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.
Well, let me clear it up for you. A person has the right to own and carry firearms. Your examples:
Hunting - You have the right to own and carry arms you would use for hunting. However hunting itself is a different discussion.
Carry Concealed - Yes, you have that right. Combines the right to bear arms with your rights to privacy.
Walking into a store with a gun - Yes, you have that right up until the store owner prohibits it. That is his right as a property owner.
Quote:
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.
That statment doesn't make sense. In the same breath you say that you don't believe in rights but the 2A protects something. If not rights then what does it protect? It says right in the 2A"...the right to keep....".
Quote:
What is the difference between humans and animals???
Quote:
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.
Quote:
I bet, every reason you can give me for why you have "rights", i can say the same about a dog
This line of reasoning is absurd and unworthy of debate. If you can't see the obvious differences between people and dogs, especially where rights are concerned, then this whole discussion is worthless. If you truly can't see the difference then you will never be able to grasp the concept of human rights.
Quote:
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.
Fortunatly for me I have both. Those to things are not exclusive of each other.
Quote:
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!!
Wrong, because I have the right to defend myself, I am going to defend myself. The BoR has no bearing on my right to defend myself.
Quote:
But then the government may have banned you having the club. What good is your "right" then?? What does it mean?
The gov't can pass all the bans it wants, I'm still going to have my arms. Why? Because I will never allow the gov't to take away my rights.
Quote:
So if i say something is part of my religion, then i can do it, murder etc? Hell no.
Your not listening. I told you earlier when you were talking about rights having scope that your rights do not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others. Obviously murder would infringe upon the rights of others.
Quote:
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.
Acctually gov't only infringes upon the rights of the people that let them. There are quite a few polygamist families out there, just as there are plenty of otherwise law abiding citizens bearing arms in places like DC.
Quote:
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.
Exactly, gov't/ society can restrict the rights of those who violate the rights of others. However, they cannot restrict my rights as an innocent person, not without a fight anyhow.
Quote:
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.
Interesting question. No, I do not support requiring a license for concealed carry, on principle. However it can be used as a stepping stone toward Vermont and Alaska style firearms laws. Alaska did just that. Would I get one, depends. When Alaska had CHL I had one but only as a time saver, at that time a CHL holder did not have to do a NICS check when buying from a dealer. Would I have carried without it, yes. Would I carry if I lived in DC (as if), yes.

God bless,
Lurch