A single salient question; is there a human right to self defense?

And that works fine,.. as long as you can show that we all are, in fact, the property of God, the source of all good.

Now your work's cut out for you.

 

I suspect you will claim to be an NRA benefactor level member too. The fact is-gun restrictions are almost exclusively the province of the left in the USA.

 

Everyone should be pro-safety.

 

those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither. Your anti gun nonsense isn't pro safety, rather you have a cultural loathing of those who are independent and see personal safety as an individual duty. That upsets you and causes you to whine about gun ownership

 

Everyone should be pro-peace.

 

Thousands of victims of gun violence are robbed of important freedoms every year. They are robbed of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Where is your concern for their loss of freedom?

Safety should be both a private and public responsibility as it is in the case of driving and owning a car. There are plenty of laws which regulate what you can do when you're behind the wheel. This is something we should all be able to agree on and should not be a liberal v. conservative issue.

 

Does safety override every other consideration?

 

Look at your examples in your first paragraph. Slaves. Blacks. Traitors to the cause. You *really* think this refutes the statement of " In exchange for the benefits of living in a world governed by the rule of law, individuals, with a few well-defined exceptions, gave up the right to use deadly force...."

Your examples prove just the opposite. In exchange for the benefits of living in a world governed by the rule of law, INDIVIDUALS, WITH A FEW WELL-DEFINED EXCEPTIONS, *KEPT* THE RIGHT TO USE DEADLY FORCE!

Guns were *certainly* personal property at that time. Many of the muskets, and certainly the Kentucky rifles, of the time were individually made based on the requirements and desires of the purchaser. On the frontier rifles and muskets were essential for obtaining food and defending oneself and family. The government didn't provide these firearms to the people!

The quote you provide from Locke is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the right to self-defense. "the preservation of himself, and the rest of society shall require" speaks to the interactions between members of society. It is meant to describe the proscribing of CRIMES committed by people such as murder, fraud, etc. It is *not* speaking about self defense.

"laws of the society IN MANY THINGS confine the liberty he had by the law of nature" It doesn't say *every thing*! This is not a restriction on self-defense either!

My quote of John Locke is the one that is on point.

 

Nope. To hold the opposite view is to elevate the Law of the Jungle. Might is right. The strong survive and the weak get eaten. While that may work for the rest of the animal world, its rejection is what separates man from the animal world.

 

The operative word in you statement is "should". That means that not everyone is pro-peace. Being able to defend yourself against those that are not pro-peace is an individual right.

 

So you wold sacrifice the liberty of all for the safety of a few? Remember, the ones that are rob people of liberty and the pursuit of happiness are LAW BREAKERS by definition. They will simply break any law society makes, including gun control laws. For proof just look at our large urban cities!

Owning a car has nothing to do with the laws of driving. Anyone can own a car. If you keep it on private land such as a large ranch you don't even have to tag it. It doesn't even have to have taillights! Driving a car on public roads is a *privilege* not a right. As a *privilege* the public can require of you as a driver whatever it wishes. It has nothing to do with the *right* to defend yourself.

 

The right, and ability to carry a firearm is exactly why people don't live in fear.
Criminals do not obey laws, and if you take away the right to own a firearm, then your means of self defense (and defense of other innocents) is basically null and void.

If you don't like guns, then don't own or carry one. Of course, in the UK, you basically don't have the right to.

 

Guns were not purely personal property in the 18th century. That's why firearms were confiscated from people and given to Washington's army in his fight against the British. So gun confiscation helped America gain its independence.

Regarding Locke, the point is that in a state of nature you have a right of self defense. In a state of civilization, it is up to government how much of that right you retain. That varies from government to government.

 

What are you talking about? Not all victims of gun violence are criminals. The laws you support result in a lot less freedom than the laws I support. So what if you have to jump through a few more hoops to buy a gun. You're still free to live your life and pursue happiness. In contrast, a dead person lying in a pool of blood with several bullets in them doesn't have those freedoms anymore. So try to get some perspective before you start lecturing people about freedom being sacrificed.

 

A conclusion should not be affirmed or rejected on the basis of its aesthetic appeal. Everything Locke said about natural law is predicated on the existence of God, not just any god, but the source of all good who created and rightfully owns everything including all of us.

When you advance such a case, rational people are going to ask you to complete it by proving your starting point: that such a being exists. When you answer that we must accept your starting point on the grounds that to reject it is to reject natural law(which is what you set out to prove in the first place), your argument forms a circle.

To beg your starting point is to beg your entire case. So far, you're begging your starting point.

 

Look at what you wrote! "That's why firearms were confiscated from people and given to Washington's army". The government doesn't "confiscate" it's own property!

You *confiscate* private property!

Your own words undo your argument!

 

Yes, it is part of the intrinsic right to life.

Aquinas sets up the argument well in Summa Theologica:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

Basically speaking you have the right to stop someone from killing you. Ideally this would be without killing somebody, but if necessary, killing for self defense is acceptable. My intent in self defense is to stop the attacker, not kill the attacker. Now, if I happen to kill the attacker in process, that's a different matter. My intent isn't killing them but stopping them.

 

Then you need to switch parties. The Republican party is pro-gun.

Here is what the 2016 Republican Platform said on the issue:
https://www.gop.com/platform/we-the-people/

 

I edited my post. It should have said "those who rob people of liberty are LAWBREAKERS". And, by definition, LAWBREAKERS don't obey the law, including gun control laws.

I give you Chicago, Baltimore, and East St. Louis as prime examples!

Your "hoops" don't work. I give you the San Bernadino shooters and Adam Lanza. They obtained guns illegally. No "hoops" for them. I give you Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez and Dylan Roof who purchased their guns legally. The "hoops" didn't stop them.

Those dead people in Chicago, Baltimore, and East St. Louis weren't protected by your "hoops". In fact, in each of those cities those victims were PREVENTED by your "hoops" from having guns to defend themselves with!

 

Locke: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:"

Locke doesn't depend upon a God or Creator to come to this conclusion.

 

My guess is the question was ask to get on a pro gun soap box, like the only way you can defend yourself is to walk around everywhere strapped and pull your gun at every perceived threat. Of course, the need to defend yourself goes up a lot when everybody around you also feels that need and everybody has guns

 

Really? How would he respond, then, if I were to ask him to lay out that reasoning he says would teach me the truth of all those claims?

 

You've never taken a CCW course have you? You do *NOT* pull your gun at every perceived threat. That is called "brandishing" and is illegal. You use your gun when under immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death to you or your family. You do not swear an oath to serve and protect and, therefore, are under no obligation to use your weapon to stop any crime where you are not under immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death.

 

Uh, the logic is basic. Is there a state of nature? The answer for most of us would be *yes*. Have you ever watched the TV show "Naked and Afraid"?

Then the next progression is should man live by the Law of the Jungle? Where the stronger man kills the weaker man to take his possessions. Many people still believe that the Law of the Jungle is how we should live, apparently even you. But it did not take man very long to learn that killing your your own kind didn't have good outcomes. Cooperation works far better than wanton killing. That is what Locke calls *reason*. Giving up the animal instincts for reason.

 

Sigh.... If you ask a progressive person, there is nothing to be defended from. The state is absolute in it's production of "safety for all". The fact that imposing that wonderland on folks is tantamount to tyranny always seems to elude them. But hey, they are insistent that they're the smart folks, and it's just best to let them handle things, all the while enslaving the rest of us. So who needs to defend themselves? If you're killed, it's simply the will of the state, which you have no voice in contradicting or fighting in the first place.

Now, the funny part, liberals don't think that statism then applies to them, cause again, they're the smart folk, and the rules don't ever apple to them...

The right to defend oneself is an inherent natural right, and is enshrined in our common, canon, and precedential legal code. It's why abortion is so effective, there is no inherent way to fight back....