Quote:
Well, let me clear it up for you. A person has the right to own and carry firearms.


You can claim this. However the 2A does not protect a "right" to carry.

I have posted many times the evidence to support this. I think most is on the 2A part of this board. There is a lot and enough to suggest that bear arms means to have the "right" to be in the militia, and not to hunt etc.

Quote:
Your examples:
Hunting - You have the right to own and carry arms you would use for hunting. However hunting itself is a different discussion.


You have the "right" to own the weapon, you have the "right" through this to take your gun from one place to another in regards to buying and selling.
You can legally hunt, you can legally take your gun to a place of hunting. That is not protection, that is legality. Something else.

Quote:
Carry Concealed - Yes, you have that right.


MAybe you do, maybe you dont. WHat you DON`T have is the constitutional protection.

In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) the supreme court said

the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

For example.

Quote:
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....".


Yeah, and??? I know what the "rights" theory is. The RKBA can be dressed up like a little doll, but underneath the doll is actually still there even if you cannot see it.
The "right" to keep arms prevents the US govt from taking guns off of individual before due process. That is what is there. There is no individual thing that is protected, it is an abstract idea that we attempt to make real with words.
The bearing of arms prevents the US govt banning individuals before due process from being in the militia. Again, dress it up all you want, but that it what it is and what it does. SImple.

YOu can use your "rights" theory with the 9A, but then i will just say, well, this is the theory and the theory is followed, it does not mean it is true.

For example. Under early US law, a black individual was not considered a proper human. The fact that a black person is as much a human as anyone else made no difference, the THEORY was followed and understood, the law accepted it and the law had to be seen within this context. It explained an abstract idea, that black people are somehow inferior to white people, rather than the actual truth, and legally it "worked" as a system.

Quote:
This line of reasoning is absurd and unworthy of debate.


Because you wont accept something that i consider essential. I dont consider an idea that you consider essential.
I think the whole "rights" idea a load of rubbish, you think animals having the same "rights" a load of old rubbish.

Quote:
If you can't see the obvious differences between people and dogs, especially where rights are concerned, then this whole discussion is worthless.


I can see the difference between dogs and humans. I see what really exists, and "rights" are purely an abstract idea. However your whole argument here is, this theory of yours is stupid, i dont accept. YOu have not made an attempt to destroy my argument. I think your theory on "rights" is stupid. So maybe now you can understand where i am coming from.

I have lived in many different countries, i have learnt to examine everything from my own country. People get told things when they are kids, like "God exists" and because everyone says it exists, you accept it. YOu come to be an adult and you have "known" this your whole life, it is comfortable, so you pass on this "knowledge" without thinking whether it could or could not be true.
Think about what a human is. A load of old particles. A plant grows, lives and dies, it follows the rules of life. We do the same thing. We are just science. Sure there are things we cannot explain, so we make things up to fill the gaps, doesnt mean they are right. Just because you cannot explain why humans are "superior" to dogs, why dogs supposedly cannot speak, or we cannot understand at least does not mean that they are so different from us.
Basically your argument is that you dont believe so it is stupid.

Quote:
If you truly can't see the difference then you will never be able to grasp the concept of human rights.


Like i said, i dont believe in human, god given, natural, paper or any other kind of "rights".

Quote:
Fortunatly for me I have both. Those to things are not exclusive of each other.


The point i am making is this. With "rights" you have nothing. YOu can claim you "right" to this that and the other, and so what? "rights" if they were to exist, would have zero influence.
What has influence is human beings acting upon the belief. Humans saying, i want this, i dont want that. That is the reality.
If i say, the government should not be able to take guns away from individuals before due process and i fight for it, it is the same as you saying, we have the "right" to keep arms, and you fight for it.
The fact that your wording uses this abstract idea, and mine uses reality, has not much to do with it, because society knows the rules of society, just as black people in the south knew they had to get up out of their seat on the bus for a white person.

Doesnt make the abstract idea right or moral.

Quote:
Wrong, because I have the right to defend myself, I am going to defend myself.


So, if you did not have the "right" to defend yourself, you would not do it? YOu would lie down and give up? Or, because you have the "right" to defend yourself, you will ALWAYS defend yourself, even if 10 armed guys are trying to rob you, you will fight back????
QUite frankly, this statement is dumb. If you need a theory to tell you to do something, then you lack any kind of free will. ANd i really dont think that you are this person. I think that you just have not thought about this enough, and you are too willing to accept what you were told as the truth when you were a kid.

Quote:
The BoR has no bearing on my right to defend myself.


Well no. It means you probably wont go to prison for carry this action out. That is the important thing isnt it? that you can live your life.

Quote:
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.


Now let me translate. YOu think that guns are important, you think the govt has no place in taking your guns away, and you are willing to fight for this.

Quote:
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.


I know the theory, i am pushing the boundaries to help you see what i believe.
The theory of "rights" says that no person can infringe upon the "rights" of others. Fine, no problem with that. It is an abstract idea that works in the US legal system.
However what actually happens is something else. It is people fighting for what they feel is right.

Quote:
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.


But then is it better to be in prison with a serious lack of "rights" or on the street while being infringed in another way???
As for "law abiding citizens bearing arms" in DC, A) the law says they are braking the law, so they are not law abiding, they have just not been convicted yet.
Secondly, they are not bearing arms in the way of the 2A, so i think you should use, carrying to make it clearer.

Quote:
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.


The fact is, the law says that carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A. Carry and conceal meets the definition of "bear arms" for you. Is it not possible that the law sees it in a different light?
One thing is to talk about your "rights", the other is to talk about the protections of the 2A. YOu can claim under the 9A a "right" to carry arms, but i dont think the supreme court will agree.