Denying the word “inherent” does not make them less so.
I’ll start with two.
Clearly. Much more. But the Nazis thought it necessary to disarm them. Why was that?
The burden is on proving something is inherent rather than proving it is not.
By the way , Godwin’s Law speaks of a comparison. I stated the disarming of the Jews as an example, not a comparison.
Clearly not. The standard understanding is that rights are inherent, not granted by government. The burden is on you to disprove the fact that rights are inherent.
The right to build a garage close the property line is inherent? No. But if you say that right to build a garage is not inherent because it can be a fire hazzard, I can counter that the right for everyone to own any gun they want is a much bigger hazzard, as ten times more people die being shot by guns than being burned in fires. And the decision on what constitutes a risk is a legitimate decision that can be made by a legitimate authority (i.e. a government).LeafByNiggle:
Clearly not. The standard understanding is that rights are inherent, not granted by government. The burden is on you to disprove the fact that rights are inherent.
Show me where garage building is an inherent right. I’ll show you where self defense is, and the historic documentation that arms are clearly part of that right.
Show me where owning a gun is an inherent right. Historic documents unique to just one nation do not prove anything universal. They only prove what the people of that one nation thought.
The right to arms goes back centuries. One can find a brief reference in the Heller decision