Whether a majority of people think the concept of natural rights are right or not is irrelevant. That is why we have the government in existence to protect them (or it's supposed to). I would also disagree that a prohibition is a proscription to have the right not to do something. Making speeding illegal is not thus making it a right not to speed.
I wasn't making any argument to appeal to majority. My point was that there are no such thing as absolute
rights in the universe for humanity or any other being. We create them by convention. And so any government's constitutions have no absolute validity in "nature" for which you were claiming there is by implication. Just because a constitution was created for your country on paper that declares itself eternal doesn't mean it must. In fact, the same can be argued for a constitution in a Communist country. Imagine this: "Oh, damn, I know our [Communist or X, or Y] system is bad, but the constitution was written long ago and declared itself eternal. Therefore, we must abide it no matter what!" That's your argument.
Your speeding example: you're making an inappropriate comparison to my meaning. In the speeding case, you would say the the law to prohibit speeding is equal to a law that guarantees the safety of individuals from being harmed by others who speed. It is obviously easier and logical to state most laws in a prohibitionist form because otherwise you would be forced to do a lot more writing to get the same point across. Likewise with certain proscribed (or positive) laws. A law guaranteeing freedom of speech is the same if worded in a negative (prohibitionist) form: viz. No person may limit another's freedom of speech.
Take a shield and a spear....are you honestly going to tell me that the spear is the defensive tool and the shield is some superfluous useless piece of decoration? Did armies of the past believe that the spears serve to defend the armies from the unruly civilization?
Not sure I follow here. Both spear and shield were used as both offensive and defensive weapons. You can hit someone with a shield.
Are you even being serious? I am certain that you get the argument and are just
playing the duck.
Then I guess then the "timeless" amendments that are more than a few hundred years old are really outdated then, wouldn't you agree?
Not at all. Right to free speech, right to arms, right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc...are just as applicable now as they were then.
In 'nature', I have every right to kill you just for being paranoid that you might harm me by whatever means. In fact, in 'nature', I have a right to torture you just because I'm bored and want to practice my hunting skills like a wild cat may to an animal it doesn't need or intend to eat. Other than human convention, what do you suppose a "right" is?
And how would you propose to solve this? The voting population only has to require being over 18 years of age. There's no educational prerequisite. Do you propose discounting those ill informed people the vote? Do you propose just ignoring those other people's interpretations when it comes to deciding to create a law? Or do you think that it might be wiser to negotiate an improved law that everyone can understand equally?
You do not ignore other people's "interpretations," you point out to them how they are wrong.
Again, you're being obscure. I think that in your mind, you seem to think that there is an innate set of entities or absolutes that assure that there are rights and wrongs even without humans being there to use them. I'm guessing that you are a theist considering you seem to think you know the
correct versions of rights and wrongs that only entities like gods declare.
And this arbitrary nature of people to be correct at assessing their authority at knowing when a government is bad for everyone else is a wise reason to assure that they have the capability to overthrow them? ...thus requiring that they need to have the right to be able to stockpile the weapons to do so?
No. You protect the right of the people to keep arms in the event that the government becomes outright tyrannical (for example, if a Lenin takes over, one isn't really going to have to debate the issue at that point). But also, the people being armed is to serve as a check on groups that would seek to overthrow the government as well (insurrections).
It's not possible for a government, being a group of people in and of itself, to be overtaken by insurrection without them thinking that you are the ones in the wrong. Thus, to them, regardless or how evil you could choose to declare them, they would see you as the evil ones. It is always the victor that declares the other as tyrannical and evil. If Hitler succeeded and Germany had a society that existed based on his philosophy today, they would interpret their ways as just. Even if such a society frowned upon his genocidal decisions, they would be just as trivialized in the modern context as the average American views the genocide of North American natives and slavery of the Africans.