sorry, but each society decides for themselves what rights people have. such a concept is older than time
That's a very unAmerican concept. Our revolution and our current government are based on the idea of rights given to us by our creator, not by a group of people. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ To quote the first part of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
Factually incorrect. If such were indeed the case, the homosexual community would have been killed off and rendered extinct decades ago, as every last homosexual individual would have been purged from the united states until none remained.
one may think and dream that we have a natural right to own a toaster, but if society says no, then you don't.
What's the difference between a government and society? And, for that matter, a law vs a whim of power?
Such as the law specifying how some individuals were allowed to reproduce, while others could be sterilized against their will or without their knowledge?
The US is the only one that matters to me, but more importantly nobody would mention the 2nd at all if they weren't talking about America in the first place. Nice try...
If I collect cars, which kill many more people per year, should I be limited to a set number before I am not allowed to own any more?
many gun restrictionists and banners do not comprehend the concept of a Negative Right-ie the second. It doesn't tell us what we CAN do but what the government cannot do. banning guns is one of those things-which has been watered down by Government dishonesty as set forth in Heller. But we know commonly owned firearms cannot be banned. If the government cannot ban you buying or owning a firearm now, it doesn't suddenly get the power to do so after you have bought 25 handguns or 30 handguns or 50 or 100. Just as if the government doesn't have the power to tell you what church to attend-or not attend-it doesn't get that power after you attend 200 masses or 100 Jewish Weddings.
Of course the government has the power to BAN guns that you buy. Heller can be overturned at any time
well until then it cannot. what's the chance of Heller being overturned in the near future though I do think the "in common use" will be interpreted to mean civilian police to prevent the obvious problem in Heller that Scalia owned up to-IIRC-later on