Posted by MikeT23 on 12/22/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Yes, I believe you've been granted "rights" and, as it's obvious from this discussion, they can be taken away. So, in effect, they aren't really "rights", they are indeed privileges. But, rather than attempt to convince anyone of this, we'll just call them "rights" for argument's sake.
You are never guaranteed of not being harmed. Not sure why you think you are.
Then we obfuscate and end up conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution as we see right after our posts. Language has meaning. We've seen the problem manifest in this thread over what defines a certain gun as being an assault weapon.
BTW, I do believe in rights, but I only believe in negative rights, i.e. the right not to be shot, mugged, raped. What you are calling rights I'd clarify as positive rights, aka privileges.
I do not believe that bad things can not happen, I, do, however, believe that certain mind-sets (not being judgmental here) are a tad paranoid and expect bad things to occur. Or, they are it is my right to do X and by gosh I'm going to do it. Look at the walking a dog in an area populated by boars as the reason justifying a need to pack heat. My response would be to walk the dog elsewhere.
The only other issue I want to go back to is the solvency debate as to banning certain guns not stopping all situations. I agree but if one otherwise dead child was able to wake up in two days and enjoy Christmas, then the ban has a comparative advantage over the status quo and ought, as a moral imperative, be adopted.