Pleasant explanations, but the misconception is that a right is something only the human mind can conceive and is entirely an arguable concept.
For others of us, an inalienable right exists even if their were no humans to enjoy it. It that context, there can be no real discussion of whether others are willing to recognize it or not - it exists, regardless, and cannot be explained away.
That there are dozens of religions in the world that may or may not embrace that concept goes to the convolutions of the human mind attempting to avoid what truths exist and accept others for their own benefit. In the search for absolute truth, it's always arguable. That's why they are called faiths - because nothing about them can be proven.
You pick yours, I'll choose mine. How that then applies to the 2d Amendment then boils down to this: "Yours" is negotiable and subject to the whims of the majority, mine is absolute and non negotiable whatsoever.
This is where the NRA catches some flak for it's stance. Well, take it in this light - when dealing with those who want to restrict the 2A, there is no negotiation, anymore than the US negotiates with terrorists.
If the majority can impose their will on the minority, don't expect the minority to take it well. There can and will be unintended consequences, King George spent a lot of money on it and he didn't get his way. Those who held that their rights were absolute held their ground and carried the day.
Now, we have apologists who deem that their can't be absolute rights as clearly outlined in the Declaration of Independence, just because they won't accept that a Creator can and did make them, for us to enjoy. I ascribe that view to the breakdown of society as we experience it today. It wasn't in question 50 years ago, now, it's taken for granted anybody else's view is "equally" valid.
The reality is that is just an exercise in free speech, and in the marketplace of ideas, the individual is still responsible to sort out which ones are grounded. So, the comparison then goes to the First Amendment - since it's the same logic, do you have a right to free speech? Because if it's all just a negotiated compact among men, then it's not absolute.
That means if the majority wishes, you might be directed to no longer express your views on the issue. You will be told what you can say.
But, for those who see rights as created by a Supreme Being, that absolute right to speech never goes away. So, I'm supporting your right to say I don't have an absolute right, and you are supporting the road to be denied completely of the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms.
You may question the idea of an absolute right, but it's existence is exactly what allows you to do that. Without it, you don't get to, and it would be no different than any other totalitarian or criminal state.
To those of us who see rights as inalienable and absolute, our definition continues to protect your exercise to think and say differently. The alternative is to lose all your rights in the long run. That goes to the misconception that mankind is always striving to a higher better goal, when the reality is that we are continually degrading society to fulfill our baser desires. It's a simple lesson in history, we haven't been piling up succeeding generations of higher civilizations, just increasing their technical capability. Wars still go on, poverty still exists, disease and injury remain common. People starve, despots still "cleanse" their populations of opposing points of view.
If you don't have an absolute to measure against, you don't have any idea of where you are and how far off the mark. If it's all a negotiation of selfish interests, then what right do others have to oppose our view?
Just shoot them all and be done with it? Unless, of course, you think they have a right to live. In which case, why? It's not absolute, just the current mindset of the majority and entirely whatever we all decide.
By the moral compass that no right is absolute, it then justifies the school shooter as being acceptable, just the same as pedophilia or slavery. It's just a minority opinion, of course, but in a world view that all are "equally" valid, isn't diversity and tolerance the goal?
If all you see is a grey fog, maybe it goes to perspective and focus. Look closer, and things become black and white. Just because some can't or won't accept a right as absolute doesn't mean it isn't. It's really a much bigger discussion of metaphysics and that means we then have to get to the real root of the question, how did we get here in the beginning?
Lots of misconceptions about that. The first is understanding that a Creator isn't bound by the laws he has set into motion. We are, but "he" isn't. Therefore, if I understand that a Creator can absolutely create anything and everything, including physics, math, and concepts, and others can't accept that, then there it is - the root of the problem.
Your Creator isn't as powerful as mine. Sorry.
We are straying quite off the OP's premise - firearms related is the focus.
