Do I have your attention?
I know this is a common thing to say, but I am taking it in a very different direction. My problem with the 2nd Amendment, and all government instantiated rights for that matter, is that it leads people to believe that rights come from the state when in reality they do not. The reality is that the right to bear arms exists without the 2nd Amendment, and would probably be better served in absence of government enshrinement.
Your Rights Are Inherent:
Derived from first principle and simple mathematical logic, it can be easily shown that there are no circumstances under which prohibitions on any form of property or possession can be accomplished without the initiation of force and are shown to be internally contradictory as a result. In a practical sense allow me to explain the reasoning.
The Logic:
Premise: You own yourself (I can provide the proof, but I will start with this as a premise for brevity)
- If you own yourself, nothing and no one else can own you.
- What you purchase or create is a result of your self ownership
- Inhibiting another's self ownership can only exist logically if you own that person.
- Therefore, it follows truth-functionally, that curtailing the property rights of anyone other than yourself cannot be maintained logically and thus violates the principle of non-contradiction.
Complacency:
The biggest problem I see is that people think that since the government protects this specific right, that it is real. In fact, the opposite is the case. Any time where you hand the defense of your rights to another, you are giving that entity the power to violate your rights. Besides, the US does not defend gun rights in any sense (NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment).
Practical lesson:
Stop using 2A to defend gun rights. The right to own weapons, or any property for that matter, exists in absolute and can be derived logically. Anyone who argues otherwise is accepting contradictions and is false. Argue from logic. Logic is objective and verifiably true, unlike laws.
