kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
Because its not a first class right? Because not every arm is a self defense arm.
Agreed it is not treated by the system as a first class right (for what appears to be practical reasons, but even so, it certainly could use some strengthening in that context). But that doesn't matter in the context of convincing the public of the rightness of our cause. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that by winning on the self-defense argument, we could strengthen the right as it's applied in the courts?
Not every arm needs to be a self defense arm. But firearms are self-defense arms, as evidenced by the primary use to which they're put by the general public (the use of arms for defensive purpose massively exceeds the use for nefarious purposes). Even if such evidence didn't exist, that firearms are easy to use for self-defense, in such a way as to pose essentially no risk to innocent bystanders (the numbers for that bear this out as well), is sufficient cause to treat them as self-defense arms.
Push on self defense to hard and you will see why.. . Ours is not a Lockean government..
No, but recognition of the right to self-defense is more basic and fundamental than nearly anything else. This is put into sharp relief by the following question that you might ask of anyone in the general public:
Do you believe you have the right to your own life?
In any case. I know what I am going to argue...
I hope it works, and I hope that if, as I expect, you encounter the obstacles I've outlined, you'll be able to avoid them. I've done all I can here. It's up to you to account for the issues I've raised.