Really? You think I'm insulting you? Do you accuse me of breaking a Forum Rule?
I was insulted because I felt that you initiated an unnecessary semantic argument by correcting me. I don't think that constitutes an accusation of breaking forum rules, and I made no allegations of such.
More is the shame you miss the point. My reply was as much about informing those less knowledgeable as it was about clarifying your statement. If asked I hold, as do most here, that the RKBA is a natural/divine/fundamental right, and that it did not begin with the BoR. The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment creates nothing we did not already have.
Whatever modifiers you use, the 2A is not a federal right. Again - it is a restriction on the government.
I understand your argument as being metaphysical. A human has the right to pick up and own something. I agree with that, but my argument is pragmatic. Sure, a human can physically pick up something, sure a human can physically own something, but social factors can cause punishments for those actions. It is a metaphysical right for someone in Mexico to own a gun, but pragmatically speaking it is not going to result in anything good if the federales find out about it. This is because no matter where you are, you live under a system of government that makes up its own rules and has the power to change them. The "restriction on the government" is a law, and it's a law that works for the people not against it, so it's a right granted by the federal government so that no state under the federal government can take that right away.
BTW - our Constitution can also be altered or amended by a Constitutional Convention, which I vehemently oppose.
true, and that sucks.
It is a silly argument since the RKBA as a fundamental/divine/natural (depending on your spiritual position) right is a belief not a fact. A belief I happen to share but that's beside the point.
You may believe you have a right but in practice you have no rights outside what is granted by the government.
Agreed
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact.
I agree, but not only the federal government; the state governments too. Federal law trumps state law. The right to bear arms is a law just like the right to freedom of speech. If a state bans guns entirely and begin enforcing a gun ban, they have violated the law and the people can have their grievances brought up before a federal court. If a state bans preaching your beliefs on the street, the state is breaking the law and the people have the same right to a redress of grievances.
If the federal government disappeared, the US Constitution would disappear with it. Now this wouldn't really affect Nevada because its constitution is so similar to the US bill of rights, but if you look at california's constitution, they have no right to bear arms, and any dissolution of the federal government would probably result in an enforceable gun ban in california. A man caught with owning a gun there would be treated the same as a man who was speeding. there would be a charge, no federal law (which is all a US constitutional amendment is) on the books that conflicts it so no appeal, and no federal court to take it to saying that his rights have been violated. All he can do is write his state congressman.