Posted on 11/15/2015 9:29:55 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
The right of self-defense is a HUMAN RIGHT, not simply an American Right enshrined in the 2A.
If someone walked up to a citizen in France and punched them in the nose, that person would have the right to punch back instead of simply taking the beating. If their family was being beaten up would they have to stand there and watch without interceding? Force is to be met with equal force when one or one's family is attacked. This example proves that is so. To do otherwise is repugnant to any citizen of this planet.
Yet force is not able to be met with equal force when guns are involved, as these countries have outlawed guns, and as we know only the law-abiding follow the laws, and as such, they will be at a distinct disadvantage every time. The right to meet force with equal force is a HUMAN right, which is why now is as good a time as ever for these countries to push for their version of the Second Amendment. If countries can ban guns, they can also allow for their ownership and bearing by the citizens. Now is the time to push for this basic HUMAN RIGHT, as that is what it should be called.
We need to change how the discussion is framed.
The 2nd Amendment did not give us a right... it protects the right we were born with.
People around the world “view” it as an American right; it is a basic HUMAN RIGHT and needs to be called such.
After events such as Paris, this becomes painfully obvious. If only every 5th person was armed, the outcome would have been different.
I agree 100%
Defend themselves when the massive bureaucratic system that the Democrats have created fails or outright collapses.
So if an illegal alien walks into the United States with a .45 strapped onto his waist for protection, he can argue its a human right to carry one?
You are conflating several issues.
If the person is here illegally, they are breaking the law.
Additionally, people who break the law in this area (crossing the border) typically do not follow it in other areas, so your guy probably has a stolen gun, also illegal.
Nice try though.
i agree with your overall statement with one exception concerning “force is to be met with equal force.” If my family was being attacked by a rabid dog I would shoot it rather than bite it back. If someone is attacked they have the right to eliminate the threat, not just shoo it off to wait for the next attack.
Oh come on. Coloring our profile pictures with the French flag will take care of everything.
I often point out that the most basic right is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. This omission makes the 2nd Amendment even more important. It could be argued that the 9th Amendment insures the right to self defense.
It is a perfect right. Perfect rights are entitlements or claims to the use of force to preserve or protect natural rights.
Yes, many illegal aliens have practiced concealed carry. My life has been saved twice by an illegal who drew his weapon and chased my attacker away. No shot was fired.
Illegals with concealed carry is the best proof of John Lott’s theories.
This gets to a larger language problem. The Constitution is extremely careful to make a distinction between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES. For example, the whole purpose of the 14th to carefully and self-consciously define the term citizen is to explicitly state that only citizens are guaranteed equal protection of privileges. The 14th does not apply to non-citizens (legal or illegal).
Too often current language confuses the words privilege and right, and other words also.
It’s a real example.
Many illegals have had their weapons returned to them by U.S. judges after being cut loose by ICE. No crime, no rationale to keep them.
The legal justification is that they may be in the country illegally but that does not strip them of the right to self defense.
It has historical precedent in the Southwest. Mexican vaqueros routinely crossed the border in the 19th century with arms; no one thought anything of it. Mexicans were Mexicans and Anglos were Americans. There was no confusion about who controlled the land, and equally no opposition to ordinary travelers carrying weapons. Everyone did that.
So it’s something to think about: let’s say the entire People’s Liberation Army shows up in San Pedro harbor, in civilian clothing, with their SKS’s. They politely request to come ashore, passports in hand, along with their rifles. Do we admit them? Say sure, you have the right to enter and we have the 2A so just be peaceable, and come on down?
The implications are interesting.
The Founder’s intended to have ZERO gun laws, the way it should be. Gun laws do not stop crimes; they only make it more difficult for the law abiding to get and carry guns for their defense.
Commit a crime with a gun and either be put away for a long time or executed. Illegals with guns (presuming they are obtained legally and not stolen) should IMO be judged on the basis of INTENT. Intent is used in virtually every area of the law except for guns. I live in eastern PA; if I miss an exit on the highway and cross over into NJ I am a criminal. How is that in any way fair and why judge people without taking account of their intent?
I’ve been framing it that way for years.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658253/posts?page=41#41
I doubt European countries will ever allow average citizens to keep & bear arms.
More likely is the continued militarization of police & an increasing police state.
Our liberal leaders would rather institute the worst repressions of Mao that admit that an armed society is a safer society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.