How do you explain Natural Rights to a Liberal who believes rights depend on Govt?

Criminals, murderers and rapists IGNORE your stupid shit gun control laws idiot.

OP how's that ^^^ in making your point in this thread.
Yes. That's what criminals do. They break laws. Thank you Captain Obvious. 😄

Now with that out of the way you do know that other countries also have criminals and yet every other first world nation manages to have significantly fewer instances of gun violence than we do. Do you think that's because their criminals respect gun laws?
 
Yes. That's what criminals do. They break laws. Thank you Captain Obvious. 😄

Now with that out of the way you do know that other countries also have criminals and yet every other first world nation manages to have significantly fewer instances of gun violence than we do. Do you think that's because their criminals respect gun laws?
You are FAKE news. RAPE higher in Canada. Per capita violent crime overall is higher in Canada. Next, calculate gun violence in law abiding areas of the U.S. excluding the corrupt Dem run shithole cities. See there you have it. :eusa_hand:
 
Liberals don't believe that. So how about conservatives stop trying to think they can say what liberals believe when the garbage conservatives believe is wack.
You're not liberals.
You're not progressive either, while we're at it.

You are regressive collectivist authoritarians, and yeah, we're well aware that you people do not remotely believe in human rights or equality.
 
/----/ We settled this in 1776.
Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition.
Well this is just a nonsense. There is no "inalienable" right that your govt cannot remove.
 
Liberals don't believe that. So how about conservatives stop trying to think they can say what liberals believe when the garbage conservatives believe is wack.

Conservatives dont know liberals believe but liberals know what conservatives believe? :lol:
 
Well this is just a nonsense. There is no "inalienable" right that your govt cannot remove.
/——-/ These rights remain ours in-spite of government brute force. Here is how your side treats those who express their inalienable rights.
EEB36A3F-F411-44B5-98DC-7EFB5B7DDE0E.jpeg
 
You're not liberals.
You're not progressive either, while we're at it.

You are regressive collectivist authoritarians, and yeah, we're well aware that you people do not remotely believe in human rights or equality.
We just know human rights comes as a function of society, government and force rather than magical fairy dust from Mother Nature.
 
/——-/ These rights remain ours in-spite of government brute force. Here is how your side treats those who express their inalienable rights. View attachment 727177
So why do you crazies get so uptight about gun rights. Surely God gave you guns so you can slaughter infants ?
Why do you meltdown about any sort of gun control when it just cant happen ?.
 
So why do you crazies get so uptight about gun rights. Surely God gave you guns so you can slaughter infants ?
Why do you meltdown about any sort of gun control when it just cant happen ?.
/----/ "Surely God gave you guns so you can slaughter infants ?"
What an idiotic response.
non sequitur
nŏn sĕk′wĭ-tər, -too͝r″

noun​

  1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
1668691717589.png
 
A friend was alarmed I would endorse any kind of Conservative or Republican narrative or agenda seen as a threat to women's rights. How do you explain that if you already depend on govt for rights then you are not free?

Doesn't real freedom mean you have rights that are "inalienable" i.e., with or without govt endorsing them.

I tried to respond as below.
Should I try harder to make the point that the way to protect and claim rights is to practice and enforce them directly?

How would you explain this in plain terms?

RE: "What rights of women are you willing to sacrifice by supporting Conservatives or Republicans pushing prolife laws"

Women and all other groups of people need to learn how to practice enforce and represent our own rights. It's called ownership. And self governance. Equal empowerment. Do you know how in church history, the masses used to be illiterate people who depended on priests to read, write and have authority over the laws -- until Luther insisted that people learn the laws directly and embrace authority of law through Jesus to connect with God directly by faith. NOT by relying on priests as the middleman between people and God because Jesus already fulfills that. Well today we're going through a similar Reformation where people assume equally authority and responsibility as the state. We learn the laws and embody them directly. With spiritual laws we the people become one as the church. With natural laws, Jesus also fulfills that path as Justice to bring peace. We all make this process of peace through justice happen equally.
Exactly Emily, my rights come from me, my higher power and I will defend anyone's rights any time any place, I want you to be free as me
 

Forum List

Back
Top