Quote:
Even the Government does not recognize it as a universal right. Maybe in 6 years when you get to high school you will learn something in civics class.


So what?! The government has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
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.


You're being too precise. Exact precision in that form can't survive in the real world.

Quote:
I know the theory.


Theory? You think that the Bill of Rights and Constitution protecting something rather than granting something is theory?

Quote:
The problem here is that i dont believe in "rights" and it is not important in this debate at all.


It IS important, because it reveals plenty about you.

Quote:
The theory of "rights" did not exist 1,000 years ago, like it or not,


Because 1,000 years ago there were kings that ruled everything. There was no such thing as citizens, only subjects; just like what you are right now.

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


According to your own government, you don't.

Quote:
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.


And when did "citizen" enter into the equation?

Quote:
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!!


And if you have no right but survive by fighting back, then you get beaten in court.

Quote:
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.


Let's see...to have two wives because your religion allows it, you'd need all parties to be consensual on what they're getting into and understand the risk. But to commit a sacrifical killing, you'd actually have to violate the rights and murder someone. So obviously religious murder can't be protected by the Constitution.

Quote:
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".


Depends. Is the illegal act of owning a gun in direct relation to an unconstitutional restriction on your rights and freedoms such as the DC gun ban or the Chicago gun ban, or the attempted San Francisco gun ban?

Quote:
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.


So then concealed carry (get it right already you basatard) isn't the problem, it's the way it's instituted. Concealed carry is protected but the licensing system is unconstitutional.

Sounds good to me, end the licensing system for concealed carry since it's unconstitutional. If you can buy a gun you can carry it concealed just like in Vermont in Alaska.
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." Warren vs. The District of Columbia.