[H.Akston]

Who says the right to life supersedes the right to be secure in one's person?

Does the right to life supersede the right to bear arms? I thought all rights in the Bill of Rights were of equal value.

Property rights don't supersede free speech. But the rights of the independent supersede the rights of the dependent. This is the basis for many laws allowing the control of minors by their parents.

Your obnoxious guest can speak in the street. If he needs your house to speak, then he is in a state of dependency. This makes his rights inferior to yours, until his independency is restored, by placing him in the street.

Whoever is dependent, must yield. That is what conservatives say about welfare recipients.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"This is the basis for many laws allowing the control of minors by their parents."

Untrue. An independent child (independently wealthy via trust, child acting, etc) is still controlled by his parents. Children are in the control of their guardians because they do not come out fully formed and need to be socialized. Again, your line of reasoning would allow parents to dispose of their dependent children.

"Who says the right to life supersedes the right to be secure in one's person?"

Well, here's one source: "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

The Founders understood that the right to life was first and foremost amongst the rights that government was instituted to protect. The type of nations that thought inconvenient lives had no rights were blood drenched tyrannies that our forefathers died to defeat.