We have the RIGHT to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. This Right is endowed by the creator (or is a natural right, if you are secular). This right is not ‘granted’ by the Bill of Rights Second Amendment, because that then extrapolates that this right is government’s to grant or retract. ‘Shall not be infringed’ is a directive to government, not to the people.

With the recent Florida shooting, and a string of copycat threats, Americans are being asked to reexamine those rights. The same calls for ‘common sense’ are being made. The same infringements being proposed. The anti-gunners claim to want a ‘conversation’, which will take the form of “what infringements are you willing to accept”? This is not a conversation worth entering.

At its core, rights are either inherent as the birthright of sentient beings, or they are a set of qualities able to be agreed upon by the social collective. The former is the true answer, as defense is a natural right and freedom from coercion and violence is an understood liberty. This can be seen in both John Locke‘s  works, as well as our Declaration of Independence “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. The Bill of Rights then goes on to enumerate them.

If a right is unalienable, and endowed by the Creator (or a natural right), what say does social collectivists have in what rights you may exercise?