I never mentioned the constitution or the bill of rights, nor do I agree with your assertion that the bill of rights or any other "GD piece of paper" as GW put it, bestows any rights on anybody. Those documents are not relevant to my argument.
Well, I have to disagree with you here - rights are something that can be given and taken away by a piece of paper. Example: Before the 13th amendment, you didn't have a right to not be a slave.
That doesn't mean that you
shouldn't have had that right, but you didn't. The same with the 19th amendment. If you were a woman before 1920, you had no franchise. Again, I would argue that only a fool would have said before 1920 (or afterward) that the right to vote should be based upon sex, but that didn't grant them rights.
Obviously, I
reject nonsense on stilts.
The only way force or violence (or government, since government is nothing but organized force) is justified is in defense of liberty.
I have to disagree with you here too - liberty is kind of a weasel word. It means a lot of different things to different people. I would say that force or violence is only justified if it is in pursuit of a state that is some type of justifiable improvement. I.E. it would be worth exerting force to steal the liberty of slave holders to keep slaves in order to allow slaves a better life.
I'm much more concerned with the happiness and quality of life of the people in all segments of a society than I am over liberty. Liberty plays a role in that, but only one of many.
As it relates to the ban of "high-capacity" magazines (a relative term if there ever was one), I don't think a rational man would think that another man possessing any kind of firearm or firearm accessory, without knowing anything else about him, would constitute enough of a threat to anyone's liberty to justify using force to prevent him from possessing it, or that use of force in such a situation could be justified as defensive. Plus, firearms have such a high redeeming value as instruments for the protection of liberty that any prior restraint on their possession would be itself a major threat to liberty which would justify defending against.
(Bold mine)
I would change your statement to "... rational man would think that another rational man...".
It's already established that your rights can be diminished by the actual person you are, and what can be reasonably suspected of your future actions.
If you're a felon, you're going to have a hard time getting a gun, even after serving your time in prison. If you have a restraining order against you (even if you've committed no crime), you're going to have a hard time getting a gun (or CWP).
As for them being good instruments of protection - I agree, they are. Everyone has a desire to protect themselves from outside force, and I think that people should be able to protect themselves if necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has a legal right to whatever force they deem necessary to leverage in their own protection.