Though I do not believe the inalienable right to defend oneself includes the use of a gun.
Well, Slim, that's where we differ. I believe that, if I have a right to defend my life, I have the right to use whatever means, tools or methods are available and necessary to achieve that goal, as long as I do not violate the rights of an innocent. I'm glad I don't have to rely on you to defend my life or my rights (though let me point out that I have sworn to risk my life defending yours).
You have a natural right to use whatever weapon you can get your hands on. But you have no God-given inalienable right to a full auto M4.
Nonsense. I have the God-given right to use WHATEVER means at my disposal to achieve that goal, as long as I do not violate the rights of innocents. Do you even realize how incongruent your arguments are?
You've lost me.
That's the understatement of the year.
I didn't say you didn't have the right. I said the right was not inalienable. If the right is inalienable, then every human being has it -- God was not selective when he handed them out.
If the right is inalienable, then how can we take it away from foreign visitors, for example? Don't they have a right to to use whatever means, tools or methods are available and necessary to defend their life?
"Do you even realize how incongruent your arguments are?"
YOU'RE the one making exceptions to your own argument. YOU'RE the one who is "means testing" people (#68) for a God-given right! Do you also determine if individuals are worthy of a right to life or liberty?
I mean, if we can take away all foreign visitors' God-given inalienable right to keep and bear arms, why can't we take away their God-given inalienable right to life?
You need to rethink your position. It is untenable.