Or doughnuts? Why are doughnuts not a god-given right? Why are guns different?

[kpete]

So why is there a God-given right to have assault weapons but not a God-given right to have machine guns? Or uranium bullets? Or personal nuclear weapons?

Link to tweet

…

@SarahHuckabee
Democrats say we have guns in America because of “corruption”. No, we have guns because it’s our God-given right enshrined in the Constitution.

Link to tweet

[Ohiogal]

1. Who said

we have guns in America because of corruption? That makes no sense.

[Igel]

5. My inference ...

We only have guns because the NRA bribes Congressfolk through campaign contributions and public pressure and (somehow) influences judges in order to guarantee a "right" to a small fraction of the population.

If Citizens United is corruption, then lobbying and donations are corruption.

[Drahthaardogs]

2. Donuts are food. I believe we have a right to food.

I also believe we have a right to medicine.

We have a right to fair labor practices

We have a right to education

Guns are protection. I believe we have a right to them as well. I also think they need stricter regulation.

[milestogo]

12. Donuts are kinda sorta food.

But mostly they taste good.

Ok, I saw an opportunity to use this emoticon and I took it.

[Takket]

3. The bar is so low for rethugs

They just toss out generic terms like “guns” and “God given” and the media doesn’t bat an eyelash.

But we say assault weapons need to be regulated and get a fifteen minutes lecture about the difference between assault weapons and weapons of war and machine guns and semi-automatic, and what about magazines? Etc etc.

[Captain Stern]

4. There are no God-given rights.

If there were God-given rights, then we wouldn't actually need them to be enshrined in our Constitution, would we?

[Igel]

6. The Constitution's flipped from what a lot think it is.

It doesn't grant rights. It says that the duty of government is to protect the rights you already have.

It doesn't grant the right to free speech. You have the right to free speech already. But government is there to protect it and, only when there's a damned good reason, infringe on it.

Same for religion. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of the press.

That argument says that if you have a right to food, government can't interfere with that right. If you have access to it, nobody can take it away from you. On the other hand, it's like freedom of the press--nobody has an obligation to provide you with a press or access to it. You're protected from having troops garrisoned in your home; but that doesn't give government the obligation to provide you with a home, it just protects you from government excess.

About the only positive right is due process, but even that's viewed as government protecting you from government overreach and abuse. It's just that in the absence of government, there's no risk of government overreach and abuse.

Hence the "god granted" as opposed to "government provided." A lot of people like "government provided" because then it's easier, they think, to come to a consensus on what rights are. It's not easier except inside their bubble, but there you have it. Some don't like bringing a deity into the picture. Others just want as much provided by government as possible. (I personally find that usually it's to avoid being indebted to others for help or because they don't trust those around them, esp. those in power, and strangers a thousand miles away are more trustworthy and government-mandated things require no sense of indebtedness or gratitude. At the same time, a government that centralized and powerful is easier to control and can provide control over the non-rights that others apparently mistakenly think are rights.)

[Mosby]

7. +1

[yellowcanine]

8. The way to stop a bad guy with a doughnut is a good guy with a doughnut.

It had to be said.

[leftieNanner]

9. One very important question

Glazed or jelly?

[Revanchist]

14. Wrong!!!!

You need a cup of coffee

[smirkymonkey]

10. Just when I thought we were safe from her bullshit.

She pops up again like a bad penny.

[abqtommy]

11. Donuts and guns are both hazardous to a persons health.

It doesn't take much thinking to realize this... If people who are concerned about their health refused to buy/use/consume either then the market for both would dry up. That's the power of personal decisions and action.

[MFM008]

13. Besides Donuts

Being Homer Simpsons dream in life...it would be better if they were weapons of war...not guns...