Our rights in the bill of rights are not just 'federal'. They are inalienabe human rights.
IE -- The state of CA contends that they have the power to prohibit weapons. Your friends here agree. Do You?
Not trying to pick a fight, or resolve the human dilemma of when an individual or group should "Declare Independence."
Who said you were? -- You are defending the 'states rights' concept. I defend constitutuonal rights.
I was calling you on your statement that a certain pair of expressions was evidence of hypocracy.
Indeed they are. Apparently you approve.
A quick lesson in the meaning of "inalienable." It means "can't be sold or given away." You can't give your life to a dead person, you can't give your liberty to an incarcerated person, and you can't take your happiness and force an unhappy person to be happy. The fact that some things are inalienable is just a fact, no matter how eloquently expressed. Of course humans can (and do) defend themselves, sometimes using weapons. There is no way to keep a person from doing so, period. So, the "right" to self defense is inalienable. It's going to happen, no matter how much talk to the contrary.
Belaboring the obvious about rights doesn't change the facts about the 'states rightist' position on them. -- That a state has the power to ignore our BOR's.
I personally think that many states have, and certainly the federal government has, miscontrued the 2nd amendment. But "power" is a funny thing. One can't know which side has more, until the battle is over.
Yep, its obvious; -- you approve of state powers to regulate/prohibit weapons, but you can't quite say so flat out.