It's painfully obvious in this thread (and others) that many don't believe in unalienable rights.
Inquiring minds, then, want to know, where you believe rights come from? Are rights even a part of your vocabulary in other than a disparaging attempt to look.... like whatever. Maybe esoteric? Eccentric? Superior to another?
Let's look at some facts. We can start with The Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self evident". Apparently many don't, yet they want to use the words the Declaration of Independence used to create the constitution which made use of the words in the first ten amendments. e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But, too, very few even know the constitution is, never mind what it says. Some are vaguely familiar with it, but, only vaguely. Again, inquiring minds ask, why? Do you believe you have the right to remain ignorant about what is supposed to be the rules for the governers? Of course you do. Where did you get that right? I don't recollect seeing that in the rules. Can it be pointed out? Or, could it be, you believe in inherent rights when they favor your ignorance but don't believe in them when they don't? Politicians are really good at that. Have any of you ever read anything than godvernment approved material? If so, how can you come to the ignorant conclusions expressed? If not, why?