Calling human rights "Constitutional rights"

I am uncomfortable with calling any natural human rights "Constitutional rights". You may have noticed I don't use that phrase anymore (if I ever did).

I don't like it when people talk about "our Second Amendment rights", for example. 

For one thing, I don't like "our" being used in that collectivist way, and for another, the rights placed off-limits to government attention (oversight or scrutiny) don't hinge on the Second Amendment. 

That ignored amendment makes all government gun rules a crime. It doesn't "give" anyone any rights to do anything.

If the totalitarians of the state decide ignoring the Second Amendment (which they've gotten away with doing for around 90 years) isn't good enough, they can simply abolish it. 

But the natural human rights it addresses will exist unchanged. Forever. They'd rather you not realize this fact-- if they are aware of it.

Referring to the rights to own and to carry weapons and to form militias that are armed with weapons equal to or better than those wielded by government's military, as "Second Amendment rights" cheapens those rights; makes it easier for the anti-gun bigots to attack them through government violence.

But the rights to own and to carry weapons and to form militias aren't the only rights abused this way. Any natural human right called a "Constitutional right" or referred to by an amendment number is the same. If it's a right nothing can change that. Not government opinions, not mob rule, and not time. If it isn't a right, calling it one can't turn it into one.

Thinking rights come from or depend on documents or government opinions means you don't understand rights.
Until you understand and respect rights, you can't understand liberty.
If you don't understand liberty you'll probably never have it.
This isn't an academic exercise.

--

Please consider donating or subscribing. 

PayPal -- Venmo -- GiveSendGo
Thank you.