They are because they should be.
They are moral, therefore are legal in a just government.
Of course they exist in nature. The right of defense of person or property.
If you attack me in nature, I don’t have to worry about prosecution by a 3rd party with an agenda.
“Legal” is about control. Not freedom.
Where exactly did the creator of humanity specify gun rights?
It doesn’t say “guns”.
Jesus this is a good post. Thanks for writing it.
“Should be” is all about control, too. Dressing it up as moral just makes the controller feel better.
They are constructions of society.
…thats what some humans say
ive never seen a right outside of a human expression of such…
I’m always amazed by conservatives’ faith in humans’ wildly different ideas of God. Like it isn’t transparent as hell that we’ve just made this crap up as we go along, and have been for thousands and thousands of years, and think that our age is somehow special. Gullible doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Rights come from the consent of the governed, not the government.
We the people are the government, so ultimately…
I think it depends. For example, if gun rights were taken away via an amendment, that sends a signal that it’s supported by an overwhelming majority of society. I would have no problem with this.
Where else could you see them?
No we aren’t.
The overwhelming majority of society doesn’t own the right. I do.
You’re trying to make it a privilege.
How about if the overwhelming majority of society decides you don’t get to speak?
Until revolution. How many times did the colonists appeal to the government? How did they actually get their rights back?
Then you don’t get to speak unless you do something about it.
Then it’d be a pretty ■■■■■ society that I wouldn’t want to be a part of.
Most of the world does not have freedom of speech. Our society here in the US voted to make it a right.
That validates my point. Rights are not secured by appeals to God, they are secured by the actions of government, whether that government be the Crown, the Continental Congress, SCOTUS, or People’s Revolutionary Councils. Transitioning between different governments (revolutions) doesn’t change the fact that God may be the source of rights, but if the people are to get them, God’s not going to do anything.
The only rights that people get are those that government recognizes and delivers. If a government doesn’t deliver, revolution (i.e. new government) by the people is what happens.
Rights from God is a philosophical answer to the position of God giving us Kings to rule wisely. Both are rhetorical appeals with no practical effect. Charles I argued that God gave him rule over England, all the way to the gallows. Slaves argued that God gave them rights, all the way until congress passed the 14th Amendment.
