It's not about absolutes.
Exactly, which is why they're really "privileges." Already mentioned that, keep up.
I know you mentioned this before. And you were wrong then, just as you are this time around. Rights have a very specific meaning. They are those things you could do absent someone else denying you permission to do them (ie: no laws preventing it). Privileges are completely different. Those are things that are granted to you via some law or construct of law.
Free speech is a right because I'm free to speak unless someone passes a law that penalizes me for doing so. Similarly, owning guns is a right because I'm free to do that absent some law. Same thing with owning fuzzy bunny slippers. Unless someone passes a law infringing a right, that right exists, whether enumerated or not.
Privileges are legal constructs. Interestingly enough, while Smash used the term "enfranchised right" in the other thread, he really meant "privilege". Voting is actually not a right
even though it's often called such. You don't normally get to vote and require everyone to comply with the results of the vote absent a law or rule saying that is the case. Complete freedom would entail us all doing whatever we wanted regardless of what other folks wanted us to do. Giving the government power to infringe our rights to some degree is necessary for a society to work at all. Using votes as a method to determine what laws should be passed by that government is one means of minimizing the degree of infringement. Um... Which is why we should treat it that way instead of thinking of it as a "majority gets what they want" tool.
"Rights" just sounds better, and idiots like you eat it up.
You mean idiots who insist that universal health care is a right, and welfare assistance is a right, and education is a right. Those idiots? Cause those aren't me btw. I know exactly what rights are and what they aren't. It's usually the other side of the political spectrum that runs around labeling everything they want to do as a right (see "positive rights").
Calling it such makes it sound like someone really really important, like a God or something, gave it to you. That's kind of the whole point. Seriously, it's like you don't understand how society or politics works at all or something, and have stopped trying at grade school.
This is precisely the methodology used by the modern left to get people to support their agenda. They call things rights in order to get people to place weight on them, even when the things being so labeled are not rights at all. I'm the one usually making that argument, so it's a bit bizarre for you to try to ascribe that to me.
There is as much tying the idea of a right to privacy to the 2nd amendment as there is to anything else.
A vague non-answer. Surprise, surprise.
It's not vague at all. Do you believe that there is any right to privacy in any of the other things I've mentioned? If so, but you insist that it shouldn't with regard to firearms, then you need to make a case why. If you don't, then that's fine, but I'm sure most people disagree with you. This is like the third time I've pointed this out, yet you've refused to actually state if you think that those other areas have any degree of protection, so I can't really argue against your position, since I don't know what it is.
You could clarify that if you wanted to, but you seem to be the one who loves to live in the land of the vague. Where do you stand on privacy?