All too often, I hear people speaking in terms of "Constitutional rights", and I think one needs to step back and take a look at the big picture. The rights -enumerated- in the Constitution are -basic human rights-, and the Constitution itself nothing more than a document which promises that our gov't will bear these rights in mind when making laws.(HAH!)
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to every person on the planet, not just those who live in the US. The right of self-defense is a corrollary to the right to life. One cannot exist as a right without the other. This is the tack that needs to be taken in arguments against the "bannits"- do you support the right to life (defined as: my life is mine to do with as I please, as long as my actions don't infringe on the rights of others, deprive others of their property, or cause harm to others)? If one does believe this, how can one not believe in the right to self-defense? Without that right, the right to life is meaningless.
There's so much bad law and bad precedents out there, trying to argue the case from a stricly legal point of view can be counter-productive. Time to take a page from the bannits' book and hit them with the emotional yet logical argument-my life is mine, and it's my right to decide whom I want protecting it, and how it should be accomplished. The gov't should have no say-so in this decision; it is as personal as one's choice of religion.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness belong to every person on the planet, not just those who live in the US. The right of self-defense is a corrollary to the right to life. One cannot exist as a right without the other. This is the tack that needs to be taken in arguments against the "bannits"- do you support the right to life (defined as: my life is mine to do with as I please, as long as my actions don't infringe on the rights of others, deprive others of their property, or cause harm to others)? If one does believe this, how can one not believe in the right to self-defense? Without that right, the right to life is meaningless.
There's so much bad law and bad precedents out there, trying to argue the case from a stricly legal point of view can be counter-productive. Time to take a page from the bannits' book and hit them with the emotional yet logical argument-my life is mine, and it's my right to decide whom I want protecting it, and how it should be accomplished. The gov't should have no say-so in this decision; it is as personal as one's choice of religion.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard