Anyone claiming that owning a dog is a privilege and not a right has no clue what constitutes a right.?
- 3 months ago
Anyone claiming that owning a dog is a right has no clue what constitutes a right.
- BleargLv 53 months ago
In common parlance, I would think that prima facie rights would probably be considered more in the realm if "privileges" than "rights" , and that pet ownership is a prima facie right rather than an absolute right due to there being overriding conditions that limit pet ownership.
I think zeroing in on the specific use of "right" here is pretty silly.
A legal right in the U.S. is defined as a claim recognizable and enforceable at law. There are
prima facie rights and absolute rights. The former can be overruled by specific context where as the latter are consistent regardless of surrounding circumstances. Pet ownership is not an absolute right. There are laws and regulations that govern all sorts of minutia relating to them, including whether they can be owned at all.
I'd argue that the common meanings fit fine for what they are expressing. Words aren't immutable. Context is important.
- JennyLv 63 months ago
Pets are property and as such a right to own. Certain items, for example, drugs can be made illegal but that wouldn't apply, so owning a dog is a right.
- GypsyfishLv 73 months ago
I don't know of any government rules saying who can and can't own a dog. However, there are laws about mistreating animals, so I guess it could be said that if you mistreat a dog, you lose the right to own one. Just as, if you're convicted of a felony, you lose the right to own a gun.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- .Lv 73 months ago
"Rights" just mean that the government can't impinge upon them. It doesn't mean that a society guarantees full exercise of the right. For example, we have a Second Amendment right to own a firearm. But that doesn't mean the government has to buy guns for poor people who can't afford them.