system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Human rights are a social construct

Example. For the US, the "right" to bear arms is an essential "human right", so much so it is the second amendment right after free speech. Does this mean that every other country on earth except maybe Russia and Somalia is committing human rights abuses by not having a second amendment equivalent? 

The definition of a social construct is: **an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society** 

Rights only exist because they've been created and accepted by a certain people. A human right is not something that you can point to like you can your left arm and say, “Look, there it is.” Human rights are a social construct. We cannot prove their existence as a matter of scientific fact. A person alone on a desert island would have no need of rights. The concept would be meaningless. But introduce additional people, and then they would have to figure out how they are going to live together in peace.
gpt
>For the US, the "right" to bear arms is an essential "human right",

No, merely a constitutional right. By no means is it generally accepted among humans that it's an inalienable right. 

It's important to acknowledge such local, constitutional rights end at the border of that country. 

Just because human rights are a construct, doesn't mean you can take a random set of rights and calling it "human rights".