Dangerousman wrote:Henry, I know you're have a difficult time grasping this. You seem to think that an inalienable and universal right cannot be violated. It can. Even you suggested there would be circumstances when you would violate that natural right to free speech.
Let me put it this way. The law of gravity applies universally. But if you were hanging over a cliff, grasping my hand, the law of gravity would not be changed by my choice of whether to hold you or let you go.
My willingness to violate a natural right to bear arms under certain circumstances is not one bit different than your willingness to violate a natural right to free speech under certain circumstances.
Personally, I believe that ultimately the concept of "natural rights" is a fiction, but it was used as a basis for the Constitution. So I made my argument from the perspective of the framers of the Constitution. I believe the universe is, in reality, morally neutral; and that all values are reducible to aesthetic (and subjective) values only.
That ought to give your philosophy-minored self something to mull over. Have fun with it and be careful out there.
Here's your problem, Mr. D. The natural right is to be safe and secure in your movements. If guns didn't exist, but rather another form of self defense, your right would be the same right to exercise self-defense with whatever form is available. And why is there a natural right for self-defense? It's the right to be safe and secure in your movements. Therefor this right to be safe precedes all other loose interpretations, in a sane world.
If a gun gives you that right, so be it. But when relaxed rules allow criminals, terrorists and the unstable to carry guns, then the right to bear arms disappears completely.
As you said, you insist on easy access to guns regardless of how that endangers other people. That's all anyone needs to know about your position right now until the NRA propaganda wears off and you can start thinking in a rational way.