I personally don't consider one post about gun control to be either long winded or hijacking a thread. The original comment I made was an example of how Democrats also use a crisis to advance their agenda and thus not about gun control per se but providing a counter example to your criticism of Trump.

The definition of inalienable, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". As such, if someone wants to kill me I don't have to surrender my life to them. However, seeing as how it very well could be part of contract law, you can replace "inalienable" with "natural". Do you deny that we have a natural (which is not the same as an absolute right because even though I have the natural right to life that doesn't guarantee someone won't kill me) right to life?

Obviously if you break the law then you surrender access to certain rights. It only takes a modicum of common sense to understand that I was not talking of persons who had been convicted of crimes after being afforded the due process of law. I also disagree with the draft. If the government wants to fight a war but cannot find enough volunteers to wage it then they shouldn't fight the war.

I suggest you consult an introduction to Logic book or youtube video regarding Modus Ponens argument form.

You do realize that by equating inalienable with absolute you have erected a Strawman. I never equated the two and if you want to get technical the argument stands as written because if you want to frame things in terms of the individual against the government--I'm impressed because I usually argue against the pro-2A arguments to defend themselves against a tyrannical government because of its futility in our constitutional history but that is another conversation.

I would most likely be Ravenclaw and it should be gets 100 points for pointing out the flaws in not only your arguments but Democrats arguments as well.