Summations Only

Technically, the second amendment says nothing about guns, only "arms." As any kind of weapon could be considered an "arm," we could totally ban guns and still not violate the amendment. One can keep and bear mace, baseball bats, etc. and still exercise their second amendment rights, even if there is an all-out gun ban.* I'm not arguing for a total gun ban, only pointing out that the second amendment doesn't create a constitutional right to possess firearms.

I'm an atheist, metaphysical naturalist, and existential / moral nihilist, so I don't believe in any kind of natural rights. Rights are socially constructed concepts granted by those in power, and not things that exist within objective reality. The Bill of Rights does create rights for American citizens.As the existence of natural law / natural rights is a positive claim, the burden of proof rests on its proponent to demonstrate such things exist, not on the skeptic to prove such things don't exist.

How can guns be interpreted as a constitutional right when they are mentioned nowhere in the constitution? By your line of reasoning, each individual should be able to possess nuclear and biological weapons, as they are also types of "arms."The fact is, the constitution gives the courts and legislators the right and obligation to limit activities that are detrimental to American society. The ability of individuals to possess efficient killing machines -- machines designed only to take human life -- is detrimental to society, and should, in my opinion, be stripped away. No one should have the right to freely possess and use instruments designed only for violence.

quote:

---

Anyways, Natural Rights are more of an ought-thing than an is-thing. People ought to be treated a certain way, but they're not objectively guaranteed any particular treatment. Through our empathy we can determine which things should and shouldn't do to each other. If you cannot understand that, then I'll leave you to wallow in your sociopathy.

---

I agree that people (and non-human animals) ought to be treated in a certain way, but I'm not so naive as to think such feelings come from anywhere other than my own subjectively, biologically, and culturally constructed, largely emotional and sentimental feelings of empathy and kindness. I like being kind, so I don't kill / rape / murder, and I do give to charity, love my family and friends, help other people and animals, and live as selflessly as possible. I have a conscience developed by my own brain, evolutionary history, and upbringing, so I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I committed a violent act against another living being.
These things are not moral facts, but subjective feelings. They aren't "natural rights," only personal opinions. When enough people have such personal opinions, they become social norms, and when the state decides to enforce such norms, they become laws, which are the closest things we have to an "objective morality." Edited by Fin, : No reason given.Edited by Fin, : No reason given.