Rights, Logic, Definitions, and of course, GUNS!

It is pretty much accepted by everybody that we have the right to life.

Food, housing and healthcare = life.

No food or no shelter or no healthcare = death.

Life is a right but somehow food, housing and healthcare are not? How can somebody argue the right to something like life, yet argue that everything needed to support it is not a right?

Sounds awful liberal at this point doesn't it? Trust me. It isn't. Read on!

Rights come from God (or just being human, for those people who prefer the secular argument) not government.

But somehow if it is said “food is a right” it is assumed that food has to come from government. Which ultimately means someone else has to pay for it.

But somehow if it is said “housing is a right” it is assumed that housing has to come from government. Which ultimately means someone else has to pay for it.

But somehow if it is said “healthcare is a right” it is assumed that healthcare has to come from government. Which...guess what...means someone else has to pay for it.

But rights don’t come from government.

If rights don’t come from government than food as a right, necessary to the support of the right to live, shouldn’t either. The government can then regulate it. How can something that is really a right be regulated by the whims of the government?

If rights don’t come from government than housing as a right, necessary to the support of the right to live, shouldn’t either. Again, the government can then regulate it. And again, how can something that is really a right be regulated by the whims of the  government?

If rights don’t come from government than healthcare as a right, necessary to the support of the right to live, shouldn’t either. Yet again, the government can then regulate it. How can something that is really a right be regulated by the whims of the government?

The only flaw I see here is in the acceptance of the assumption that healthcare, food and housing, if accepted to be rights, have to come from the government or the government is somehow responsible for providing them. Clearly they don’t but more than that they shouldn’t if they are truly rights.

It sounds like a lot of people have some confusion between the definitions of rights, responsibilities and entitlements.

Just for the fun of it, and to make a point, I would like to use the concept of "government provided rights" and apply it to something that is also a legitimate right necessary to life. That's right; guns.

According to the Constitution the People have the right to keep and bear arms. Using that argument, according to liberals rights come from the government which is responsible for the fulfillment of them. Therefore as part of my rights and the government's responsibility to me, I would like a Kimber Gold Match II, chambered in .45 ACP and five thousand rounds of Federal Hydra-Shok ammo to go with it.  I'd also kind of like to have an M-4 and an MP-5 with about ten thousand rounds of ammo for each. A free place to shoot them would be fantastic.

But no! The government makes ME pay for my own firearms and ammo! Just as if...well...it is my responsibility to provide the funding for my rights.

If it is my right to keep and bear arms, and if it is also my right to defend myself, I think it's time we demand the fulfillment of our rights and make the government pay for our guns and ammo. However it may be asking a bit to much for liberals to be so consistent in their logic.