Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.
Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.
Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.
You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.
*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.
Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.
Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?
Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?
No, and no.
They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".
You are confusing what you want with what actually is.
Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.
Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.
If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.
As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?
As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.
Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture. 
Prove the "universal" bit to me.
You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?
It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.
OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.
The "universal" rights you are speaking of and legislation are two very different things. I guess you just can't see the difference.
Yeah. The rights of the people trump government's rights to pass legislation. In fact my own government is required by the constitution they swear to obey when taking office to obey it, only changing it or amending it with the express consent of the citizenry. No lie. Even the president is required by law to
apply for an amendment or change to the constitution and his "application" is to be reviewed by the house and senate, put to vote by the people, and sent back. If it makes it through ALL THAT, then it can be amended ONLY IN THE WAY THE APPLICATION STATED.
Our president has not been doing that. Our past few presidents haven't, in fact. How about yours? Is your president being a shit?
