And isn't that the crux of the argument here. Many of us believe that this place, this society, gave us those rights by virtue of our birth place and establishment of citizenship. Therefore the problem in our society as I see is that not that we don't have that right but we now have a whole host of individuals telling us we no longer have that right. Our society and government can use a number of ways to remove those rights and some already do so. Most gun legislation has been pushed down from the Federal level to one of states rights for regulation, without removing our rights to keep and bare arms in accordance with the Constitution as it was written. I am certainly not going to tell other countries that they should grant the same rights as our Constitution and I do not expect others, who have not ever been given any such rights, to tell me that I do not have a right to them. And yet we are constantly being told by certain members of Congress and special interest groups that I should not have the rights afforded to me by the Constitution.

My rights don't come from "society" and "society" has absolutely zero authority over my rights. Society is made up of individuals and individuals have rights, not society. And the rights of a billion people do not supersede those of a single individual.

My rights don't change depending on which culture or "society" I happen to live within.

If you deny that unalienable rights exist, I can kill, rob, rape, or otherwise abuse you and you have nothing to complain about.

If you believe we have the right to life, you believe we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary. If you claim I don't have the unlimited right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon I choose, you deny that I, or that YOU have the right to life.

If you think the exercise of my rights is shoving something down your throat, then fine I hope you choke on it. I'm not saying YOU must own guns or infringing on your rights, but those who want to make guns illegal ARE infringing my my rights and will pay with their lives if they push too far. I and the other gun owners will use our guns to defend this unalienable right.

The matter of rights has always been contentious. The problem is that all rights overlap other people's rights. One man can't have a right without it affecting someone else's rights somehow. That's why gun ownership and the fact that pro-gunners have such a hard time when they resort to the 'it's my right' argument. The simple act of them saying they have the right to carry a weapon infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.

That's why I don't believe the second ammendment is worded correctly and that it will eventually fail.

"I have the right" is not a good enough argument anymore, and it never was.

You falsely claim that one man can't have a right without it affecting another person's. That is laughable. My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live. My right to keep and bear arms does not affect anyone else's rights. My rights do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Feel free to tell me how my right to own a gun has any effect on the rights of my neighbor.

We've got piercehawkeye45 stupidly claiming that rights don't exist in reality when they are as tangible and gravity. They are self-evident and real, and if you attempt to violate my rights you will get a very real bullet passing through your skull.

How is this for an argument...

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I was born with this right. If you attempt to violate this right, I will violate your right to life in return. Try to take my gun, and I WILL take your life...PERIOD.

Yes it does. If that other person is threatening your right to live, you'll shoot them, thus eliminating their right to live. You are putting your right to live above that persons right to live.

It's very simple radar. All rights infringe on others.

Wrong.

My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live. Nor does my right to defend my life. If you choose to infringe on my rights and I take your life, I have not violated your rights because I was using DEFENSIVE force, rather than OFFENSIVE force.

Try again.

I don't need to try again Radar. I have proved my point. You're just too obnoxious to realize it.

Cya.

Oh, just one more thing to correct you on before I do leave you to it though.

Your right to live is one right.

Your right to defend yourself is another right.

They are two separate rights, not one combined.

No, as usual you've proven nothing and are touting empty claims of victory. You're too dimwitted to realize that we all have inalienable rights including the right to wield any weapon we can obtain honestly and that our rights do not infringe on the rights of others.

You are acting in your typical idiotic way.

Your right to life is not separated from your right to defend that life. You seem to be clueless on virtually every subject. I have to set the record straight every time you spew your nonsense.

What??? No it doesn't, lol.

And how would you have worded it, keeping the intent in mind of course...

It should be worded like this so people don't try to misconstrue it as they are now.

All individuals are born with the right to keep and bear arms without limitations on their number, type, or kind of ammo and this right will NEVER be limited, restricted, or kept track of by any level of government. This right will be defended at all costs by the federal government and if it is violated, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government will cease to exist.

If you say so.

I'm not qualified to say how it should be worded jinx. I do believe that if so many people who have to live according to that constitution of yours and can find the wording so obscure as to feel the need to argue about it constantly, then it's not worded correctly.

I find this amusing. Asking an anti-gun nut how they would word the 2nd amendment in a way that would keep with the original intent of the founders to protect the birthright of every person in America to keep and bear any number of any type of weapons they choose.

It reminds me of a tv show I saw recently where someone wanted to ask the Republicans in a debate if they could have gone back in time and aborted Hitler or Saddam Hussein when he was a fetus if they'd do it, or if the only way to prevent a nuclear war in America would be for them to have sex with someone of the same sex, if they'd do it.

There will always be people who try to infringe on the rights of others, no matter how the protection of those rights is worded. Including the right of free speech apparently...