[–] thelma 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Rights require no responsibility. They are yours. If you harm others then there are consequences. Once you pay the consequences (if mandatory) you are whole.
You have fallen into the trap...that citizens have to prove that they have the ability to exercise a right. Nothing is farther from the truth. You have zero obligation to do anything to exercise a right.
[–] Drunkenst ago (edited ago)
Not contending no difference between a right and a privilege. Rights are rules about what’s allowed or owed according to legal systems, ethical concepts or a civilization’s conventions. They are not absolute but neither are they infinitely malleable. Where distinctions are made about implementation depends on how you approach the origin of what’s allowed or owed. Rights can be revoked from a legal standpoint. In the broadest sense we all have the ethical right to self defense, but not necessarily the right to own and use a firearm where that right has been legally prohibited (you might say infringed) by statute owing to a criminal punishment.
[–] thelma 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Rights are not granted by a government so how can they regulate them. They cannot.
Privileges are governed by rules created by the gov't.
Rights are absolute. Privileges not so much.
Rights cannot be revoked but, by imprisonment, you might be able to exercise them. IMO, a criminal convicted of murder still has the right to own a gun but he cannot have access due to his incarceration. If released, then he has re-acquired his ability to possess what he/she owns.
One does not need a gun to kill.