Is it Individual rights or 'group' rights and what is the difference?
It seems as though there is more fight for 'group' rights, i.e. women's rights, minority rights and homosexual rights, but this also negates the individual, without which there would be none of those 'groups'.
The intention is individual (human?) rights, but the strategy to achieve that often has to be through ensuring minority rights.
Individual rights if properly protected and properly taught are the the only rights needed, because there is no lower Minority than the Individual. In order to understand this, is to understand that a group is composed up of nothing more than individuals, which you showed. There are five inalienable individual rights. These are the right to life, liberty, property the pursuit of happiness and freedom. Special importance needs to be given to the right to property, which obviously wasn't in the Declaration but is an Individual right.The reason for this is for the safeguard of the right to life, because with out the right to property, you don't own the right to your own life.
Usually what you need to do is follow the trail, if you hear those clamoring for some form of "group" right, there is usually somebody behind them pulling strings to gain control and power, or enjoy having such control and power over a group. Usually these people are using such causes as a front to usually evil ends because they champion such causes to divide and conquer. It is pitting one group of individuals against another group of individual in trying to say that this group is trying to prevent this group from obtaining some "right", that is actually once you look at is a privilege living in a technological advance civilization. It is important to note that certain privileges, construed as rights, would not be possible with out technology. History has shown that technology and advancement can go bye bye. Yet, the individual rights don't reside in technology, they reside in the fact of being human. Unfortunately, the individual rights have become subservient to what is basically a Tribalism mentality now, also called Balkanization.
Not all individuals and not all groups have RIGHTS.
What we see a lot of today are Fabricated Rights, that is rights that individuals and groups want us to believe our their rights, but in reality they are not real.
Like Smoker's Rights, which are not really rights, but actions that smoker's take under the guise of a Right.
Where is there a constitutional right to smoke?
There is none, and in fact when smoker's smoke in public they are really assaulting the people that are around them.
Smoking is a form of air pollution, and a public nuisance.
Yet for years Smokers have asserted that they have a right to smoke, over your right not to be assaulted by their smoke.
Today Same Sex advocates assert a Right to Marry.
There is no constitutional right to marry.
A right doesn't require a license, and marriage requires a license.
The licensing of marriage contains certain requirements that have to be met before a marriage license is issued.
Illegal aliens assert that they have the same rights as American Citizens foregoing the word "Illegal". They assert these rights without foundation, and at the same time immigrants trying to get into this country following Immigration Procedures are turned away by the millions.
You would think that going through a legal immigration process would give more right to those immigrants, than aliens who illegally get across the US Borders.
My take on this question is that many individuals and groups have desires that they confuse with rights.
First off, thank-you for putting effort and thought into answering the question I posted. I appologize for not commenting sooner. I do not agree with what you wrote entirely; particularly the "gun issue" but, I noticed you carried quite a discussion concerning that issue. By rights, there can be no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms; the argument concerning certain people who misuse such a 'tool/weapon' as a firearm will not stand when it comes to keeping people safe from such individuals. No 'law' can keep anyone 'safe'; it can only hinder or limit a person(s) from defending themselves and others when they simply try to stay within the bounds of such a 'law.'
The shootings that have taken place, in mostly recent years (10-20), were a result of a variety of factors; one being the types of medications the perpetrators were on. I realize that can be another discussion in itself, so, back to the topic of discussion, if students had been carrying at Virginia Tech, no where near the number of people would have lost their lives.
As an example, the shooting that happened as far back as the 60's in Austin Texas, at a University, shows how armed Individuals actually help to stop such a slaughter. It was two civilians with guns in their cars who helped the officer on scene and they took out the shooter.
A militia is any able bodied man between 17 and 45, armed with their own weapons providing a common defense of their community. This can be a police force or civilians banding together to stop some violent act by a person(s) who see fit to attempt it. The James/Younger gang met just such a citizen force, while attempting a bank robbery in Northfield, MN.
So my point here is, if an environment such as a college campus has become unsafe, I would DEFINATELY want to be armed. The 'government' and 'law enforcement' can only do so much; and technically it is my responsibilty to provide my own defense, anyway. Thanks again, for the hub/answer. I will be writing more on the specific question I posted so, we can debate if you so choose.
To Elnavann, Keith Engel, and IBradmasters:
Thank-you also for posting answers to my question. I will be posting either my own answer or a hub on this topic, soon.
I disagree with some of you argument concerning "smokers' rights" and
Is an unsafe college campus made safer by more people, who may or may not be properly trained carrying guns. Also, the constitution says congress shall pass no law... States do have the right to pass laws dealing with guns and related issues.
by Daniel Bassilios 3 years ago
What's your view on the supreme court's move to grant equal LGBT marriage rights?The vote on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right that should be recognized nationwide will soon be put to the supreme court. What's your opinion?
by GA Anderson 4 years ago
In the course of another conversation I stumbled across this quote from Justice Felix Frankfurter in the context of a court case concerning forcing school children to say the Pledge of Allegiance, (West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette):“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain...
by preacherdon 7 years ago
What's your take on why it is OK for a woman to abort a child because it is her body and she can do with it as she likes, but it is not ok to not wear a seat belt for the same reason? I think it is because insurance companies lobby for seat belt laws while pro-abortionists lobby for pro-abortion...
by William Jordan 6 years ago
For the last couple of days the LGBT thing has been all over the forums on Hubpages. it seems most want to compare this to the civil rights movements of the 60's.Which makes it all about equality;but is a lifestyle choice the same as judging someone for their skin color.I can choose a lifestyle but...
by Useless itch 3 years ago
At what point is a persons individual rights being infringed upon?When does our freedom become acceptable to be taken from us? I.e. Jails, mental health institutions and even death (murder is murder)!
by The Medicine Man 3 years ago
How could the Constitution be for individual rights when blacks were deemed to be 3/5 of a person?AND THEY WERE ENSLAVED!(Blacks 3/5 of a person (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Constitution 1787)
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|