To which Tulkas replied:
Quote from: Tulkas on March 03, 2012, 02:20:01 PMI see we're having fun with semantics this morning. 
No. It is the main point, and one that people argue. Matter of fact, you use it when it suits you. (And you ignore it when it doesn't fit your opinions.)
Either it is a fundamental right, or it isn't.
Questions you might ponder:
Is the Constitution the basic law of the land? What are the first ten Amendments called? Check http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html if you wish.
We are referring to inborn rights codified and protected in the United States by the Constitution, Amendments one through ten.
Thank you for the condescension, which unfortunately, helps me make my point. "Inborn rights."
Using the specific phrasing "Shall not be infringed."
So, again I ask---can convicted felons and such have rights taken away? If so, then they aren't inborn rights, they are privileges given (and taken away) by a government.
Society, in the case of a convicted felon may prevent exercise of those rights. A felon usually loses the right to dwell where he pleases while he's in the slammer. He also loses rights to privacy and security in his possessions while inside and the right to possess firearms for a greater or lesser period of time after he is released.
So, they aren't rights. Got it.
Governments, usually wrongly, also prevent exercise of these inborn rights.
You are aware that the "government" is the one who also takes away the privileges of criminals? And that the logic used to take away the privileges of criminals is exactly the same as that used to limit your privileges?
You've now said "inborn rights"---and yet say that people can lose these rights (by being criminals). You can't have it both ways.
I realize your followup is probably going to be some commentary on how you "only said that the
exercise of that right was being prevented." However, if you can't exercise a right, then you don't have that right.
Whereupon, it isn't a right under our laws. It is a privilege given to you by those who make laws.
slight snip, then:
I feel that, as an adult citizen who isn't a felon, I have an inborn right to purchase anything I can afford without begging permission from anyone, least of all a government employee.But "society" may restrict the exercise of these rights, as discussed above.I'm glad you posed that as a question since I am definitely not saying anything like that.
You do realize that doesn't make sense, right? First you say it is an inborn right. Then you say that exercise of that right can be prevented. Then you say that right means you don't need to beg permission. Then you say that the exercise of those rights may be restricted.
Sorry, you only get to pick one side. Because either it is a right, or it isn't. If it IS a right of all people, then when the people discuss the problem with their government, they have one type of argument. If it ISN'T a right of all people (in other words, it is something that the government can restrict) then it is another type of argument, because it is an argument about "how much" and "for what reason" which is a completely different sort of thing.
The object of this exercise, and communication with the hired help in Lincoln, is to argue and to point out the obvious so that a remedy may be found.
The problem, of course, is that "the obvious" isn't. You have yet to clearly articulate your logic regarding this situation, as you have contradicted yourself multiple times regarding rights. As such, it is unlikely that such an argument to the "hired help" will do anything useful---more likely, it will cause annoyance and bad feelings, which means that when we DO try to get something useful done, it will be more difficult.
As people have said (and you have ignored) the NE permit system is annoying, but occasionally useful. It currently is not onerous to deal with, and simplifies certain things. While it indeed is something we'd like to get rid of (or at the very least make free), it is not a priority.
And there are only so many things that people have time, resources, and leverage to deal with considering the large number of NE state senators who are NOT gun-friendly. As such, we pick our battles carefully, and we work on winning the important ones first.
People have said this multiple times. You have ignored it, and belittled people who have worked for years to get Nebraska where it is (which is considerably better than it was previously) when they said they didn't consider this a priority just because
you think so.
I going to simply ignore the rest of what you wrote, and unless you actually start attempting to realize what people ARE trying to change, plus start to use actual logic in your discussion, I'm done with you and this topic.
I will say this, though:
People around here make a difference to gun laws in Nebraska. We've gotten a lot of things changed, and we aren't done yet.
We fight the important things first, because we can't fight for everything simultaneously. Our opinion of "the important things" apparently doesn't match yours, which is fine, you go ahead and work on what you want---but don't expect a whole lot of help from people who already have collectively decided what is the most important. (If you haven't noticed because you didn't actually read any of the background before diving into these forums with your own opinions, the NFOA actively pays attention to the laws and legislation, posts information and updates, discusses bills, and votes on how we will present ourselves and deal with the legislature.)
We found that unsurprisingly, one lone voice means nothing to politicians. Several thousand people united with facts and statistics on their side? Is something different. And so WE actually pay attention, make sure we know what we are doing, and we make a difference.
If you get the permit system changed all by yourself, kudos to you. If you instead get nowhere other than annoying a lot of people who we are trying to work with to get things done (which is much more likely, as any professional lobbyist will tell you), thanks a lot for making things worse and getting in the way.
