There are basically two kinds of rights: claims we have on the government to do or forebear, and claims we have on private parties of a similar nature.
No, there is one and only kind of 'right'. The kind that whoever has power over you chooses to permit. It's a privilege. Unless you have power over whatever governs you, or it has allowed you latitude, you can't choose or change what you do.
The rest is semantics, and not relevant.
You have NO rights except what you are allowed. Think otherwise? try breathing water, then claim your 'right' to life. or move to North Korea and demonstrate your 'right' to bear weapons.
I'm not arguing ethics, btw. Nor am I disagreeing with those you've posted. But your exposition, admittedly worthy and valid, is still irrelevant to my point - as I predicted...
Message 17417282
Before all other rights, the right to defend yourself is paramount. The government cannot guarantee that degree of protection that would provide utter safety without becoming a police state, and trampling on our freedom in other areas.
Carry a gun if you wish. It's neither a 'right' of the universe nor required for survival, except as the presence of so many legally-armed maniacs requires.
As a non-criminal in a no-guns country, I'm less at risk of being shot (overall - barring rural variations, etc.) than you in yours, no matter how many guns you have. |
