View Full Version : Here comes trouble!
I'm not even sure were to post this one!
It concerns survival so might go in BOB, and it is certainly political and deals with freedom.
But it is all of those and none at the same time.
I am an amazingly private man in my own community.
In fact readers here are likely to know more about me than 75% of the people in my community.
It is nothing personal toward them, I simply keep to myself in some degree.
I have associates who keep me company here at home, I don't really need any more.
Oh sure... I've frightened more than my fair share of publuic teachers because I didn't take their side without considering my childs.
And the local "authorities" don't know how to deal with me at times because... well... I question "authority".
So this one started years ago, at least two years ago in fact!
A local sheriff came to our gate and found it barred.
He rang.
My seven year old son came to the gate and asked what he wanted.
My fifteen year old was called as the seven year old knows to do.
The twenty-one year old then arrived.
The sheriff didn't leave happy but he left. Every one of my sons started the conversation with, "Unless you have a warrent, signed by a judge, and present it properly, you won't get passed this gate."
He left a number for me to call and I called it.
I expected to here some sort of complaint from a neighbor but instead I got a rant about how my children treated him like a "normal person".
To this day I am not sure what he meant by that!
My sons know their rights under the US Constitution... and more importantly they know mine!
If a policeman asks to come in the answer is no!
But it is not personal, it is simple common sense.
So I talked to him and asked what his original reason for visting was.
He said that he wanted to "inspect" my property because of a concern that I might be violating federal ordinances concerning storage and use of explosives.
Ummm.... Ermmm... The answer of course was no but not because I might have something to hide.
Again it is simple common sense, "If you think you have cause get a warrent."
I got three phone calls from three seperate judges.
The first one was local and he knew me well enough to address me by my first name.
We spoke, we laughed, it was quite pleasant.
The second one was from a man I had never heard of before but he was also very happy to speak with me.
The third was short and to the point:
"Did I really want the ATF invading my property?"
Did I really want to push an issue that was "only important to me?"
That third judge issued a federal warrent and my "compound" (their term not mine) was swarmed with men in black outfits who carried some impressive weapons.
There were also a few men in suits and everything went as smoothly as such a thing can go.
I was thanked continuously for my "cooperation" and the men in black left without taking much of anything, but they were very interested in just about everything.
The men in suits took pictures and downloaded a great deal to USB from my computers (all twenty of them including some old ones running Windows 3.1 which they transfered documents from using old floppies in order to use USB!)
I actually found myself thanking them: We have all heard stories of how they could have handled it!
They were oddly polite and thanked me because as they explained they were used to people screaming and ranting as they did their job.
I explained that they had a legal warrent and it was my duty as an America to concede to that authority.
After two days one man returned: He used the same warrent to gain access to my home and then sat down to ask questions.
I have the right to remain silent... but I was interested enough by his approach to talk to him.
Those of you who have read "My Story" know that my father was involved in... less than desirable things.
And my brothers had problems which were just as bad.
The man was interested in a great deal of information (which I gladly gave him) but I think he already had many of the answers he sought, only wanting a third party to verify things.
When all was said and done he left.
No big deal, end of story right?
Right?
*
*
So... This last fourth of July my wife and I went away to spend the night together.
Out children had other things going on so we did not feel compelled to stay home and put on our annual fireworks display.
Yes it is completely illegal and no we didn't think about that fact for a single moment concerning our decision to do something else.
But our local associates were quick to let us know that on the 4th there were all sorts of strange charactors hanging out by our property!
People dressed like ATF just waiting for something... which of course never occured.
I got angry by this and sent a letter through a local judge asking what the "deal" was.
I was informed that I needed to apply for a "Federal Ordinance Safety License".
So I "punted" and asked why.
It turns out I needed to appy for it whether I ever again used an explosive or not!
The ATF had decided that I retro-actively required said license. * *
And I I didn't aquire it... well there would be real trouble!
When I asked an associate of mine who is in the courts why that would be so he laughed and simply said, "They haven't found anything they can use on you so forms must be signed."
In other words, I have officially violated the rules but not the law... well I have violated the law but the rules must be adhered to... accept that I violated the rules and the law can't turn back time to punish me!
According to an official order, I must become certified to have that which I had in order to have it.
So I needed to verify that I know how to safely handle explosives.
That which I have handled since I was a child!
OK... Bureaucracy is what it is after all.
Send me some papers I will sign them.
Oh... no...
You must take a test, to prove that you know what we obviously know you know in order to show that we proved what we know you know it!
Ok...
Ok... the Sh*t has hit the fan!
Anything below within {} Are my words the rest is just plain confusing! *
Saf-C 1602.31 *"Sale" means barter, exchange or gift, or offer therefore, and each such transaction made by any person whether as principal, proprietor, agent, servant, or employee. *
{So... anything really? Short of someone stealing something we are talking a "sale" right? So as long as Hitler "uses" my explosives but I don't "exchange" them I'm fine right? Or is that another clause?}
Saf-C 1602.33 *"Singular or plural" means that words used in the singular number will be construed to include the plural and those in the plural will include the singular.
{Well wouldn't that negate the whole purpose of... never mind!}
Saf-C 1603.02 *Low Explosives. *Explosives shall be classified as low explosives if they can be caused to deflagrate when confined.
{yea... explain it if you can!}
Saf-C 1603.04 *Forbidden or Not Acceptable Explosives.
(a) *Explosives which are forbidden or not acceptable for transportation by common carriers, rail freight, rail express, highway or water under 49 CFR 173.51 shall be forbidden under these rules.
(b) *Explosives, described in (a) above, shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) *Explosive compositions that ignite spontaneously or undergo marked decomposition when subject to a temperature of 167 F, or 75 C, for 48 consecutive hours;
(2) *Explosives containing an ammonium salt and a chlorate;
(3) *Explosives containing an acidic metal salt and a chlorate;
(4) *Leaking or damaged packages of explosives; or
(5) *Liquid nitroglycerin.
{Ummm... wouldn't that be anything known to man above water and below base metals? Just kidding of course but I wonder if they are trying to trap our enemy by asking if it is "OK" to transport leaking or damaged packages of explosives}
PART Saf-C 1604 *CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY APPLICATION
Saf-C 1604.01 *Certificate of Competency.
(a) *No blasting operation shall be conducted unless at least one holder of a valid certificate of competency, of a type set forth in Saf-C 1604.02, is physically present at all times during such blasting operations.
(b) *The director, upon application of any natural person, shall issue a certificate of competency to such person to conduct blasting operations upon the showing by the applicant that he or she is qualified, as set forth in Saf-C 1604.03.
(c) *A certificate of competency shall not constitute a license to use, purchase and transport explosive materials and shall be obtained in addition to any other license the applicant might possess. {What? Then what does it mean?}
(d) *Certificates of competency shall be valid for 4 years from the date of issue unless suspended or revoked prior thereto by the director.
(e) *No certificate of competency shall be reassigned or transferred.
Saf-C 1604.03 *Qualifications.
(a) *An applicant for a certificate of competency shall meet the following minimum requirements:
(1) *Be 21 years of age or older; {Got it!}
(2) *Make application pursuant to Saf-C 1604.04;
(3) *Obtain a passing grade on the competency test administered by the director; {Straight C baby!}
(4) *Demonstrate familiarity with these rules and all applicable laws; and
(5) *Supply endorsements from 2 persons who are holders of valid certificate of competency and who have knowledge of the applicant's competency to conduct blasting operations. {Huh? ... never happened, but I assume someone looked around at "my explosives" and vouched for me without my knowledge}
(b) *For the purposes of (a)(3) above, an applicant shall receive a passing grade if:
(1) *The applicant receives 11 or less wrong answers on the competency test for: {-9 I rock! Unless of course those nine situations come up <)!
a. *A certificate with no restrictions, pursuant to Saf-C 1604.02(a)(1); or
b. *A restricted certificate, pursuant to Saf-C 1604.02(a)(2); or
(2) *The applicant receives 7 or less wrong answers on the competency test for:
a. *An agricultural certificate, pursuant to Saf-C 1604.02(a)(3); or
b. *A specialized certificate, pursuant to Saf-C 1604.02(a)(4).
(c) *For the purpose of (a)(5) above, knowledge means:
(1) *The endorser was present when explosives were used; and
(2) *The applicant assisted the endorser with the loading and firing of the explosive.
(d) *Applicants for a certificate of competency with no restriction shall submit, in addition to (a) above, one of the following:
(1) *Documentation verified by an endorser indicating:
a. *The applicant assisted the endorser with the loading and firing of at least 25 separate blasting operations; {Never happened!}
b. *The combined weight of explosives utilized in the blasting operations totals at least 10,000 pounds;
c. *Date, time and location explosives were used;
d. *Type and amount of explosives used; and
e. *Specific duties of the applicant.
(2) *Copies of blast records, as required in Saf-C 1607.03, which shall verify that the:
a. *Applicant assisted in at least 25 separate blasting operations; and
b. *Combined weight of explosives utilized in the blasting operations totals at least 10,000 pounds; or
(3) *A combination of copies and documents specified in Saf-C 1604.03(d)(1) and (2) to establish their experience with at least 25 separate blasting operations that had a combined explosive weight of at least 10,000 pounds.
Saf-C 1604.04 *Application Procedures.
(a) *Any person who wishes to apply for a certificate of competency shall:
(1) *Appear in person at the department, room 106, during business hours;
(2) *Supply proof of identification such as:
a. *A valid driver's license; or
b. *A birth certificate.
(3) *Complete the application form, DSSP 84; and
(4) *Make payment of the fee as specified in RSA 158:9-c.
(b) *Applicants shall supply on form DSSP 84 the following:
(1) *Which categories of certificates the applicant is applying for;
(2) *The applicant's name, address, date of birth;
(3) *The applicant's present employer, employer's address and position held;
(4) *Whether the applicant holds a license or certificate of competency in another state, and if applicable, the state or license number;
(5) *Whether the applicant has been refused a license or certificate of competency, and if so, an explanation;
(6) *Whether a previous license or certificate of competency held by the applicant has been revoked, and if so, an explanation;
(7) *Whether the applicant has a criminal record that has not been annulled;
(8) *Whether the applicant is an American citizen;
(9) *The number of years the applicant has been engaged in actual blasting;
(10) *The names of all companies, municipalities and organizations for whom the applicant has worked;
(11) *Whether the applicant is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and if so, an explanation stating the specific charge, the date of the charge, and the court of jurisdiction;
(12) *Whether the applicant is a fugitive from justice; {Well If I am, I'm not answering # 11!}
(13) *Whether the applicant is over 21 years of age;
(14) *Whether the applicant is a user of marijuana, depressants, stimulants or narcotics; {I wonder if anyone ever answered yes... and more importantly if someone caught it}
(15) *Whether the applicant has been adjudged mentally ill or been committed to a mental institution; and
(16) *Signature of applicant.
So to make a long story... well not much longer!
I am now fully licensed to do something that I have done my entire life!
I took a quick test, mailed it in, and got a certificate.
when I asked an actual explosive expert if this is the way things are normally done he nearly crapped his pants!
It is "unheard of"!
It is wrong by all standards.
So what actually happened?
First of all:
The fact that I could become licensed in the course of two weeks proves that a license has been simply sitting there waiting for me to jump through whatever hoops.
One of those guys in a suit simply sent in a memo saying, "license him" and the paperwork was done.
The Feds were not happy that a local called them in for a non-threat.
But how common is my situation?
And now that I'm authorized to "blow shit up"...
torenghout
07-23-2007, 02:50 PM
you have the right to be harased for standing up for your rights.
did you ever find out what the judge used for probable cause to issue the search warrent?
it should be public record.
but this is post patriot america.
WileyCoyote
07-23-2007, 05:05 PM
Holy crap wax.
I cannot imagine such insanity. OK, yes I can. I live in an area where fireworks are legal to sell but not to shoot - which means of course that everyone does both. This has never been a problem until recently, when a termagant of a council member has decided that he must drive around town and call the police on everyone whom he suspects of shooting fireworks. He then goes to the judge and demands that the fullest penalty be enforced. Fortunately our police chief has told our solicitor about this, and the solicitor is coming to speak to this individual. If this illegal behavior continues, he will be publicly exposed and the State Ethics Commission will step in.
Federal law does not supercede State or local law. Local government can only INVITE Federal Law enforcement in - they cannot come in without being specifically invited.
So someone local has a grudge against you.
You need to do your research, get an attorney, and prosecute whomever you find to be in violation of their legal position - or to file a nuisance lawsuit. To lay low now will mean to them that you can be manipulated and harassed further. (Child abuse accusations, punitive land use measures - anything in the entire scope of the juggernaut can be used against you.) Depending on where you are I would recommend an ACLU (yes I know - hack coff ptui) attorney, only because they would use their case against the Patriot Act, against which they are currently contending. Keep all paperwork in one place, and copies of it in another - preferably out of State with a friend. Use whatever means you have to discover the root of this and root it out - or it will continue to grow.
Remember one thing - cockroaches hate the light of day, just as illegal actors hate the light of the media.
Txanne
07-24-2007, 03:37 PM
Wouldn't be something IF law-dogs had to study constitutional law before they could be a tyrant?
But then it would be amazing if every day Americans had to study the Constitution as a reguirement for graduation from public indoctrination camp.
Cudoos' to you for seeing to your kids education on the Constitution!!
Rare indeed!!
Txanne
WileyCoyote
07-24-2007, 05:40 PM
Point is, Txanne - they do have to study Constitutional law.
That's how they know how to get around it.
My kids all know their rights under the Constitution - my first lawsuit against the State ensured that. I've found that most responsible and aware people who are freedom loving and righteous (without being self righteous) try to raise their kids with instruction from the Dead White Guys... unfortunately, far too many citizens not only don't know their rights, or think that they apply only to them or only in certain instances, or still assume that the public indoctrination camps K-12 already teach it.
bigjack
07-25-2007, 05:40 AM
I wonder how many so called well educated, informed individuals, when asked the question: "Where do our rights come from?" would reply "the US Constitution"?
They would be wrong of course.-Jack
tor- find out what the judge used for probable cause to issue the search warrent
Wax- It is "interesting" to say the least.
Cause was established for "safety inspection".
Local authorities had reported hearing "booming sounds" ;D
from within my land boundaries and reported seeing "elevated flashed of lights" on previous July 4th events.
The judge in question struck the sight observations (actually overstruck them on the warrent) presumably because too much time had transpired since the claimed observation.
This would explain why they were so interested in the last 4th because they were hoping to "re-witness" such a thing.
In the end it came down to an inspection under the Minnesota state fire code and the ATF was asked to assess the situation.
Wiley- So someone local has a grudge against you.
Wax- To me it is quite clear what that "grudge" entails.
It is sort of funny actually.
The local authorities have wanted to look around my property for a very long time.
They of course have been denied this on the grounds that while I have nothing to hide I do have the right to hide nothing if I want to!
Cops don't like to be told no... it just doesn't sit right with them. Of course from my viewpoint it is nothing personal.
So... over time the local authorities started dreaming about all of the things they would find if they ever did gain access to my land.
I don't really blaim them: my fences are just "too high" and my gates are simply "too strong".
And in one way I support the community in being confused about what I do on my own land.
It is none of their damn business!
So simple ignorance led to assumptions.
My home is now locally refered to as a "fortress".
That is fine by me I guess.
Believe it or not, the Feds were very polite and supportive.
The locals were admonished a number of times for poking around and asking questions which had nothing to do with the purpose at hand.
The way my home defenses are constructed led to many unanswered questions and now have resulted in "urban myth".
I have heard that the police found "murder holes" in the floor just inside my door 8) I understand why they think that but it is not what those holes were designed to do.
I have also heard the following:
That I am "armed to the teeth". (True if measured by police I guess)
That I have 2inch plate steel lining my walls. (Not true... but in some places it might as well be).
That I have established "kill zones". (Funny... but not true. I have controled access designed into the entry of my buildings, nothing more and nothing less).
The only claim that bothers me is that I "could" produce lethal weapons which are banned by law.
It bothers me for two very important reasons:
One... Duh! Anyone "could" produce just about anything!
They are simply upset because they know I could produce such things while they assume most could not!
Two... The Feds repeatedly admonished the local cops for saying stupid things and asking stupid questions.
It was almost like watching kids in a candy store.
The purpose of the warrent was very specific, it concerned explosives possession and the inspection of storage of said materials.
But the locals just couldn't contain themselves.
"Just look at how thick that door is!"
"My God, he has steel shutters for his windows!"
"Hey... here's a trap door!" (not really of course, just another access point to the basement)
One of the locals repeatedly made references to "Waco" until one of the feds told him to shut up because he didn't know what he was talking about.
The cop in question mumbled something I didn't hear but the fed pointed to my American flag flying proudly above my house and said, "Do you see that? More importantly do you know what it means?"
The feds understand what I am and more importantly what am not. by the tme they entered my property they probably knew more about me than many of my local associates.
And to their credit they went out of their way to insure that a spark was not ignited which would start a fire they had absolutely no desire to be forced to put out.
I am almost glad that the whole event took place.
The rumors about "crank" production and other crap have stopped.
And the local authorities now at least understand that I know my rights and will continue to declare them.
And they know one more thing... they will not kick my door down on a whim!
Jack- They would be wrong of course.-Jack
Wax- Hmmm... before I start off on an undeserved rant please explain what you mean by that.
The US Constitution is simply a scrap of paper, but it has power because of one specific mechanism.
So what do you mean?
bigjack
07-25-2007, 09:37 AM
Jack- They would be wrong of course.-Jack
Wax- Hmmm... before I start off on an undeserved rant please explain what you mean by that.
The US Constitution is simply a scrap of paper, but it has power because of one specific mechanism.
So what do you mean?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We are endowed by our creator with our unalienable rights the moment we are concieved. No document can either grant them or take them away. They always exist and always will exist.
The US Constitution was meant to be a limiting document. Placing limits on the power of government. Not a enumeration of individual rights. -Jack
In a world where scraps of paper are treated as people,
it logically follows that people are treated as scraps of paper.
WileyCoyote
07-25-2007, 03:21 PM
BigJack, good point.
Wax - how odd it seems that the Feds were nice. To me that usually means they are trying to find out more about you by playing 'good cop' to the locals' 'bad cop'.
Still - after all, it seems like if the locals cannot go after you on one tack, they will shift to another... one with which the Feds might not be able to help you.
Note to self - scratch Minnesota off of my list of 'places to bug-out to'. Geez, and I thought MY cops were hicks! When they suggested I might be growing something else under the heading of "medicinal weeds" in the greenhouse, I invited them over for a look inside. They laughed - and never came. That Crazy Wiley, yankin' our chain again!
What gets me is if you have all kinds of money and you build a big stinking wall and hire private security and everyone bends over backwards. Seek a little privacy and security as a free person and suddenly your public enemy number one. We really have not left feudalism that far behind.
TNDadx4
07-26-2007, 02:19 AM
Wax,
I am sorry to hear that you are going through this. I'm sure that your compliance when a warrant was produced helped considerably in showing that you are a regular, law-abiding citizen who just knows his rights.
Congrats to you and your family for the way in which you all are handling this.
Txanne
07-26-2007, 03:45 AM
I wonder how many so called well educated, informed individuals, when asked the question: "Where do our rights come from?" would reply "the US Constitution"?
They would be wrong of course.-Jack
Quite so--Bigjack!!
Good point.
Txanne
Txanne
07-26-2007, 03:49 AM
Point is, Txanne - they do have to study Constitutional law.
That's how they know how to get around it.
My kids all know their rights under the Constitution - my first lawsuit against the State ensured that. I've found that most responsible and aware people who are freedom loving and righteous (without being self righteous) try to raise their kids with instruction from the Dead White Guys... unfortunately, far too many citizens not only don't know their rights, or think that they apply only to them or only in certain instances, or still assume that the public indoctrination camps K-12 already teach it. *
Local cops here have to have a GED---some have a year or two of college---But most of them HAVENT the foggiest notion what the Hell the constitution is---much less versed in it.
they [[the law-dogs]] think we need to be governed for our own good of course.
Wax, once again--you educate us---thank you
annie
Jack- We are endowed by our creator with our unalienable rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) the moment we are concieved. No document can either grant them or take them away. They always exist and always will exist.
Wax- First of all I want to start out by stating that your concept concerning such rights is the norm in our society.
Most Americans believe as you do.
I do not (for very specific reasons) but that is a good thing, it means that a veiwer who stops in here yet does not post might get two very different argument concerning such "rights".
First I will post my understanding of the rights you claim:
inalienable at Dictionary.com. ... not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.
In order for a right to be (un)inalienable, it must exist beyond the scope of known power. This means that it can not be denied, it can not be taken away.
Our founding fathers were truly great thinkers but they did on occassion make mistakes. The inalienable rights issue is one of them.
Many scholors like myself believe that this passage was directed at the king who claimed rule by divine decree, in a sense it was saying that all men are born equal and the right to rule is not divinely granted.
Yet no matter what the original intent was the claim itself was wrong.
Again... in order to be declared inalienable, a right can not be denied by any power or force.
Right to life?
We know this is not inalienable, one can be killed against one's will after all.
Life can be denied by force and thus can not be inalienable.
Right to liberty?
Again simple common sense dictates this could not possibly be inalienable. Ask any prisoner.
Now what is amazing is that Jefferson got one right... and it was way before it's time!
The right to pursue happiness.
This is absolutely inalienable, the pursuit of anything at all can not be denied by any force.
You can be confined, starved, tortured, etc, nothing can stop you from pursuing happiness.
*
So what other "rights" are indeed inalienable?
Well it is important to understand that by being inalienable the right includes a caveat (warning) of sorts:
All of them include a subsection which infers that being successful is not included.
You have the right to self defense: All living creatures do.
None of us have a right to declare that an attempt at self defense must be allowed success.
No power can stop you from trying to defend yourself.
But then that defense can be made extremely hard.
Others... ?
The predatory right to predation:
The right of belief (including prejudism:)
The right of worship:
"Rights" declared by foundational documents like our Constitution and Bill of Rights are not inalienable.
Instead, they are supported, preserved, and guarded, by a social contract.
The United States Constitution is nothing more than a scrap of paper with a few scribbled lines upon it.
It was given force by those who created it and agreed to the concepts and ideals written upon it.
No more than one third of the Continental population supported that document when it was written.
Support was gained by sacrifice and the will to struggle violently if needed to support those ideals.
And it worked... but it took much longer than most Americans understand. Many historians (like myself) view the document in question as struggling for its very survival from 1776 to 1812, 36 years is an extremely long time compared to what many Americans view as our nations period of birth.
But it is important to understand that while the document in question "became" during this period, each generation has literally been forced to re-support it in order to retain the ideals written there.
Some of those struggles are obvious and well known... you simply can't miss wars like the Civil War or "World Wars" (which is a poor definition but popular) yet the fact is that the United States Constitution has been "ratified" by every generation that has existed since our founding father's.
It must be, or it ceases to exist as anything more than an outdated document.
This is simple fact; the Magna Carta still exists as a document, but it holds no force and thus it can easily be seen as not existing as an agreement.
So where does that leave us concerning the disagreement you and I might have concerning "Rights" in general and the United States Constitution specifically?
Well... we are not too far in seperation of ideal really.
I agree with you that the Constitution "gives" nothing, but when I refer to my rights under the Constitution I am defining my dedication to support and defend the ideals presented by that document.
I am basically declaring that if the rights presented in that document no longer exist then my support of it is null and void.
It is both a declaration of participation and a warning of intent!
We currently have a serious number of questions to answer concerning the Constitution.
Our leaders have allowed a scumbag like Jose Padilla to violate the seperation of powers declared by that document.
Our Federal government has violated the essense of the ideals in that document by using blackmail to force seperate States into compliance with force it was not granted under the Constitution... in fact... with force it was specifically denied!
But as of this moment, the Constitution of the United States still stands because I and a great numbers of others still choose to support it.
Chile has a good motto, as mottos go;
"Por la razón o la fuerza" - by right or might
bigjack
07-27-2007, 04:33 PM
Wax, IMO our rights as derived from God exist weather they are denied OR Recognized.
5,000 years ago they existed just as they will 5,000 years from now. Every human being ever born had them. Man did not grant them. Man cannot take them away. He can only restict our free exercise of our God given rights.
I believe our Constitution applies only to US Citizens.
The Constitution has become so tattered and torn as to become meaningless. If you are betting your freedom and security on that document you are in deep trouble.
It's "open to interpretation". We can plainly see where those interpretations have gotten us.
We are just one "crisis" away from a total police state.-Jack
Jack... inalienable is inalienable is inalienable... the term can be defined and means something.
Now having said that it appears that what you are saying is something slightly different.
Jack- Man did not grant them. Man cannot take them away. He can only restict our free exercise of our God given rights.
Wax- So you are claiming that "God" grants a right to life?
You certainly have a right to believe this, and if it is a matter of faith I can not argue against that belief.
But how do you then handle an infant who dies?
Does "God" recind that persons "right to life"?
Was that persons right only partially granted, temporarily granted, or are the rules you define not completely clear?
As I said I can not argue against faith, and if your stance is a matter of faith alone then you and I will simply be required to agree to disagree concerning it.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.