Quote
I won't give up......

Good for you.

Quote
How do you figure you have a God given rights? Show me where you have this so called right.

Are we still arguing from the Declaration? Its writers "declared...to be self-evident" the "truth" that "all men...are endowed by their Creator" (that's God) "with certain unalienable rights." That's what I mean by God-given rights--I'm assuming that you're willing to accept the Declaration as a premise when talking about rights. It's perfectly acceptable for you to reject it, but if you do, then we'll have to go clear back to first principles.

Quote
Declaration or no declaration, look at the acts of Polpot (spelling).

Which ones? Are you pointing out that he refused to recognize the people's rights or to permit the free exercise thereof? If you are, I agree with you.

Quote
The only reason it hasn't happened here in the U.S. is the general population knows they would loose MOST of their rights under the constutition of the United States of America.

If God gave me my rights, then only God can take them away. People can threaten me with harm if I exercise my rights, but they're mine nonetheless; I can't lose them to a person or a group of people.

Quote
You have elected to stay in this country and the people of this country have made the laws for us to live under, which you are confusing with rights taken away from you or not allowed.

Whom do you mean when you say "the people of this country?" Me? I've never made a law. My representatives in the legislature? I don't have any representatives in the legislature: I didn't vote for a single one of them.

Laws (the sort you speak of) are things of man; rights are things of God. No man-made law can take away (or even affect) a right. Laws that prohibit the exercise of rights are immoral, and the Supreme Court has decreed that laws prohibiting the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Constitution are meaningless. (Marbury v. Madison, 1803: "An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.")

Of course, that is not to say that the government will not use an unconstitutional, meaningless law as an excuse to apply coercive force to you: coercive force is what governments do for a living. But it doesn't make it right.

Quote
You cannot walk into a US Post Office with your weapon because of the laws we have enacted to protect your rights.

Almost. Actually, I cannot walk into a US Post Office with my weapon because of the laws you (you said "we") have enacted to prohibit the free exercise of my rights. (The particular right in question happens to be a fairly special one, in that it's specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. That means any law that infringes it falls squarely into the crosshairs of that reference from Marbury v. Madison above.)

Quote
In other words protecting your life and others in case a person wanted to rob the Post Office and shot you instead of the person holding the money bag. It is also along the lines protecting the persons work place from the same thing.

Aw, c'mon: you're not one of those, are you? You're on an outdoorsman's website, and your username implies that you're a hunter and the owner of a semiautomatic rifle. And you're going to try to make the VPC/HCI/MMM argument that carrying a gun will make me less safe in a robbery? More Guns, More Crime? I'm really disappointed.

Quote
This right never was removed from you, only edited to help prevent such from happening.

Rights can't be "edited" by men, any more than they can be created or destroyed. The word you're looking for, I suspect, is "infringed."


"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867