I would like to point out that there are a variety of ways to define rights, differences between types of rights, and certainly many different ideas on which rights fall under which category.
The right to vote is generally not considered a natural right of a human. Because devoid of a government or a group apparatus for which voting is needed, there is not voting.
Now, the rights to live, to liberty, to free speech (communication), these kinds of rights can be had without a government/society and thus are naturally inherent in an individual (at least according to my definition).
There are many civil rights (of which, voting, arms-bearing, minimum wage, etc. are all part) that come with being a member of a specific society/government that aren't inherent in an individual. They aren't privileges by any stretch of the imagination.
The gun debate in many ways reminds me of the drug debate. Consider the following questions and replace drugs with guns: Will criminal elements get and use their drugs if they want them? Will people who want drugs be able to get them and use them? Do people die in unnatural ways due to drugs?
The only valid solution is regulation. Control and limit the guns that are available and who has access to them. Use education to implement cultural changes. But trying to prohibit something from a society in which that thing is inherently part of the culture is doomed to failure, as has been seen throughout history, particularly when all societies have biased legal/justice systems.
I saw this and read it just looking for something to argue over with you arc, just looking for something to mess with you a little... but I pretty much agree with the above... which means we agree on something. and that's a little scary
Comments on Profile Post by Arcturus