Natural rights have been discussed an enumerated throughout written history by such authors as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Aquila’s and in more recent history, by Locke (where Jerrerson lifted their enumeration him and Hutcheson), Hobbs, Kant, among many others and is found defined in the Bible, Quran, a UN Declaration and even ancient Sumerian texts. If you were really curious, which I doubt, you’d do your own research which isn’t difficult. I rather suspect, it is more of an intellectually dishonest challenge to gun rights folks that you can try to pick apart if they do a bit of leg work and present a list. However, I would suggest you would complain if you felt yours were being infringed. It’s SOP for many on the left to advocate depriving others of their rights when it suits their cause while hiding behind the Constitution when it suits them, figuring conservatives while honor their rights even when others are attempting to trample theirs. I challenge you to provide credible evidence that would pass the test of concepts that natural rights don’t exist.
Would you take the same position with regard to the language in, say, a contract into which you had entered? Could the word "month" evolve into "three days" and you'd be okay with it?
Yes they have been discussed a lot as a philosophy. In reality they do not exist. Still waiting for that list of them. How can we have natural rights if we can not even agree on what they are?
Courts are wrong all the time. That is why they are called legal opinions not legal facts. The reality is rights are granted by the people thru a government....unless you have evidence to prove this creator exists that provided these natural rights for which you can not even provide a list of
We, US citizens, have agreed to uphold those enumerated in the DOI and the BOI. Done deal. Any more we wish to recognize, such as the explicit right to privacy which I support, can be added for protection by the provisions and process framed in the Constitution. If you need a list, read the Docs... that might help.
No, the rights were acknowledged... “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. ” This statement recognizes individual rights, not those only associated to any group, it is the fundamental principle on which the Constitution is framed.
Yep. That was a wacky idea. Just like not counting black people as whole persons. They had a few wacky ideas
It doesn't matter if you were created by God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the simple biological processes initiated when your parents failed to use proper prophylactics, you were still created. As such, under American law, you have inherent, inalienable rights that were bestowed on you at your birth; rights which were preexisting even before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights were created. The most fundamental right that exists is the Right to Life. If you have a right to your Life then you have the Right to Defend that Life from any who would seek to steal it from you... and if you have the right to defend your life then you have the right to possess the most effective tools with which to conduct that defense. You don't have to like it, and all your obfuscations and rationalizations don't change it; it remains the truth.
Bestowed by who? The fact is they are bestowed by the people who can change them any time they want. I keep waiting for a list of these natural rights.....and I never get it
That's your OPINION, not fact. You can't dismiss the Constitution just because you find it inconvenient. Its meaning is clear, and if you don't like the Constitution as it stands then you're welcome to seek to amend it... just as they did when they properly amended the Constitution to recognize the rights of black people. Now, that you realize you can't get the votes to amend the Constitution so you're just going to try and dismiss the Constitution as "wacky" means your views are even less reality-based than I already knew them to be.
Mine are. The linguists also mention other types of supporting evidence. Such as historical evidence. But i haven't felt the need to mention it.
I'm sorry this is proving a concept too difficult for you to grasp. What you claim is "fact".... isn't. Fact: we have a natural right to our life, and thus the right to defend it. Forget any others: just focus on that one point. Do you have a right to your own life... or don't you?
I dismiss the parts that are stupid and wacky. It was made by men....good men but flawed men. It is not a holy relic. Parts of it just suck
No, it's not. It's normal in a discussion forum to focus on a particular part of a text in a debate. Ask the mods. It is perfectly admissible so long as the main point is not altered. And I did not alter it. I don't think it's "asinine", but we are in agreement. in what concerns my main point. I hold that the 2nd Amendment does not make a law that allows individual ownership of guns, and you hold that, not only that, it doesn't even make any law whatsoever. You just go further than I do.
There is only one right I'm discussing right now: the right to life. Do you truly claim you don't have a right to your life? Then you are free to advocate for amending the area of the Constitution that "just suck". YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU FIND IT INCONVENIENT.
I never have ignored it. Gun control has been around longer than you have been alive. It's not going anywhere because it is constitutional
I don't even know what right to life means. Does it mean no abortions ever? Does it mean no legal euthanasia? Maybe if I could see where this right is listed and defined.....can you show me?
You ignore it with every word you post. Gun control is wrong-headed, totalitarian, and unconstitutional; as anyone who reads history honestly can attest. Wow. Just.... wow. If you don't know what "right to life" means, then you are beyond help. I truly pity you.
Gun control saves lives. Less pity and more evidence. Back up your claim. You are defeated again. Lol
No, it doesn't. It's not that you don't know anything; it's that you "know" so much that just ain't so.
Back up your claim. Let's just take right to life. The anti abortion people have built an entire movement around this so called right. Are they right? Make your case
