Quote Originally Posted by Haudegen

It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.
Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.

I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.
In part, however you keep returning to "normal" and circumstancial rights in your arguement. A right exists or it does not.


It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.
All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone. Any of the current constitutional granted rights could be revoke by the constitutional process.

The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.

Even under that concept of rights man has the right to defend himself. So I find fault still with your arguement.