Quote:
I never said it did. It does protect my individual right to keep and bear arms.


What you are saying is not clear to me. Remember this, many people think that "keep and bear arms" means hunting, carry and conceal, walking into a store with a gun, walking around doing what you like with a gun except shooting at people. Not so. You need to be more precise with your definition of "keep and bear arms" because many people use it in many different ways.

Quote:
You will notice here that I said "protects" as opposed to "grants". The BOR does not grant rights it only helps to protect us from Gov't infringment on rights we are born with.


I know the theory.

Quote:
Wrong, rights are not something given to us by gov't. Rights are something everyone has regardless of the gov't they live or don't live under. For instance, every person in Iran has the right to freedom of religion. They also have a gov't that violates that right, something they should work to change. Every person living in the UK has the right to keep and bear arms. They also have a gov't that violates that right, something they should work to change.


The problem here is that i dont believe in "rights" and it is not important in this debate at all. WIth or without "rights", the second amendment protects something. That is the debate here, what the constitution does and does not do.
You could claim the "right" to something that the govt does not recognise, it makes no difference. It could a "right", it might not be, does it matter? No, it is about human interaction. The theory of "rights" did not exist 1,000 years ago, like it or not, put a gloss on saying they did not know etc, it makes no difference, if nobody claims it, it is useless.

Quote:
Give me a break. No wonder you can't grasp the concept of human rights, you can't even see the difference between people and animals.


What is the difference between humans and animals???
Humans are animals, dogs are animals. The term animal is simply to distinguish a group from other types of creatures like insects for example. We are biological creatures, just like cats and dogs.
Now you can come on here and say you have the "right" to this that and the other, yet when i say a dog has the "right" to this that and the other you say i am wrong.
I do not understand why? You cannot prove you have "rights", you can only "feel them" or whatever reason you might give. Have you asked a dog if it can feel "rights"???
I bet, every reason you can give me for why you have "rights", i can say the same about a dog.

Difference means nothing, i am different to you, does that mean i don`t have "rights"??

Quote:
I wasn't there but I would guess that those spears were also used for hunting, fishing, and "gasp" self defense.


Yeah, and?

Quote:
First of all, I wouldn't be infringing upon him like that.


Says an educated man. You wouldnt have been educated, you would have used basic instincts, nothing else. The theory of "rights" did not exist and you wouldnt have been able to understand it anyway.

Quote:
But if some one was going to club me I would sure be glad I have the right to my own club to defend myself with.


Which would you rather have? SOmeone is attacking you, you can either have the "right" to a club to defend yourself with, or just a club to defend yourself with.

Quote:
Once again, the BOR has no bearing on what rights I have as a person. BTW your theory that the 2A allows people to keep but not bear arms is laughable and unworthy of discussion.


A) That is not my theory
B) What the BoR does say, is important, the fact that you say you have the "right" to it is less important. As i said, if someone is beating you and you say you have the "right" to self defence, it means nothing. YOu still get an arse whooping!!

Quote:
In a way yes. Before you go stomping my carrots you may want to remember I have the right to keep that club we talked about earlier. A bad example, but it shows how the RKBA can be used to protect the others.


But then the government may have banned you having the club. What good is your "right" then?? What does it mean?

Quote:
Actually your helping my point here. This is an example of gov't infringing on rights. If all parties are consentual, gov't should stay out of it. If my chosen religion permitted polygomy (sp?) then I would practice it, it would be my right, just as it would be the right of others not to practice it.


So if i say something is part of my religion, then i can do it, murder etc? Hell no. Also, you say that the govt infringes upon the "rights" of others, so what? What does it matter? What matters is that people are willing to fight the govt, they are prepared to act, not simply to moan because they claim they have something.

Quote:
Exactly my point, people who violate the rights of others forfeit their own. Sometimes to a limited degree, sometimes completely. When they commited their crime against others they gave their rights over to the will of others.


However they are not instantly having all their "rights" infringed upon. They dont forfeit all their "rights".
The fact is, what really happens is this. The govt through the court system decides this person is guilty, the govt being restrained by the BoR and the checks and balances of power can only do certain things, they say a person cannot have guns, they say that they are limited in freedom etc. It is all about human relations.

Quote:
The difference is the criminal knowingly commits an act that will forfeit his rights to some degree. A DC style ban takes rights from innocent people who have not chosen to surrender them.


If you have a gun, and you KNOW it is illegal to have that gun, then i would say you are knowingly committing an act that will forfeit your "rights".

Regardless of the 2A issues, a person is still breaking the law up until the point when a law is made invalid either by new acts of congress or through the supreme court making it unconstitutional.

Quote:
Again the 2A does not grant me rights, it only helps protect them. I have the RKBA regardless of how you or anyone else may missinterpret the 2A.


I am not saying that it does grant you your "rights", i am talking about the protection of "rights".

You think you have a RKBA, ok, whatever. The 2A then goes and protects this "right", without the 2A the govt can infringe upon this "right", now it cannot.
Its like layering.

Quote:
Not relevent where I live, concealed carry is legal without one. Alaska is truly a wonderful state.


You ignored the question. Carry and conceal CAN BE licensed, yet a "right" cannot be licensed. Either, carry and conceal laws which are supported by the NRA are unconstitutional, or the 2A does not protect carry and conceal.