Quote:
The only place a persons rights have scope is at the point where they infringe upon someone elses. The fact that I own firearms infringes upon nobody elses rights.


The 2A does not protect everything to do with a gun. It does not protect the RKBA of a criminal, it does not protect an individual to go hunting, target shooting, carry and conceal. It is quite limited.

Quote:
Non sequitur, they did however have the right to invent them. They also had the right to carry rocks, clubs, spears, etc. as long as they didn't use them to infringe on anothers rights.


They had the "right" to invent them???? What???
YOu have to remember this, "rights" only came about because of governments existing. There is a reason for this. "rights" is a political term, a way of saying what the govt should not do from the point of view of others who are not the government.

Human beings are animals, so if you say that in 2000 BC humans had the "right" to invent guns, then so did lions, tigers and all other animals. And they still do.

Oh, and most people who carried clubs and spears used these to "infringe on anothers rights" it was warfare, survival of the fittest. Can you imagine in 2000 BC, you have a club and are about to kill some guy and he turns around and says "you have no right to do that", you would just beat him and laugh at the same time.

Quote:
I realize you don't believe that people have inheirent rightsand you believe that rights are granted by the gov't, and that's sad, but let me make something clear, my rights as a person are not granted to me by the BOR nor are they granted to me by the SCOTUS. They also cannot be taken away by a missinterpretation of the 2A.


What "right" are you claiming. Are you claiming a RKBA, or are you claiming a "right" to keep, use in any way, carry as you see fit etc etc????

Secondly, the 2A is important here, because the BoR prevents the govt from doing things, it prevents the govt making laws that stop individuals who have not broken the law or are a risk to society from keeping arms, ie no action but possessing arms, and fighting in the militia. The founding fathers were clear on this.
Any other "right" you claim to have based around guns can only be protected by the 9A, and you have to convince the supreme court that this is so.

There is a reality, what the powers of the constitution do, what they prevent, all of this matters. When you say, i have the "right" to this that and the other, it makes no difference to me. YOu can have the "right" to grow carrots for all i care, i can still go around your house and destroy your carrots, so what? Are your "rights" going to do anything at all??? Hell no. It is only people who can do things, they can say that something is wrong and that i should be arrested for it. That is the reality.

Quote:
Catholicism has been around longer than Mormanism does that mean Catholics have a right to freedom of religion and Mormans don't. I don't think you thought that comment through very well.


I thought about it, maybe you did not think too much about your statement (though i only say this to be pedantic) Remember this, mormons cannot do all their religious stuff, why not? They cannot be married to two women! There is a reason for this, had the mormon religion been the main christian offshoot, then it would have been accepted as normal, but because it is not so old, they decided that this is not religious enough to be protected, so they banned it.
Native america religions may have been around for thousands of years, but to those who run your country, they have existed not so long in their world, and as such, things like the sun dance are banned, where as catholic and protestant things, which were totally a part of the society that made the modern WASP USA, are all accepted.

Quote:
Here we have to have a bit of seperation. If the Gov't has taken away someones RKBA because they are a rapist, murderer, mugger, etc. Tough cookies.


And if this were religion, or any of the other "rights" in the BoR, it is not "tough cookies" is it. Criminals have a limited "right" to religion in prison, ie no going to mecca, but still allowed to pray in prison.

Quote:
They willingly violated the rights of others, there by forfeiting their own.


Read the BoR and you will see that this just does not work.

8A "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Imagine they say that an individual who has previously broken the law can have excessive bail, but an individual who has not, cannot have excessive bail.
Then, someone who has broken the law can be tortured, ie, lock them up and then torture them is okay.
This amendment would fall apart and be worthless. I dont think the founding fathers wrote it to be worthless, do you??

Quote:
On the other hand if the gov't is violating the RKBA of Joe Public, DC for example, then they are wrong and people shouldn't stand for it. Many don't.


I agree, though i did not agree with either DC or Shelly Parker et al in the federal court case, both sides made valid points and rubbish points.
SHelly parker says that because the 2A is individual, therefore the term "bear arms" must be read so that an individual can carry a gun where they damn well please.
That is like saying, because the 2A is individual, you cannot take my sweeties away from me because they are protected and i am an individual.

Quote:
As I said, it is wrong.


You just said it is tough cookies if a criminal has their "right" infringed upon. The law that says a criminal cannot have a gun after leaving prison is a GUN BAN!!!! YOu seem to be in favour of this gun ban.

Quote:
but I pay little heed to laws that violate my rights.


Or laws which you think violate your "rights". Seeing as carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A, yet most people assume that the 2A protects their "right" to carry, it does not wash. The bearing arms clause protects an individual to be in the militia, nothing more.

Quote:
If guns were banned where I live it would make exactly zero difference in weather I have them or not.


It might rain though!!

Quote:
No different then if Catholicism were outlawed, I'm not going to change my religion by gov't edict any more then I'll give up my guns by gov't edict.


Would you get a carry and conceal license, even though it is unconstitutional for the government to license or tax a "right"????