"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[NYcarbineer]

How can rights come from the Creator when the existence of the Creator cannot even be verified?

First denial I've encountered or the existence of Our Kenyan Emperor but, yeah, I guess you probably haven't seen Him for yo'self......

Can the government take away a woman's right to an abortion?

 

[Darkwind]

[ This is a case where government provides this right in context only because we have seen societies where there were no governments, yet each person in that society is entitled to a vote as a means of giving direction to the group.

That IS government you imbecile.

No, its not moron. No one person has the power over the others.

Do yourself a favor. Wait for Me to tell you when I give a **** about anything you might have to say. Otherwise, just move along until you get smarter.

 

[westwall]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

No, rights are taken away by governments all the time. Thus, they are not "RIGHTS". Anything that can be taken away is not a "right". Understand?

So when the right to own a gun is taken away from a convicted felon, it proves that gun ownership is not a right?

lol

No. It shows that because the individual showed a complete disregard for the rights of others, he is no longer entitled to them. And, felons can get their rights to own firearms back. It's called a "relief of disability".

 

[westwall]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

No, rights are taken away by governments all the time. Thus, they are not "RIGHTS". Anything that can be taken away is not a "right". Understand?

Governments don't take away rights. They violate rights.

That was the point I was making.

 

[dblack]

You people are severely challenged when it comes to the ability to distinguish between what you have and what you think you have.

God given rights are what you think you have. Rights recognized, acknowledged, and protected by the Government are what you have.

You're missing the point. The term "inalienable" is simply a way to distinguish between rights that are extensions of free will, and those that amount to a grant from others. Inalienable rights are acts that a person can initiate that don't require the participation of anyone else. Think of it this way, if you could exercise a right even if no one else was around, it would be considered "inalienable". That's what people mean when they say government doesn't "give" you inalienable rights. It doesn't mean they're magically protected, or that they can't be violated. It's just drawing a distinction between basic freedoms and grants of power over others.

 

[HenryBHough]

Can the government take away a woman's right to an abortion?

I feel that if a woman can live with murder on her conscience then it's up to her. Similarly, of she later decides, in a fit of depression over having killed her child to slash her wrists I also believe government should not interfere. Yup, that makes both things "rights".

But I don't feel you or I ought to have to finance her hobbies.

 

[ogibillm]

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

Incorrect.
You have rights. The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change this fact; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.

That is, government exists because we have rights.

Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

how do you know that you have rights if you aren't able to assert them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

Incorrect.
You have rights. The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change this fact; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.

That is, government exists because we have rights.

Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

how do you know that you have rights if you aren't able to assert them?

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?

 

[ogibillm]

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

Incorrect.
You have rights. The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change this fact; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.

That is, government exists because we have rights.

Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

how do you know that you have rights if you aren't able to assert them?

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?

so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

 

[dcraelin]

So with no government we'd still hav= the right to vote?

Obviously.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

what would you vote for without a government?

Who gets eaten for lunch.
Now, obviously, some rights cannot exercised outside the context of government, such as the right to a jury trial or the right to be free from self-incrimination by the state, but those rights are also not granted by the government.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law

There's no such thing as the Bill of Rights in the Constitution? lol

I think it important to note that the Constitution did not originally have a Bill of Rights...in fact Madison and most other "founders" argued against including them. It was really due to agitation by OPPONENTS to the Constitution, such as Patrick Henry that they were included, eventually, at all.

 

[pismoe]

agree 'dcraelin' , I think that certain founders wanted more guarentees so the Bill of Rights was penned !!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

 

[pismoe]

observation , there are lots of 'euros' and probably English on this board plus liberals , dems , etc , etc that live in the USA . Some of the euros and certainly the English were raised with a tradition of being subjects and I think that their rights are subject to law rather than being inalienable .

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ This is a case where government provides this right in context only because we have seen societies where there were no governments, yet each person in that society is entitled to a vote as a means of giving direction to the group.

That IS government you imbecile.

No, its not moron. No one person has the power over the others.

Do yourself a favor. Wait for Me to tell you when I give a **** about anything you might have to say. Otherwise, just move along until you get smarter.

Voting is an exercise of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

That's like acid rain to the left.

Since there is no proof of the existence of God, there can be no proof that rights are God given.

 

[Roadrunner]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

That's like acid rain to the left.

Since there is no proof of the existence of God, there can be no proof that rights are God given.

Yet the people who founded this country believed that rights were divinely vouchsafed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Yes... what they do not have is the means to exercise that vote.

You 'feel' that the inability to exercise a right equates to 'not having the right', you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

A 'right' is only valid wherein the exercise of that right, does not usurp the means of another to exercise their own right(s).

As a result, there can be no right to 'abortion', as abortion strips the life from another human.