Does the 2nd protect access to weapons of war? That’s not the question.

You do if you want your claims to be taken seriously.

They are closely related.

Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

People who lack the right to keep and bear arms, are not free.

 

There is no logic in what you say.
It's like saying free people have the right to pollute the water for people downstream, people who lack the right to pollute are not free.
Rights are not the same as having no constraints, the very word 'freedom' is defined by the lack of restraints.

 

The right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to own and use nuclear weapons, just as it does not include the right to use a revolver to murder someone.
Thus, a law forbidding same is not a restraint on a freedom.

 

A law is a restraint on freedom.

 

why don't you tell us what you think the Second amendment was intended to do and what it does

owning firearms is not harmful
owning firearms does not interfere with the rights of others

murdering someone does

next

 

The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I am making.
The concept of ‘freedom’ is about there being no restraints (check out Rousseau….’man is born free…..).
As soon as laws, rules, constitutions or whatever come into play, then absolute freedom is limited.
That is the reason why I believe those who go on about a fight for freedom, or they can’t take away my freedom and so on are believing in something that does not actually exist.
What people are going on about is getting rid of any chains that bind them. Those restrictions can be external, or internal due to morality or beliefs.
Rights are a construct of your constitution, they are not god given or even common sense. People can do whatever they want and say they have the ‘right’ to do so, until some force comes along to restrict those rights, like, for example, with laws around abortion.

 

that sounds like something Harris would say. it makes no real sense

 

Then I can't help you any more.

 

I don't need help. I rely upon myself

 

No.
A law is a restraint on an action.
You do not have the freedom to to take any and all actions; a law restraining an action you have no freedom to take does not restrain your freedoms.

 

Sure there is. The logic is straightforward.

Correct. That has the same logical structure as my sentence.

I am not aware of an actual right to pollute. But the logical structure of the sentence is indeed the same.

True in a sense. If there were no constraints, there would be no need for more than one right, as a single "right to do anything and everything" would cover all the possibilities.

But although rights have limits delineating what they do and don't do, so long as you stay within the constraints of what they do, rights are pretty much all powerful.

That depends on what definition you use.

Freedom can refer to a social class of peasants (not nobility) who are not slaves or serfs, and who possess certain rights. This includes the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Do you realise what you’re saying?
If you do not have the freedom to take any and all actions, then your freedom is curtailed by some kind of restraint, of which laws are one.

 

we are talking about the right to own something. Owning something doesn't interfere with the rights of others

 

Yes, your freedom will be endless as soon as you are the only human.

 

Precisely.
When us humans are involved in the social contract it involves accepting restraints.
‘Rights’ are a feature of the social contract.

 

The constitution provides the process for amendment which has been done 27 times. And further, can be modified through constitutional convention while one has not been convened since the first, Jefferson thought should be done each generation (every 20 years or so in his mind). A new constitutional Convention has been proposed, but requires 2/3

no right can be used to infringe on the rights of others.
Then too,

let’s see, there is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/3223 enacted by Congress under implied powers made possible by the Necessary and ProperClause of the Constitution. The code also covers terrorism, wwMds and missilesl capable o downing a plane.

 

Yes. I proved your statement false.

 

I am afraid you didn’t.

 

Oh, but I did.
And now, you will satisfy your need to get in the last word.

 

wrong-he did.

 

I am reminded of the Black night ofMony Python’s Holy Grail. ‘‘Tis but a scratch.”

 

I have noted that the gun banners only options are to bleed on us.

 

Indeed I will.
You have established nothing at all, I suspect because you’re incapable of doing so.
Learn the difference between rights and freedom then you can get back to me, otherwise retire gracefully before you look even more lacking.

 

I disagree, and you’re no judge.
Tell you what, try to conceptualise the opposite of ‘freedom’ and you might educate yourself.

 

I doubt you have any topic that I would find even remotely interesting that you have the ability to educate me in.