If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Which happens all the time. Society determines the rights is wants to keep and give up.
Just like our right to privacy is infringed upon by many acts, like the Patriot Act.

 

You understand that Iran is not subject to the constitution?
You understand that relations between nations are prison rules, not concerned with natural rights?
Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

Which should likewise be repealed or struck (depending on whether the legislature or the court does the job).

O I raped you once, so I get to again: not a very good principle.

 

Isn't the claim that rights afforded by the constitution are inalienable?
If that is true, that holds true for all of human kind. Else rights are nothing but rights afforded by and protected by a gov't or other governing body.

So you cleared up nothing. But have shown you don't really believe in inalienable rights. And I agree with that.

 

Again, society determines what will be repealed or struck. Often times by the USSC. They are always doing their job, but it's all subject to interpretation.

And as of now, rape is illegal. So, not a very good example.
But it could be struck or repealed to make rape legal. If society deems so.

 

It is and they are, but in practical terms they exist only if protected. Hence why you create a government to protect your rights against others. If said government turns on you (as they do when they not only refuse to protect but outright attack the rights of THEIR POPULACE to whom they owe a duty), they should be censured, replaced, and reformed.

As to what they do to others who do not constitute the populace they have a duty to: See the second sentence about relations between nations being prison rules unconcerned with natural rights of those not part of them? What do you think I mean by that chief?

 

Yes and we have rules which a) require such things go by the Art V amendment process where they bump up against the constitution IE gun control, free speech zones, the patriot act etc and b) structurally don't allow certain things to be rightfully amended either in or out of the constitution, no matter what the vote ends up as. These would be the natural rights provisions (included amongst them being speech, association, self defense etc) and since they are not created by the constitution are not subject to being (properly) removed by that document no matter what an amendment might be crafted to say.

So on a certain level (where laws don't attempt to override the constitution or the natural rights protected thereby) you're right, and on other levels (where they do) you're entirely wrong.

As to rape: Its called an example dear. You're saying "well they violated your rights they're not supposed to violate here, therefore its perfectly acceptable for them to take further liberties they're barred from taking". That matches perfectly with I raped you once I get to continue to do so because no backsies. I'm sorry you don't like the metaphor because it is apt and that makes you uncomfortable in your own position.

Additionally: All anyone needs to know about why you're wrong is found in your last 2 sentences.

 

We are talking about the 2nd A as written. What do court cases have to do with it?

For that discussion, the only thing that counts is what what is actually written means. Linguists, not attorneys, are the experts. The use of unrelated links only diminish your position.

 

If true, then they can't ever be taken away. Like our privacy rights have been or the machine gun industry.

And supposedly, by our form of gov't, We The People, can censure, replace, and reform at the ballot box.
If we don't, we are complicit with losing those rights. Which then means, IMO, they are not inalienable, but granted and protected as long as we want them to be.

I don't care what you mean by prison rules or natural rights. As we have just determined, natural rights don't exist. Only those a governing body is willing to enforce and grant. We only have rights we fight for.

 

One would have to believe in natural rights to agree with your argument. I don't.
When dog poo poo hits the fan, and things are in chaos, the only natural right anyone truly has is the right to life. Which at that point amounts to might makes right.
All other rights, in a civilized world, are rights granted and enforced.

It is a natural right to life, yes? So if one is homeless, hungry, and cold, stealing food or shelter would be a natural right if needed to survive. Yet is against the law and if caught, punished.

 

Which is why I linked to a linguist, and raised you the linguists cited by the majority opinion in heller and agreed with by the majority in mcdonald etc.
You've got to try harder than that to deflect and obfuscate buddy.

 

They can't ever RIGHTFULLY be taken away, it doesn't mean there is a magic wand that prevents the big mean vicious attack dog you created (the .gov) from turning on you. When it does that you're supposed to shoot the ****ing dog and get a new dog, which we haven't done.
That doesn't mean its right for the dog to bite you ffs.

Wow you mean "A republic, if you can keep it"? Or more broadly that magic faeries don't protect our rights, we have to and if we don't they will be abrogated until and unless we do something about it?
Yes, exactly.
Which is why I won't be giving up my guns to you or anyone else, nor will I support gun control, the patriot act or numerous other provisions that sheep bleat for constantly. Nor will I cease pointing out they are unconstitutional and demanding they be removed.

You haven't determined that actually, you've magic wanded it together and it has about as much effect on what's actually happening as you might expect a magic wand to have.
Just because I rape you and you're unable to gainsay me, doesn't mean you don't have the right to not be raped: It means I raped you.

 

Well that's nice, but its not tinkerbell you don't have to believe in it. It is. Like the cogito

No, rights protected and enforced may be enjoyed and those not protected you will face trouble from your traitorous attack dog. That doesn't mean you don't have rights, that means someone has wrongfully prevented you from exercising them under threat of unlawful force.

Except you have to STEAL from other persons to do so, and you don't have the right to do that. Your rights end where their rights begin, see how that works champ?

 

Don't "link" me to anything. If you have an argument, make it! It's in the rules of this forum. And the purpose is to avoid you throwing in links without even understanding what is in them. Which I have seen you do many times.

 

I won't give up my guns either.

Funny, how people like you assume, just because we have restrictions already in place and some agree with said restrictions, you have to crap up about wanting to take all guns away.
It takes away from any point you want to bring up.

And I actually agree, per the constitution interpreted literally, we can own nukes as citizens.
But that isn't a good idea and so interpretation take place to add common sense into some so called rights.

Anyway there is nothing more to hash as you now want to make it about me and you want to make up what you think I think.
I don't see you as a mind reader. So no reason to waste any more time.

 

Steal to survive. As the only true right a person has is a right to life.
Any person or animal will do what they have to, to survive.

We have rights. Those we grant ourselves by our gov't picked by We The People.

 

I've already explained the argument, more than once, the link and cases support the argument. You can also dig up a nice high school english textbook ffs.

We've been over and over this Golem: You're not any good at deflection or obfuscation. You think you're slick son, but you ain't slick.

 

If that's true then you sure have me fooled me bucko. So they ban ARs you're not coughing yours up?

Dude... we're LITERALLY in a thread where the OP is "ok assume total confiscation is passed" for ****'s sake. Spare me, in fact spare ALL of us, that malarkey. Not to mention you've got Senators etc quoted as "just turn them all in" etc et alia. Don't pretend the calls haven't been made, and don't pretend like they haven't been incrementally increasing what they want the entire time. Do I need to post videos of say Francis O'Roarke shifting his positions?

I'm sorry my not agreeing with your premise makes you think I'm making it about you. Its about your shitty premise, not you dude. Scout's honor

So I'm sensing you're a bit embarrassed by your whole rape can be perfectly right because we live in a society argument (please understand that's a paraphrase) huh? That's ok man, just admit you were wrong and let's move on. Not a sin to make a mistake, just a sin to willfully repeat it.

No reason to waste anymore time.... and yet you quote me again Methinks thou doth protest too much

 

Yes they will, and if they steal from me they're not going to survive, so it seems that would be a poor choice. I have the right to my property, they do not have a right to simply take it from me. See how that works? Their rights end where mine begin IE they can't just steal my **** because they feel like it or want it or even NEED it, and I don't get to simply kill them out of hand they have to actually DO something actionable against me or mine first.

Yeah so you're still not getting it. The rights in the BOR are assumed to already be in existence, you can see that from how the sentences are written. There's a nice write up about it in US v Cruikshank that you should read FIRST before you respond.

https://cases.laws.com/united-states-v-cruikshank

 

I will await for the response of somebody who doesn't just throw in links, hoping they will make the argument for them, because they haven't even read them.

Thanks for playing, anyway.

 

Here we are full circle again. You've got no argument so you revert to this ****. Frankly its just sad. I worry about you Golem.