. You have no authority to infringe on my unalienable Rights. It does not take a majority to enforce that concept.

 

I can if there are no laws telling me I can't.
You have no unalienable rights. But for those granted by and enforced by the gov't. You keep citing legal means to prove my point

 

It is exactly semantics.

I agree with every single right they think we have. I just call them legal rights. They don't exist unless some entity grants them, allows them, and enforces penalties against those who violate them.
They are not Natural rights. For as I've stated ad nauseum, Natural rights need to occur in Nature. Such as life occurs naturally.

 

Damn idiocy! Even the government disagrees with you. I'm not beholden to the government for any unalienable Right and you ae being hypocritical to keep babbling that B.S. You didn't check in with the Dept. of Political Expression before posting here. You exercised your unalienable Right and posted that blather. You want to reject your Rights, but stay in the only country in the world where they are guaranteed (not granted.) There is something wrong with you above my pay grade.

 

If you had bothered to read, you would have noted that what I wrote is the opposite of statism. Please stop making **** up.

Agree. Which is what I said. The difference being that I don't make an exception for God when it comes to this.

Agreed. Which is what I said. The difference being that I don't make an exception for God when it comes to this.

They spoke of violated rights, meaning they understood that liberties had been taken away unjustifiably. My #2 fits their view of unalienable rights, explicitly.

The dividing line being that supernatural authoritariansim says that these rights can disappear if God says so. Remember how you said "gumbmint or otherwise"? You either make an exception for supernatural authority or you understand the dividing line. Failing to understand the dividing line means sacrificing "gumbmint or otherwise" and creating an exception for supernatural authority. There is no in-between.

 

If you are beholden to God for that right, then it isn't unalienable. God can alienate it. If someone, even God, can alienate it, then it isn't unalienable. This is what words mean.

You are literally arguing that these rights are granted by God, rather than actually guaranteed. If they are granted by God, and God can take them away, then they aren't guaranteed.

 

Your inability to articulate your response indicates that you have none. If God can take rights away, then they aren't unalienable. Period. Your position asks me to forget what words mean and to abandon basic reason and logic. I refuse to do so, just as you refuse to defend your position with logic and reason.

 

Also, you are trying to equate natural rights with supernatural authoritarianism. Supernatural =/= Natural. How have you gotten this far without knowing that? And rights =/= authoritarianism. If you can't understand the difference between natural rights and supernatural authoritarianism, then I'm afraid that you either aren't making a serious statement or you don't understand basic English terminology.

 

If anyone has the authority to infringe on rights, then they are not unalienable. You have repeatedly argued that someone (God) DOES have the authority to infringe on rights.

 

You must uneducated. Rights are presumed to have been bestowed by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) If you so choose, the founders / framers / courts gave you a host of synonyms to pick from. Rights can be natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law. Are you people so stupid so as to not understand that your interpretation is absolute B.S as it does not apply? You're trying to put a Right, given by a Creator, on the same level as what is given by man. Tell you what dude, when government can guarantee you eternal life, you might have a point. Otherwise, what you're arguing is utter nonsense.

 

You aren't capable of logic or reason. You simply lack the insight. There are upward of a thousand posts here and most of it has been the same thing, day after day with those low IQ daily posters (jtrig types) just wanting to waste bandwidth as you are. Others beside myself have made these points and since you can't refute them, you are pretending to challenge my logic and reasoning??? You're very funny. Not. You, nor those who think like you, have not provided one, single, solitary fact that refutes anything that supports the presupposition of unalienable Rights. In a thousand post thread, that's pretty sad for you.

 

I'm afraid YOU have a problem with not only English, but the court rulings governing this subject from its inception as a presuppositional and foundational principle.

 

God is not mortal. You are now arguing with the founders, not me. If you don't like God, substitute one of the many synonyms at your discretion.

 

Your semantics won't change the fact that natural =/= supernatural and rights =/= authoritarianism. The only way to claim that natural rights = supernatural authoritarianism is through either unwilling ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

 

No, YOU make that presumption and then demand that others do the same, without justification, and then you prove unable to address the fact that your position is self-refuting. Stamping your feet and screeching that it simply must be so isn't a real argument.

Pro tip: "Educated" positions don't rely on passive voice, i.e. "Rights are presumed . . . "

Yet you claim they are supernatural, instead, which as any native English speaker knows, is the opposite of natural.

If it were inherent, then it wouldn't need to come from God. People who know what the word "inherent" means are aware of this. Likewise, if it comes from God, then it isn't inherent. "Inherent" literally means that it doesn't come from an external source.

You have said that God can alienate these rights. If that is true, then they are not unalienable. We, again, return to literacy 101.

You have said that God can revoke these rights. If that is true, then they are not irrevocable. We, again, return to literacy 101.

You have said that God can revoke/alienate these rights. If that is true, then they are not absolute. We, again, return to literacy 101.

[quote[and above the law.[/quote]First correct statement of the entire post!

Untrue. We, again, return to literacy 101. Please actually read my posts. If that is too much to ask, then you aren't prepared to engaged in a rational discussion. My position was that they are not GIVEN by ANYONE, God or man. Rather, unlike you, I believe them to ACTUALLY be inherent.

You are trying to appeal to an outside authority. I'm trying to appeal to inherent rights. "Outside" sources and "inherent" are mutually exclusive. Rights and authority are mutually exclusive. You have staked your tent on the opposite side of actual inherent rights. The fact that this offends you does not make it any less true. Every argument you've made in this post is utter nonsense, as basic literacy demonstrates, and as your inability to address any of these issues will further demonstrate.

 

No sir, I believe I will leave dishonesty up to you. How far do you want to go with this stupidity? How much ignorance can YOU display in one lifetime? Let us carry your abject stupidity to its utmost and final conclusion:

If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong because even the people agreeing with you will claim they believe they have a Right to Life. Really? In all of recorded history, NO MAN has been able to legislate immortality. We're all going to die... me, you, my detractors, and those who agree with me. So, how in the Hell is there a Right to Life and how can any coroner rule that a death was of "natural causes?" You're here arguing insanity! My God, man. Get a grip. No death is natural. The same God who gave that life decides when it's over and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

EVERYBODY on this board has violated the law because they believed that they had a Right to something. After all, it is their life and not anybody elses business. People smoke pot and weed is illegal. People own guns and ammo where states forbid it. People engaged in inter-racial unions and practiced homosexuality when it was illegal. People feel that way inherently. They have no evil intent on breaking the law. They simply feel that they have a Right and it's nobody elses freaking business.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand simple concepts. This idiocy where two or three of you with sockpuppet accounts doing the same song and dance every few hours is beyond comprehension. You're wrong and you've been proven wrong. Deal with it.

 

First correct statement of the entire post!

Untrue. We, again, return to literacy 101. Please actually read my posts. If that is too much to ask, then you aren't prepared to engaged in a rational discussion. My position was that they are not GIVEN by ANYONE, God or man. Rather, unlike you, I believe them to ACTUALLY be inherent.

You are trying to appeal to an outside authority. I'm trying to appeal to inherent rights. "Outside" sources and "inherent" are mutually exclusive. Rights and authority are mutually exclusive. You have staked your tent on the opposite side of actual inherent rights. The fact that this offends you does not make it any less true. Every argument you've made in this post is utter nonsense, as basic literacy demonstrates, and as your inability to address any of these issues will further demonstrate.[/QUOTE]

RESPONSE: I don't do multi quotes. They are a sign that you have conceded defeat. Nobody reads a back and forth like that. There are a thousand posts that refute anything and everything you could possible say above. I don't read multi quotes and not one poster in 500 will. You got an issue, post it and we can refer you to the posting where your position has been factually refuted.

 

If the government says that words have a meaning specific to them, we cannot over-rule them with our own interpretations - even if you use 1000 layman dictionaries. Let's do this yet again for the mentally impaired who want to argue every day:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

The words absolute, natural and unalienable are, by law synonyms. The government DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The government said they don't grant Rights. They don't create them. Let's use the Right to Life AND the Second Amendment as the Second Amendment is an extension of your Right to Life. What did the courts say when the first decisions were handed down?

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822.) The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ... "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

YOUR RIGHTS EXIST. THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT RULED IN THE EARLIEST RULINGS THAT THEY DO NOT GRANT NOR CREATE RIGHTS. YET THOSE RIGHTS EXIST. America was founded on the presupposition that you have unalienable Rights bestowed upon you by a Creator. This ridiculous and idiotic argument that since your Creator gives you Rights, they are not unalienable. It is insanity to argue with people who lie OR are plain uneducated that unalienable applies to ANYTHING OTHER THAN earthly individuals and governments. These people are arguing against the founders, framers, and the earliest court decisions. I don't need the government's blessings nor permission to exercise an unalienable Right. If the people who make their living by posting here day after day - changing accounts so as to make it look like scores of people believe the insanity of one or two who think they can fool you, then they are wasting your time. Everybody that was interested in this has weighed in. The jrig guys who couldn't come up with one, single, solitary FACT to confirm their personal opinion will simply have to accept the FACT that you have unalienable Rights. If those criticizing my position really felt any different, they'd pack their bags and leave this country as AMERICA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY ON THE GLOBE THAT HAS A GUARANTEED BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEEING ITS CITIZENRY THEIR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. NO OTHER EXISTS. If the critics hate the concept, why stay in this country?

 

You are so emotional on the topic you can't think straight.

That is a gov't granted right what I blather.
In NK or China, that type of blathering would land me in jail. Meaning it's not Natural.

Only because our gov't allows the free speech do you and I have it. A right I want and agree with.
Just like I want healthcare as a right.

 

Presumed to be Bestowed. You just blew your entire point out of the water and proved mine.

That hardly seems Natural or unalienable. As I've saying to you this entire thread.

Anything granted, given, bestowed, can be take.

 

Says the guy calling names and throwing ad homs at everyone.

 

You aren't even on the same page with yourself.

 

You're the one who is emotional and you're really good at projection. You only have a Right to that which you can obtain by your own efforts.

 

You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court and the people who drafted the foundational principles upon which this country was built.

 

Projecting again and not a damn thing related to the post. How can you continually get to make insulting comments and never be held accountable? When attacked, I counter punch. If you don't want the response, then post on topic civil posts and refrain from trying to denigrate me. You lost any pretend argument the moment you started doing it.

The topic is about being endowed with unalienable Rights. Do you have any new material?