Which of these is a right?

[Supergirl]

Which of these things do you think is a right, as opposed to a "good"?

[Spursmania]

The U.S. Cons ution-an interesting read.

[DarkReign]

Entertainment I would have checked, but its too broad. If it refers to censorship, thats a debate.

[boutons_deux]

there are no rights except those men make up, and men can make up whatever the rights they want to make up, and they do.

[Wild Cobra]

I see that six people so far don't understand the cons ution.

[SonOfAGun]

With the freedom to own guns I can get the rest of the things on that list

[Wild Cobra]

With the freedom to own guns I can get the rest of the things on that list

Especially since the second amendment is there to protect the first!

[Supergirl]

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

[Spursmania]

Ignorance is bliss...
2nd amendment anybody?

[LnGrrrR]

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

The right to own guns is a basic right enshrined in our Cons ution. No one is denying that someone has the right to food, water, and shelter. However, the right to own guns HAS been denied throughout history.

No one has a right to HAVE guns, much like they don't have the right to HAVE a house. They have a right to BUY, OWN, and/or KEEP guns.

[SonOfAGun]

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

If I want food, water, and shelter I will go out and get it myself.

[ElNono]

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

[Bender]

spoken like a true sheeple...

[Supergirl]

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not cons utionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. The founding fathers were pretty clear that people should be given the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and no one can worry about pursuing happiness when they are starving or freezing to death.

Food, water, shelter, guns, access to basic health care, and freedom: These are cons utionally guaranteed rights.

[101A]

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not cons utionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. The founding fathers were pretty clear that people should be given the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and no one can worry about pursuing happiness when they are starving or freezing to death.

Food, water, shelter, guns, access to basic health care, and freedom: These are cons utionally guaranteed rights.

Without arguing the specifics of each thing you listed;

Nowhere does the Cons ution provide for the government, or anyone else, providing ANYTHING for anyone. The Cons ution guarantees the right of an individual to DO or OWN certain things without those things being taken away or freedoms by the government. You have a very perverse view of that very basic principal.

[LnGrrrR]

Without arguing the specifics of each thing you listed;

Nowhere does the Cons ution provide for the government, or anyone else, providing ANYTHING for anyone. The Cons ution guarantees the right of an individual to DO or OWN certain things without those things being taken away or freedoms by the government. You have a very perverse view of that very basic principal.

+1

Honestly Supergirl, the Cons ution does not GUARANTEE those things for anyone. The Cons ution guarantees the right to EARN those items, but it does not guarantee the items themselves.

[Extra Stout]

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not cons utionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous.

I think that in an 18th-century context most people would disagree that state-provided food, water, and shelter were intended to be guaranteed by the Cons ution.

Social welfare is a late-19th/early-20th century concept.

Few actually believe in the Cons ution these days. In its context, it was founded upon classically liberal ideals, within the Enlightment constructed upon a Western, Christian, and English ethical and moral framework. It is a product of its time.

200+ years removed from that context, it makes increasingly less sense without an interpretive method that places it within its context, draws out its ideas, and places them in a 21st-century context.

However, 200+ years removed, with most of the social and cultural pillars undergirding it removed, and with so many disparate ideologies having sprung from the 18th century Enlightenment days, the Cons ution, apart from its most basic concepts on human liberty, is just a political Rorschach test. Whatever you happen to believe in can be a "cons utional right."

There is a reason Thomas Jefferson believed the do ent to have a shelf life.

Anyway, today in America the two dominant views on the Cons ution both take contemporary ideologies, whether Right or Left, and superimpose them on the text. This does violence to its meaning.

Increasingly, it seems to me that is just about all anyone does with any historical do ent. Nobody studies history, they just use it.

[LnGrrrR]

\Increasingly, it seems to me that is just about all anyone does with any historical do ent. Nobody studies history, they just use it.

I don't think there's many historians elected to Congress...

[cheguevara]

rights is a bull made up word. Like Santa Claus

[Bender]

But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not cons utionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous.

I don't remember the Cons ution guarantying Welfare for everybody.

I guess I don't need to work to buy groceries, Cons ution guarantees me food.

I guess I don't need to work to make a house payment, Cons ution guarantees me shelter.

I know the Gov't IS buying people houses and food so they can sit on their asses and do nothing their entire lives, but that doesn't mean it's in the Cons ution.

[sam1617]

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not cons utionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. The founding fathers were pretty clear that people should be given the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and no one can worry about pursuing happiness when they are starving or freezing to death.

Food, water, shelter, guns, access to basic health care, and freedom: These are cons utionally guaranteed rights.

If you are saying that people have the right to own food, water, shelter, guns, and pursue basic health care, then I agree. However, food, water, and shelter (or guns and anything else) aren't guaranteed, there is nowhere in the cons ution that it says that the government should provide those things.

[Darrin]

If you take 'food, shelter, and water' away from this poll and make it life, I would vote for it. But to say we have the right to food could mean that it cannot be taken from us, no matter how nourished we are. That we shouldn't have to pay for it, that is should be provided for us. That is not the case, and why I didn't vote for it.

Without these basic necessities met, our life becomes about them. We need to help people to get them, but I don't think we should fold up the entire industry surrounding food. Water, on the other hand, is a right. It is reflected in our society's use of it, its abundance, and its application of free services.

Freedom seems to cut across lines because of the society we live in. I think education is a right. Safety is a right directly and indirectly linked with education. So is opportunity and security, two things I think are good to have.

[DarkReign]

I think youre confusing what "right" means in the American government sense.

When a government uses the word "right", it refers to something they protect and/or provide.

On those grounds, food and water do not apply. Government does not provide and/or protect either.

Education is not a right. Its treated like one now, but it is not a right. One could argue that because education is treated as a right in today's version of America, we have a dumbed-down society full of underachievers and reality show heads.

Food, shelter...again, not rights protected by the government. Im starting to get the feeling here that I am completely outnumbered by people who think life guarantees them anything remotely nearing the scope of this thread.

I, as a tax paying citizen, do not owe my fellow citizens like healthcare, food, shelter or water. Nor you to me.

Because some of you would do these things for others by way of public taxation and treasury does not mean we all want to. That is my ing right.

[Crookshanks]

I think youre confusing what "right" means in the American government sense.

When a government uses the word "right", it refers to something they protect and/or provide.

On those grounds, food and water do not apply. Government does not provide and/or protect either.

Education is not a right. Its treated like one now, but it is not a right. One could argue that because education is treated as a right in today's version of America, we have a dumbed-down society full of underachievers and reality show heads.

Food, shelter...again, not rights protected by the government. Im starting to get the feeling here that I am completely outnumbered by people who think life guarantees them anything remotely nearing the scope of this thread.

I, as a tax paying citizen, do not owe my fellow citizens like healthcare, food, shelter or water. Nor you to me.

Because some of you would do these things for others by way of public taxation and treasury does not mean we all want to. That is my ing right.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think that in an 18th-century context most people would disagree that state-provided food, water, and shelter were intended to be guaranteed by the Cons ution.

Social welfare is a late-19th/early-20th century concept.

Few actually believe in the Cons ution these days. In its context, it was founded upon classically liberal ideals, within the Enlightment constructed upon a Western, Christian, and English ethical and moral framework. It is a product of its time.

200+ years removed from that context, it makes increasingly less sense without an interpretive method that places it within its context, draws out its ideas, and places them in a 21st-century context.

However, 200+ years removed, with most of the social and cultural pillars undergirding it removed, and with so many disparate ideologies having sprung from the 18th century Enlightenment days, the Cons ution, apart from its most basic concepts on human liberty, is just a political Rorschach test. Whatever you happen to believe in can be a "cons utional right."

There is a reason Thomas Jefferson believed the do ent to have a shelf life.

Anyway, today in America the two dominant views on the Cons ution both take contemporary ideologies, whether Right or Left, and superimpose them on the text. This does violence to its meaning.

Increasingly, it seems to me that is just about all anyone does with any historical do ent. Nobody studies history, they just use it.

Was it not ironic that the US defeated Germany in war, in no small part due to a citizenry shaped by Prussian ideals?