I don't think I can answer your question because as I explained, I don't agree with the premise.
> Well, from my perspective rights come with responsibilities
It's never quite clear to me what people mean by this. We have responsibilities, certainly. And we have rights. But I don't understand in what sense they are supposed to be linked, as though they were two sides of the same coin. For example, in the UK they don't have anything equivalent to the US 1st Amendment. What responsibilities are they absolved of as a consequence of that?
> If you want to have a right, then there's an obligation there to justify any cost that might have to society.
Justification is a separate question from responsibility. But why must I justify the exercise of the right first? Why shouldn't you justify your right to restrain me first? It's an important question because we could argue forever about what the costs may or may not be and never reach an agreement. Therefore the status quo has enormous weight. In many places, it's not clear where the burden of justification lies for a given right. The point of the US Bill of Rights was to make this crystal clear for certain issues.
I think we disagree on multiple levels here. Firstly, there's the question of what causes the extreme levels of violent crime in a tiny minority of US neighborhoods. You obviously think there's some kind of causal link with the 2nd Amendment. I don't. But secondly, there's the question of what should happen when we don't agree on something like this. You naturally want the system to default to your side. In many countries, on many issues, that's exactly how it is - freedom has to be justified. This is what makes the US different: restraint has to be justified, at least on the short list of issues that were lucky enough to make the cut into the Bill of Rights.
There might be some nuances of interpretation, but people in the UK have every right granted under the first amendment. We have an established religion yes, but we still have freedom of religion. That’s really the only significant caveat I can think of.
Every persons right is another person’s responsibility. If you have the right to free speech, I have the responsibility to tolerate you exercising it. If I have the right to drive a car, you have to tolerate the noise and pollution. We all bear the costs of paying for government and services such as the police and judiciary that protect and guarantee our rights.
There are clear well exercised mechanisms for amending the US constitution. Just saying it’s your right and you feel no obligation to justify it, is no good argument for others to continue granting it if they feel the cost is too high.
> There might be some nuances of interpretation, but people in the UK have every right granted under the first amendment. We have an established religion yes, but we still have freedom of religion. That’s really the only significant caveat I can think of.
Well it's clear from this that you don't understand the US first amendment. Firstly, people in the UK are regularly investigated by the police and often convicted in criminal court for saying or publishing "grossly offensive" things. This kind of thing is absolutely impossible in the US. Secondly, and more subtly, no rights are granted by the first amendment. It just sets the limits of what the government can do.
> Every persons right is another person’s responsibility. If you have the right to free speech, I have the responsibility to tolerate you exercising it
OK, if that's all you meant by saying that rights come with responsibilities, fine. That is just restating a right as a responsibility. So if I have the right to own a gun, then I have the responsibility to tolerate you owning a gun. OK. But I'm not sure how this helps your argument at all.
> Just saying it’s your right and you feel no obligation to justify it, is no good argument for others to continue granting it if they feel the cost is too high.
But I'm not asking anyone to grant me anything. You're still taking the position that the default situation is that I need permission. What I've been trying to explain to you is that that's only how it works everywhere else. In the US, it works the other way around. If you really can't get past the idea of people "granting" rights, then maybe you can think of it like this: Americas gun owners haven't granted anyone the right to interfere with their guns. You think they should? Then you justify it.
> Well, from my perspective rights come with responsibilities
It's never quite clear to me what people mean by this. We have responsibilities, certainly. And we have rights. But I don't understand in what sense they are supposed to be linked, as though they were two sides of the same coin. For example, in the UK they don't have anything equivalent to the US 1st Amendment. What responsibilities are they absolved of as a consequence of that?
> If you want to have a right, then there's an obligation there to justify any cost that might have to society.
Justification is a separate question from responsibility. But why must I justify the exercise of the right first? Why shouldn't you justify your right to restrain me first? It's an important question because we could argue forever about what the costs may or may not be and never reach an agreement. Therefore the status quo has enormous weight. In many places, it's not clear where the burden of justification lies for a given right. The point of the US Bill of Rights was to make this crystal clear for certain issues.
I think we disagree on multiple levels here. Firstly, there's the question of what causes the extreme levels of violent crime in a tiny minority of US neighborhoods. You obviously think there's some kind of causal link with the 2nd Amendment. I don't. But secondly, there's the question of what should happen when we don't agree on something like this. You naturally want the system to default to your side. In many countries, on many issues, that's exactly how it is - freedom has to be justified. This is what makes the US different: restraint has to be justified, at least on the short list of issues that were lucky enough to make the cut into the Bill of Rights.