Thread: Gun shop owner vows to prosecute TV3 reporter

If you want to look closely at the wording of the 1688 Act, it is of no further legal authority than existing law. The words "may have" and "as allowed by law" being critical.

However, the continued misunderstanding of what are legal rights and the unjustified introduction of the word "privilege" whenever it suits to convey a need to feel grateful and to encourage us not rock the boat, is pure propaganda.

The American Constitution is "entrenched law" meaning that it has extra protection from being changed. The power and effectiveness of the constitutional law is of no more significance than ordinary statute law outside of the protection from change that it enjoys.

The rights conveyed in Constituational law are also of no more significance than rights conveyed in ordinary law, they are just harder to change.

Legal rights are legal rights, the protection of those legal rights might have pragmatic effect, but they do not inherently have greater significance to any right conveyed in law.

We have legal rights to own use and possess firearms as prescribed in statute law. Yes that is potentially more open to be changed and that may change our response marginally to how we interact with lawmakers, but it is not a privilege.

If we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by thinking this way, we are far more conditioned to accepting decisions made on our behalf because psychologically privileges can simply be taken away. A govt is far less likely to consider doing this when it is seen as an attack on legal and legitimate choice, an attack on individual freedoms , and an attack on legal rights recognised in law.

Its not a fricken privilege.....