|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MD: Self-defense is not a good argument for owning a gun
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights. When the Supreme Court asserted a constitutional right to private gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), it referred to "traditionally lawful purposes" and offered a single example: self-defense in the home. Those who assert moral (or human) rights to gun ownership also invoke self-defense as a foundation.
There is one problem, however, which everyone seems to miss: There is no absolute right to self-defense; the right is qualified or limited. When the limits to this right are in view, the ground beneath gun ownership rights appears shakier. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(9/16/2016)
|
"There is no absolute right to self-defense .... "
I call BS.
We ALL own our own lives, and from thus springs the natural right of self defense. If the right isn't "absolute" then when are we required to stand naked, undefended, and allow some psychotic thug to murder us without any resistance whatsoever?
Guns are only one tool that are useful for self-defense, but we still have the right to them.
Sure, people use weapons for crimes, and some people have accidents with them (as also with cars & swimming pools). There used to be a Latin saying; "Abusus non tollit usum," "Wrong use does not take away proper use."
We don't ban cars because of accidents, the same should be true with guns, to which we have a RIGHT. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(9/16/2016)
|
| Sounds like a thinly veiled argument to "infringe" on our rights. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/16/2016)
|
| Everything has the right to defend its own life. Even the rabbit has the right to bite the coyote's eyes out, if he can do it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
