Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Of course I have. You missed it. Go back and read the posts again. And you do not seem to understand what "unalienable" means. They are rights that supposedly can't be taken away. Like it or not if the government executes someone legally they have taken away the supposed "right to life". The drafters of the constitution may have believed in the rights that you mentioned, they also realized that without government support that they did not exist. You are acting like a Sovereign Citizen telling a police officer that he "Knows his rights". With your rights codified into law they cannot be protected. The framers of the constitution realized this which is why they included the Bill of Rights. You can caterwaul all you like about having those rights but if the country one lives in does not support them they do not exist.You have given no support to your notion that all rights are granted by the government.
You are welcome to learn something here if you are willing. That will entail acknowledging that you were wrong.
Life, liberty, property and defense. You have a right to life; you have a right to liberty; you have a right to property; and, you have a right to defend these rights. From these rights other rights flow. For instance the right to thought or the right to justice. I can hardly explain the myriad philosophies behind natural rights in a post. There is no royal road here. You will have to learn the subject. I suggest starting with Kant. But, if you are merely trying to get a rough understanding, read Locke and Rousseau.
Like it or not, the drafters of the constitution believed in natural rights and sought to limit the government from infringing on those rights and the rights that flowed from them. This is why you will not find any government grant that gives the freedom of speech. Rather you will find the first ammendment which proscribes the government from prohibiting free speech; this is why the second Ammendment refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The government never granted that right. It already existed as a consequence of the natural right to defend oneself.
Do you have evidence to support that was a motive? Seems to me they were more out just to cause as much death and injury as they possibly could.
It is truly amazing how wrong you are but still fail to admit it. This os not just a misunderstanding on your part. Though I shouldn't be, I am amazed at how little people know about the constitution, let alone the philosophy behind it.Of course I have. You missed it. Go back and read the posts again. And you do not seem to understand what "unalienable" means. They are rights that supposedly can't be taken away. Like it or not if the government executes someone legally they have taken away the supposed "right to life". The drafters of the constitution may have believed in the rights that you mentioned, they also realized that without government support that they did not exist. You are acting like a Sovereign Citizen telling a police officer that he "Knows his rights". With your rights codified into law they cannot be protected. The framers of the constitution realized this which is why they included the Bill of Rights. You can caterwaul all you like about having those rights but if the country one lives in does not support them they do not exist.
You have yet to demonstrate it one iota. You have been confused by philosophy. It appears you do not understand the difference between "ought to" and "is". What you call "rights" are nice feelings and they should be generally protected. But like it or not rights come from those that have power over you. That is the real world. The writers of the Constitution realized this, and that is why a Bill of Rights was included. It would do no good to shout "I know my rights" if no one will support you in those rights.It is truly amazing how wrong you are but still fail to admit it. This os not just a misunderstanding on your part. Though I shouldn't be, I am amazed at how little people know about the constitution, let alone the philosophy behind it.
Your failure to support you position and your lack of willingness to learn are truly unfortunate in this situation.
Did you read the paper I posted? Have you read any paper on the subject? You seem most uninformed.You have yet to demonstrate it one iota. You have been confused by philosophy. It appears you do not understand the difference between "ought to" and "is". What you call "rights" are nice feelings and they should be generally protected. But like it or not rights come from those that have power over you. That is the real world. The writers of the Constitution realized this, and that is why a Bill of Rights was included. It would do no good to shout "I know my rights" if no one will support you in those rights.
I am not the one that is blind here. Your ideas are nice, but they are not supported by the real world.