Bear Arms

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – I don’t know who said this, but I like it (it’s not Thomas Jefferson)

2 thoughts on “Bear Arms

  1. This is true. Many people (intentionaly) mistake the right to bear arms in the constitution as a a right to carry weapons against thier fellow man.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” – Second ammendment to the Bill of rights

    Where’s it say its ok to shoot fellow Americans?

    • There are two approaches to this conversation. One is discussing what currently is law and the next is discussing what should be law/legal.

      For the first, you are claiming that, per the Constitution, Americans do not currently have the right to carry personal fire arm weapons because you are interpreting the 2nd amendment as a right only to have arms within a regulated militia. So, this is a legal question best suited to a lawyer to interpret current law as written. I’m not that interested in this kind of question because I’m not wedded or in love with our government’s current laws or Constitution. I’m more interested in what should be law, as I’m in favor of changing our current governmental laws and Constitution to reflect libertarian philosophy. Anyway, the Supreme Court currently believes that your interpretation is incorrect and that private citizens do currently have a right to carry arms for private use and protection. So, the expert lawyers say your are wrong on existing law as it is. Additionally, per your last question, no one is saying that we have the right to murder innocent fellow Americans. However, it makes perfect sense to be allowed to defend yourself against aggression.

      Next, let’s talk about what should be law/legal, regardless of what current law is. You seem to think that it should be against the law for private citizens to carry fire arms for their own personal self defense (and hunting, etc.). However, merely having a firearm does not mean that you have harmed some innocent person. If I have a fire arm in my pocket, have I harmed you? No. So, per the libertarian definition here, I can do this because I’m not harming anyone or imminently going to. But, actually harming someone should be against the law, which is why murder should be against the law. And, self-defense (example: shooting an attacker) should be legal because the victim is merely protecting their own rights of life and safety. Owning guns doesn’t harm anyone. A gun is just a tool, like a knife or a set of matches for fire. These tools might be used for harming innocent people, but that doesn’t mean that they should be illegal. The only thing that should be illegal is the actual acts of harming innocent people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*