in this post by Miguel.
Commenter Charles mentioned something I'd noticed and hadn't said anything about:
Notice that not only is the right to bear arms missing (and free speech,
property, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness), but there are no
rights at all listed? There are only entitlements. There is nothing
government must refrain from doing to you, only things the government
must provide you. SJWs call these entitlements "positive" rights and
natural rights or human rights "negative" rights.
Yeah, I noticed.
It’s a creative new argument, and also one that’s very wrong. I can see
why people are doing it: there’s a growing sensitivity to human rights,
and suggesting that something is an inalienable entitlement makes it
Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable
because, again, owning a gun isn’t a human right, and it’s not a civil
right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people
The right wants to cheapen the notion of human rights with this kind of
rhetoric, while also trying to score points. It’s a pretty pathetic line
of logic, and hopefully they’ll figure that out sooner rather than
'inalienable entitlement'. Really? Entitlements(however the hell this idiot actually defines it) which require others to provide a good or service, is the same thing as a right which does not(I don't count that 'infringes upon enjoyment' bullshit as either one)
Never any mention of the right to defend your life, and those with you. Same as Miguel, I suspect because if you admit that that right exists, people will want the MEANS with which to defend themselves. And that's not tolerable.
After all, having the means and will might infringe on the life enjoyment of the rapists and robbers and murderers.