Pedro Martínez:

> "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty
> of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare.
> Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the
> fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they
> exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the
> freedom of religion.

In other words, we are down to legal semantics.

I could rephrase things a little:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A healthy population, being necessary to the well-being of a free nation, the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed."

The first statement is acceptable as a "freedom" because anyone can keep and bear a weapon, regardless of what the state does, and the state has no right to take away that freedom.

The second statement is unacceptable because the state would be responsible in ensuring that everyone receives healthcare.

Then similar arguments can be made about education. Legally speaking, the state is not required to provide education in the US. This is a quote of the Republican campaign platform of 1996:

"The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning."

Ronald Reagan promised to dimsantle the Department of Education in the 1980s (the Democrats blocked that), and to George W. Bush's credit, he refused to implement the Republican platform of dismantling that department.

However, by Pedro's argument, since education is an "entitlement", the state should not be required to provide it and the Reagan administration was justified in wanting to dismantle the federal system of education and let individual families decide when and where education would happen. If the poor happened to have no money for it, it would be their problem, just as with healthcare.

Since a person can choose any healthcare they want according to its affordability, why should there be restrictions on which gun a person can buy. If a person can afford a fully automatic assault weapon, why restrict purchasing those. Sarah Palin is right in wanting to remove the ban on automatic assault rifles. If I can afford it, why should I not be able to buy it?

Then the letter of the law should be applied. If a person is not enrolled in a well-regulated militia, should they be free to own a gun? Then all those not in a militia should give up their guns!

Interpreting legal semantics is a tricky thing, obviously.