I only think that the discussion should be about why something is good and necessary
The problem with requiring justification to exercise your rights is that you shouldn't have to justify exercising your rights.
Being able to protect yourself, your family, and your property is, by many, considered a human right. How it's done is a personal choice.
Asking someone to justify their self-protection is, in today's political climate, victim blaming.
Let's say you encounter someone walking along in a bad part of town. She's petite, wearing little clothing, and maintaining eye contact with the ground, avoiding the appearance of self confidence. Do you deny her right to a gun?
What if it's a big beefy guy with his six buddies walking down the street?
Are you denying one person their human right because you feel they are at risk or not, or are you basing your decisions on whether they have that right, rather than whether circumstances warrant it? If you're giving and withholding human rights based on circumstances (whether inside or outside the person's control) then you are no longer talking about human rights, but privilege.
Is self protection a human right? Yes, obviously.
Is a gun a valid form of self protection? Well, perhaps we could have a conversation about that, but that would again come down to whether the small 19 year old walking down the street can defend themselves with something less than a gun. They are called "equalizers" for a reason.[DOUBLEPOST=1465523106,1465522832][/DOUBLEPOST]
The power of the Federal government supersedes that of the States, unless the Supreme Court says otherwise....Whatever rights [states] have had exist only as far as Rome allows or their swords allow.
Wow.
Well, I can tell you have no clue how this nation was formed and what the constitution actually says, and as such there's little point in continuing this debate. Consider reading up on it.
I wonder if this ignorance is one of the reasons why Sanders' form of socialism is so popular? People think they can change the US by just electing a new president, and don't understand the power their governors and state legislature has.
At any rate, if you want to continue arguing against state's rights, let me know when you've read and understood the constitution, in particular pay attention to the parts written specifically to limit power the federal government can take from the states - this is what we seem to be in disagreement about.