Can you tell me what you believe a positive and a negative right are then? There's a very real difference and it sounds like you're not familiar.Rights are inherent in being a human being. They do not depend on the ability of others to pay. If they could, people who live in wealthy societies would have more rights than those who live in poor societies. Therefore, people do not have inherent positive rights. The whole "positive" and "negative" rights thing is BS anyway. It's just language that was co-opted by statists in order to have a way to justify their use of government power to take from some people and give to others. There are just rights.
It's not a statist term at all....the term was coined by libertarians to explain the difference in rights one can exercise without anyone else lifting a finger (negative rights like free speech/firearm ownership) and rights that require someone else's labor or participation for you to exercise (like right to health care). I think your confusion comes from knowing at some level that positive rights aren't generally legitimate.....people don't have an inherent right to that which they cannot provide for themselves (i.e., if they are not health care providers or educators, they have no right to to demand health care/education from society if they cannot or will not pay for it since if they aren't in those employment categories, it's unlikely they'd be able to adequately supply it for themselves). In other words, free speech is a negative right. No one is required to listen, nor are they required to provide you with a way to project that speech, like a bullhorn, a column in a privately held newspaper or the internet (as a few examples).
I mean that if you did attempt to look at it from the freedom vs societal harm standpoint, you find that more firearm freedom for adult non-criminals is a societal benefit. It's a societal benefit because it results in less crime and keeps the statists at bay. Note that I said firearms. The 2nd Amendment says "arms". Do individuals have a right to keep nuclear weapons because of this? Well, I could own one and you could own one and literally nobody would be at risk because we wouldn't use them. However, it really wouldn't do anything for my freedom and the potential societal harm would be extraordinary. Ultimately, I don't think there's evidence that the framers meant such weapons should be included in "arms". Of course there's really no way to know because they didn't have a clue that such weapons could exist. They didn't have a clue that TV or radio could exist, so judgement ultimately has to be involved. Ultimately, I think that it's safe to say that the framers would agree that "the people" have a right to the same weapons that their local police department has.
We'll have to part ways here as you're attempting to change the reality of the founders experience, writings and words in favor of the way you view the world. In reality, the founders not only privately owned the modern day equivalent of artillery in the form of cannon, but also the first ships of the US Navy were 12 privateers armed to the teeth with 24+ heavy cannon each....the equivalent of a destroyer in modern parlance. Further, there was no such thing as a police force at the time and extensive writings by the founders explicitly stated that a major point of the 2A was to oppose government tyranny and standing armies....your last statement should end in "the same weapons that their military has"....not merely the local PD.
This is where things get more 'murky'. What you're arguing (perhaps unintentionally) via your balance of freedom vs. societal harm is that society as a whole should dictate rights; i.e., that they are NOT inherent to the human condition or provided by the Creator. That's essentially pure Democracy or mob rule. The majority of uneducated Americans believe that full auto should not be owned by civilians regardless of the statistical facts (like the FBI's UCR) that show rifles are not used in crime as often as blunt objects and NFA weapons are used almost never. Like it or not, that's their belief.....I'd wager if you polled Americans on "silencers" ....they'd say they should be outlawed too since the majority likely believe only mobsters and criminals use them. So while your belief is NFA should be repealed (likely based on a reading of the 2A) and you're correct that Lott's stats say more guns = less crime, it doesn't matter what his stats say....the mob has its own 'scientists' doing studies that show more guns mean more death (suicides and murders....especially in Democratically controlled cities).Of course.
Do you see the inherent problem with your view in light of those facts?
This statement (particularly in bold) emphasizes that your thought process is essentially one of tyranny of the majority in a society is acceptable....and actually, a step farther...it rightly should dictate policy/law.I think that a better case can me made for the legalization of marijuana than heroin, crack, meth, etc., but ultimately the damage caused by marijuana far outweighs the very limited benefits. I've seen too many people that have stunted their personal growth because they got in to smoking it. Ultimately, if my opinion is in the minority it'll be legal. I try to persuade people every opportunity I get. It's interesting but sad to hear people talk about how it stunted their personal growth when they were young and the opportunities they missed out on. I've met plenty of people who wished they never used it. I've never met a person who never used it that wished they had.
I've never smoked weed...or done any other illicit drug and I'll admit, I have ZERO desire to. However, being that I'm in the group you're talking about....that shouldn't be surprising. I didn't do it for a few reasons.....from not wanting to pollute my body to being a bit of a control freak and not likely to cede that control to being under the influence. Mainly, it was b/c I was educated that drug use is not a lifestyle I'd want to engage in. Some claim their minds are expanded by the use of psychedelics.....but those folks are usually artists or something like that. I'm pretty type A and right brained, so it never had any real draw.