A little more on the "WE define what a right is!" SJB

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 seem ironclad.
and
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

and
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 later.
'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.