attempt to clarify my point
I just don't buy that. I do not believe there is any such thing as a "natural right."
The only right you would have in nature, beyond the law of man, would be survival of he fittest.
From your response, I do not believe you understood my point as I intended. Our founders (and others) believed that man had certain rights that exist just because man exists. These can be called natural rights. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (just the pursuit, not the attainment), the right to arms for defense, the right of free speech, freedom of religion, etc.
These are things we have because we are. The Founders believed that government should not interfere with these rights, and wrote the Bill of Rights specifically to put limits on the authority of the government to do that.
The natural right to self defense cannot be taken away, by anyone or anything. It can be denied, by govts. It can be overcome by attackers, but it cannot be taken away, as it is not given by anything, it exists as a part of nature, for all living things.
The method used is what varies. Some plants grow thorns. Some animals develope great speed. Others horns and bulk. Men made weapons, eventually developing firearms, to make up for our lack of fangs and claws.
Any law denying our possession of the instruments of defense (guns) is a violation of our natural rights, the same as a law forbidding the lion his claws and teeth would be. Now, of course, since animals don't follow man's laws, passing any law regarding which weapons (teeth, claws, horns, etc.) the animal may possess is pretty useless. The animals won't obey.
You and I have a natural right to defend ourselves from death. All creatures do. How well they do, or do not is the survival of the fittest. When a creature loses the struggle for existence, becomes food for another animal, for example, it does not change the fact that the animal had a right to defend itself. All it shows is that the animal failed to successfully defend itself. Success or failure does not affect the right of defense, only the outcome of exercising that right. Like the "pursuit of happiness", successful results are not guaranteed, or even promised, only that you have the right to try, and no man, law, or govt should be allowed to deny you that "natural" right.
Consider this exaggeration for example, You are attacked by a robber, but defend yourself, driving off the robber, without causing him injury. You are not hurt, he is not hurt, but when you report the attempted robbery to the police, they arrest you for defending yourself. That arrest would be a violation of your natural right of self defense.
Same situation, except instead of driving off the robber, you run away. You out run the robber and get clean away. Running away defended you. Because you ran, the police arrest you, as the law says you cannot defend yourself. This is a rediculous extreme, but I am posing it to illustrate my point.
As we introduce more specific details into this situation (a gun, perhaps) things get more complicated, but one thing remains constant, you have the right to defend yourself. The means you can legally use vary widely in the legal framework of our nation, but the underlying principle is the same, you can defend yourself to some degree in the eyes of the law.
The problem is that there is no tool that cannot be misused. There is no weapon of defense that cannot be used for offense. Since man developed laws, we have had laws against the offensive use of tools/weapons against our fellow man, and if they actually worked, we would have had a lot less trouble throughout our history. They don't stop everyone. Some say they don't stop anyone. Should we obey an arbitrary rule and surrender the most effective tools we have for personal defense in exchange for an empty promise of protection that no society has ever been able to manage? I think not.
please do not take my last comment as any kind of disparagement against those men and women who risk their lives trying to make the promise of complete protection a reality. They do the best that mortal flesh and blood can do, and deserve all our respect and support for their actions. But they are just mortal flesh and blood, and are neither omnisicient nor all pervasive.
The idea that we ought not to protect ourselves, that is the responsibility of the police is one of the great lies of modern times.
