Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts.

If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up
and go away.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
Please folks, do not reply to these off topic posts.

If these idiots never get any replies, they will eventually give up
and go away.

Thanks,

Bill, W6WRT

Shut up Bill you ****ing asshole.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted
us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping"
all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of
being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it
comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE

In article ,
"John Smith" wrote:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping"
all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of
being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it
comes to their rights.

But the rights flow only from the Constitution legally and otherwise.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE



Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand
the differences in their purposes.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and
support from the enemies of England and to convince England's allies to stay
out of it. The majestic rhetoric of "unalienable rights" and "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were geared towards those goals.

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum
resources. If each of us could operate whenever, where ever, and however we
pleased because we had the right to pursue happiness, it would be utter
chaos and very few would actually be happy. In the early days of radio,
that very situation existed and it caused problems and thus was born the
predecessor to the FCC.

In every group or society, some type of structure is necessary to enable the
group or society to survive and thrive. This means that there are rules and
regulations in almost everything we do affecting our daily lives. That by
its very nature limits people's rights.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee:

"Dee Flint" wrote in message Still it is an
important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to
understand
the differences in their purposes.


Yes indeed. There are two (in fact more) documents protecting our
rights and agreeing people are the true power, and NOT governments.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies
wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit
sympathy and


Yes, and they did a very fine job of it. Indeed, I have not seen many
papers which make humanity the reason for its arguments, and individual
rights in particular. Some now wish to find reasons to weaken these
premises and arguments, strange how societies can never rid themselves
of fools destined to repeat the same mistakes ...

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate


Absolutely NOT, while kings, rulers, dictators, powerful corporations,
the wealthy, and the mentally challenged might confuse rights with
rhetoric, those whose ancestral line runs back to these time, and the
traditions carried forth to this time have no such confusions. There is
no rhetoric in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is not
rhetoric in "God given rights." There is no rhetoric in being secure in
person and property. You give me nightmares in the type of world you
would allow to come. I only hope you never run for office, even dog
catcher would worry me in your case! (however, you are probably a nice
person)

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included
in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.


Preposterous, that is like arguing liberty = murder. We all have
absolute liberty, granted by our creator, we govern ourselfs in its use.
The people have that right, the government does not, unless it serves
as only a tool of the people in doing so. There is much confusion here,
laws do NOT give us rights and/or liberty, they only serve to remove or
control those. Before we apply law, we are only governed by our
creator, and he has given us all free will.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum


We all also have unlimited rights to the pursuit of happiness, limits on
those pursuits are simply when they deprive another of exercising their
rights to such pursuits. A child learns this early in school, a finer
tutoring includes sharing ... if we deny others what we have,
especially though little tests and requirements as a policy of picking
and choosing "who we want to play with", we are NOT maintaining order,
we are screwing people, plain and simple, in fact only a simple person
would have difficultly seeing through that rubbish.

No Dee, you are simply another, "The sky is falling!", decrier. No Dee,
the sky is not falling, some are simply made a prisoner to their own
fears, fears which lead them into depriving other Americans of their
rights--in so doing, the "champions of justice" end up becoming the evil
which controls, deprives, and punishes people who do not think as they
do. These groups have come and gone through our history.

Open your eyes, todays world is much different than the one which you
were born into. Today you can call anywhere in the world from anywhere,
if you are even in most remote areas a cell phone allows you such
access; if that fails, there are satellite phone. Today, the internet
will let you converse to anyone anywhere in the world, allow you to view
and access materials anywhere in the world or share any such materials
to anyone, anywhere in the world.

In this world, amature radio tries to keep itself isolated as an island,
a religious club of fanatic devotes with far too many decrying the sky
is falling ... the sky is not falling ... radio is dying.

The good news is, much awaits amateur radio's future from its' ashes.
From those ashes will spring forth a service which will bear little
resemblance to the old, antique and outdated practices of the past.

It is an exciting time to be alive ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct

And you are Quitefine.

"John Smith" wrote in
:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.


Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their
pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America adgenda.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in
:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.


Democrats do that all the time to try to come up with ways to push their
pro-homosexual, anti-morality, anti-America adgenda.


You should read the papers more often. The Party of Deviancy seems to be
NOT the democrats.

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/9071.php

http://fp.uni.edu/northia/article2.a...5495&SECTION=2

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=42954

http://snipurl.com/bh9y


Lots more out there.


mike