Do we as individuals has the right to defend ourselves from harm or are we required to allow the government to defend us ?
With the Supreme Court going to make a decision about the Second amendment and recent events got me thinking about self defense and protecting our neighbors. I think that we are on the road towards whether or not we can defend ourselves. Have we become a society were we have to hide from someone who breaks into our home or business. Or as some have said if you can retreat from your house and leave someone who breaks into your home to whatever they want to do. If you can't retreat should you be able to confront the criminal without fear of arrest for defending yourself.
How about your neighbors? How about their property? Or are we required to leave it solely to the government to keep us and them safe.
For thousands of years people have been defending themselves and their property from the activities of criminals intent on stealing or causing bodily harm. Throughout history man has defended himself and in many cases their neighbors. Villages and cities were formed partly for the defense of yourself and others.
Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human eing.
Self-defense refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.
The right of the people.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
In both the first and fourth amendments the framers of the constitution clearly intended these right's to be individual rights of the countries citizens. But I hear many want to bring in the portion of the second amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" proof that arm's/gun's were only to be controlled by the state. But the same men who wrote and signed the constitution took great care in the wording that they used in forming this document. So why would they include the phrase "The right of the people" in the second amendment if they did not intend for it to pertain to individuals
Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."
Long before the Bill of Rights were written people were using arm's/gun's for self defense
Citizens Arrest
Under certain circumstances, citizens can also place a person under arrest and hold that person until the law enforcement officers arrive. This is known as a "citizen’s arrest." The law permits a citizen to detain, or place under arrest, any person who commits or attempts to commit a criminal offense (other than an ordinance violation) in that citizen’s presence. All the citizen making the arrest has to do is prevent the accused from leaving until the law enforcement officers arrive to take the accused into custody
Common law right to self defense
Armed people = Citizens
UnArmed people = Subjects
Call 911 and order pizza which will get there first?
I hope this is coherent I've been working on it for a week or so trying to make it all gel but now I just need to get it out there and see what happens. So excuse any rambling that occurs.


Comments: 16
I think that is that fear there of a Government in control of all arms. Then the people could lose their freedom at the stroke of a pen, with no recourse.
I'm still pausing.... . I'd like to believe our founding fathers were a little bit more intelligent than this. Laws are made by men. Laws can be unmade by men. People talk about laws like they are some absolute authority of right and wrong while forgetting that the same lawbooks used to contain laws that made slavery legal and women unable to vote.
Laws are what we use to guide our society. We can change them. Everyone should be sure they have the means and the ability to protect themselves. How complacent do you have to be to think the government should protect you. Police do not protect you - they can't. Unless the police department is full of psychics, it is more likely that they are going to be investigating crimes after, not before, they occur.