Rights are not derived from necessity. You don't need to have free speech or protection from search and seizure.

[quote]Hardly an argument, so people should get to own Tanks, If they bought one?[/quote] In a purely theoretical sense, yes. However, a case can be made that owning a tank puts your neighbors in danger. Furthermore, demand for tanks is virtually zero without the state. [quote]Is there such a thing as logic, moderation? Rights are about need, basic needs, not wants.[/quote] Rights are [i]not[/i] about need. Repeating this over and over does not make it correct. There is no "need" to have free speech. There is no "need" to be safe from somebody searching your home and seizing your property. Rights are derived from the idea of self-ownership. If we own our bodies, then we own our speech, labor, and ideas. We have certain rights, then. For example, if somebody enslaves me they've violated the ownership of my labor, and thus violated my rights. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then we see that slavery is immoral. Water and nutrition are needs, but there is no right to be given water and food. That would be a contradiction. By saying that you [i]must[/i] be provided with sustenance, we're violating somebody else's rights. After all, if you must be provided with sustenance, then somebody must be (at the end of the day) forced to provide those things, which would violate [i]their[/i] rights.

[quote]we're talking about the right to own guns, and there are numerous reasons this right shouldn't exist. Rights can be changed or removed, after all they were made by ordinary people like us.[/quote] Wrong. Rights are intrinsic to all people. They cannot be removed by authority, but they [i]can[/i] be repressed. If the state suppresses free speech, it hasn't "removed" your right to speak. It's violated that right, and is acting immorally. [quote]We have mass shootings almost routinely now, but nothing is being done to gun laws to change that. A lot of people think that they need guns to protect themselves from terrorists, when really children kill more people than terrorists every year.[/quote] The violent crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping. Fast. Restricting gun ownership to reduce crime is just sweeping the problem under the rug. Which is a better solution - attempting to disarm criminals (while also rendering citizens defenseless), or trying to mitigate crime itself? The solution to violence is [i]not[/i] to disarm people. Terrorism isn't even the only issue. People own guns for a slew of different reasons, and it isn't my job, nor your's, to decide what people can and cannot own. [quote]When the right was created, guns couldn't fire anywhere near as fast as they can today, nor were they accurate. There was also a pressing need for citizens to arm themselves, unlike today.[/quote] It was not "created." It was enumerated. People have always had a moral right to self-defense. The conception of the Constitution didn't change that. [quote]But I guess since it was a right that was written down on paper years ago that nothing can be done about all this...[/quote] Again, the Constitution only enumerates the right. People have a right to self-defense (and a right to own their property, which certainly includes weapons), regardless of what the majority thinks.

[quote]Yea but he used the word "think." You can't have an argument over what someone thinks.[/quote] You absolutely can. Marxists don't think individuals can own property. I think otherwise. We can argue all day over that.

[quote]The State has Military, Police have no reason having Guns, (America - guns are commonplace, therefore police need guns to counter that) but in many other countries, guns aren't available, so that is why Police don't need them.[/quote] Are you suggesting that the state ought to rely on its military in order to enforce its authority on citizens? Is that not the basis of an authoritarian police-state? Furthermore, cops in the U.S. don't carry guns [i] just[/i] because citizens can. Again, the state needs force to back its authority, and police (with deadly weapons) are the domestic holders of that force. An unarmed police force is worthless, since it's unable to do its [i]one job.[/i] [quote]Wow..... helping people is stealing money? That's greedy.[/quote] Illogical oversimplification. First of all, "helping people" is virtuous when it's voluntary. When I [i]give[/i] money or assistance to somebody who needs it, I'm acting out of compassion. When I stand by and watch the state forcibly confiscate money from one person and give it to another, I'm not acting out compassion. [i]Greedy?[/i] It's greedy for me to let others keep their wealth? It's greedy for me to want to keep my own wealth? No. Socialism is predicated on greed. Socialism (and any state-based redistribution) is not charitable. It isn't voluntary. It's forceful. The state [i]takes[/i] from one person and gives it to another. Socialism is greedy the same way a robber is greedy. A robber uses force to take wealth from another person. Under socialism, the state functions the same way. [quote]NHS, Welfare, etc are morally right, helping one another is more important than trying to keep every penny you get.[/quote] They are morally wrong. There's a fundamental difference between charity and forced redistribution. Charity is voluntary and virtuous. Forced redistribution is aggressive and it isn't virtuous. [quote]Using Authority (not violence in UK)[/quote] State authority is based on violence and the threat of violence. Disobedience will, eventually, be met with the full force of the law. [quote]Using Authority (not violence in UK) to do the right thing is morally right[/quote] Wrong. The [i]initiation[/i] of force against somebody else is not morally justified, regardless of motives. Asking a man to donate to charity is arguably moral. Holding a gun to his head and forcing him to give money to charity is not morally right. [quote]if some people cannot afford healthcare, they SHOULD not be left for dead[/quote] Tough. If that's your opinion, donate. That's a far more virtuous action than using the state to force me into the equation. This is just an appeal to emotion used to justify an initiation of force against others. [quote]the people are helping each other[/quote] No. That would imply voluntary action. Socialism turns the state into a bludgeon with which to beat your neighbor and take his wealth. Again, socialism is greedy like a robber is greedy. If a robber holds a gun to my head and takes my wallet, we wouldn't say that I "helped" the robber. [quote]I don't care that Greedy people are losing out on money, because that money is goes towards great causes.[/quote] This attitude shows greed on your part. You're willing to take money from other people, because you believe that you know where that money ought to go. If it's a great cause, donate. Initiating force against others in order to force them into the equation is not moral, and it isn't charitable. [quote]Wow, bringing up Venezuela, does that not signal a weak argument?[/quote] No. Why would it? Venezuela ranks 176th on the Economic Freedom Index. It's an openly socialist country. People wait in lines to enter supermarkets, and, just recently, the state started using forced labor to increase agricultural production. How would that signal a weak argument? You have no reasoning to support that. Venezuela is a disaster.

yup