So the state "gives" rights, according to this clown?
By his logic, once the Dred Scott decision had been given enshrining the rights of slaveholders to take and capture slave property in free states in the Constitution, then those rights can't be taken away. Also, the right to drink alcohol was quite legally and constitutionally taken away, and then given back again with the enactment and repeal of prohibition.
While I see many people arguing that rights are solely bestowed by their creator, I would argue that a government is very important in securing those rights. For instance, suppose there was general anarchy: you would be able to do anything you wanted, so long as you weren't killed or captured first. Eventually, there would be people who had plenty of rights, but at the expense of enslaving or killing others.
A government's job is to step in and make sure that everyone has certain rights. Fundamental to these are life and liberty. However, if someone breaks a law, we see that the government can take them away. On this forum, it seems that people in general would like the government to be very strict in those two regards.
But, really, these are all semantics. Whether you are given rights by the government or whatever is not the issue. My question is how does Reilly stand on gun rights? I see a strong correlation between gay rights and firearm regulation, and I wonder where this fellow stands. I always get kicks out of pointing out a blatant hypocrisy.