Self-Defense: An Inalienable Right
Statesmen from ancient Rome to the American Revolution laid the foundation in law for the right of self-defense. America's founders were influenced by these classic philosophic teachings and the European tradition derived from them.
"Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself," wrote the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero.
"They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power." (Claremont Institute)
Do you have a right to life?
The right to self-defense is the first and most fundamental right contained in Natural Law. Without life, nothing else matters.
Think we should surrender that right to government so the state can protect us?
OK, then riddle me this: Does the family of a murder victim have a legal right to sue the state for failing to use its police powers to prevent the murder?
American courts have ruled again and again that police have no duty to protect individuals from deadly assault. The only alternatives for a person in such danger are to rely on the mercy of criminals or to carry a gun illegally. No one should be forced to break the law to exercise a basic right. (Claremont Institute)
Your only recourse is to your natural right of self-defense. Take that away (violate it) and you have deprived a free person of the fundamental right to life. Welcome to progressivism!
For an interesting and understandable legal discussion, see Volokh - Jim Lindgren
* - Cross Posted at Rational Nation
* - Cross Posted at Rational Nation
12 comments:
Many people don't want to acknowledge the right to defend oneself, because that right also includes the responsibility to defend oneself rather than to rely on others to do it for you. By definition, the modern "liberal" abhors personal responsibility and would rather remain a child, depending on others.
Of course, the reality is that not only do "police have no duty to protect individuals from deadly assault," they are essentially incapable of doing so. For that to even be possible, each individual or handful of individuals would have to be accompanied all day every day by a police officer. Even then, it is much more difficult to defend another person than to defend oneself, thereby significantly reducing the effectiveness and efficiency of such protection.
If individuals are comfortable being helpless, defenseless, and vulnerable, they are welcome to choose that route. However, if they attempt to put my life in danger by taking away my ability to defend myself through whatever means necessary, that person, by definition, becomes my enemy, and will therefore be the target of my defensive efforts.
This is the first I have heard of that the police do not have a duty to protect us. Holy Cow! That's scary.
I will do everything in my power to protect myself and family by any means necessary.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president."
"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president."
"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president
progressive?..not! Hope you're having an amazing Holiday weekend!!
Great post. I had been thinking a lot about this one myself. Absolutely the 2nd amendment is a God-given right.
Hurrah! Thanks for the kind words on the radaractive blog. I will have to add you to the blog links and I see you and Angel are blog buddies!
Indeed the problem IS the electorate, so self-concerned and ill-informed as to vote in a radical Alinsky-ite without hesitation and then wonder why they cannot find a job. I have joined several grassroots organizations to try to educate the voter and not just prod him/her in the right direction. It is time today to be Patrick Henrys and hope we do not have to resort to more than words and votes to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution...
This from my alternate computer and the ID I use for the political team blog but aka radar
I didn't even know guns were natural.
Are you reading what you right? Even if your legal point is correct - which it's not - how is any of this connected to nature? Aquinas would be all over you for this. Come on.
What if someone has a grenade? Do I have the right to a missile launcher?
CP:
So you can only protect a natural right with something "natural?" That is absurd, which is expected from an absurdist philosopher.
So if someone wants to enslave you, you can't escape them in a car?
You're embarrassing yourself.
>So if someone wants to enslave you, you can't escape them in a car?
Only if the car is made of organic tofu.
"Only if the car is made of organic tofu."
LOL!!!
CP's logic is made of organic tofu I think. Some people are just not equipped to rationally discuss such issues.
If we lived under a rightwing religious regime, these libs would be all over natural rights.
It's as simple as this: If it ain't OK for "my guy" to do it, it ain't OK for "your guy" to do it either.
Of course you can do that, but you don't have a natural right to car.
Yes, that's what natural law is based on. Nature!
Post a Comment