The Right To Defend Ourselves ~ 2013-03-12
The Declaration of Independence nicely sums up the three basic categories of our inalienable rights as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (also interpreted as ownership of property.) There is no point in having a right without the ability to defend that right, and that is what weapons are for. Weapons give us the ability to defend our basic rights to be alive, to make our own choices and to possess things that we have obtained using our other rights. And who are we defending ourselves against? Others who are abusing their right of liberty to infringe on the rights of others, usually by causing physical harm to others or by taking their stuff.
So how do we deal with a person who infringes on the rights of others? We take away their rights. We may take away some of their property or possessions (i.e. fines, confiscation, etc.) or we may take away some of their liberty (prison, probation, court-ordered service, etc.) OR in cases where the perpetrator has taken the life of another person, we may take the life of the perpetrator.
But do we have to wait until someone has stolen from us or killed us before we can strip them of their rights? Of course not. We have the right to defend ourselves BEFORE the crime is committed.
STEP 1: Even before intent is shown, we can create a reasonable deterrent. For a start, we can make sure the would-be thief or assailant knows that there is most likely a gun in every house along with someone who knows how to use it. This will scare off most criminals because the last thing they want is a fair fight. (If they wanted a fair fight, perhaps they would go get a job and fight the battle every day like the rest of us?) Criminals are looking for easy prey; for someone they can take advantage of.
STEP 2: When an attacker shows intent to cause harm (such as entering a home uninvited, especially while carrying a potentially deadly weapon), we have the right to defend ourselves and our property, by deadly force if necessary. Maybe the attacker wasn't planning to hurt us; maybe he only wanted a new stereo or laptop. We can't know this. If an attacker refuses to put down a weapon and retreat when confronted, he has shown intent to do physical harm and any cop will tell you, this is no time to think about whether they're really gonna do it or not. This is when you shoot for the central body mass.
The fact is, the minute an attacker begins to commit a crime while in possession of a deadly weapon, he is threatening the lives of others and has become eligible to have his right to life revoked. We don't have to wait until he kills someone; murder and attempted murder should not be any different in the eyes of the law, and assault with a deadly weapon is not that far behind. We shouldn't be waiting around to see if the victim of a violent crime dies or not before we know how to prosecute the perpetrator; IT'S THE SAME CRIME, WITH THE SAME INTENT.
So the liberals are now telling us that what we need to do is revoke the right to gun ownership from certain criminals or mentally unstable individuals. It sounds fine and good in theory, but the problem arises when we try to figure out how to enforce it. Clearly we can't do that without tracking the sale of every gun in the country (and all guns coming in and out of the country) and checking the background of every person who wants to purchase one, not to mention every time somebody loans a gun to their brother-in-law, etc. Well all that is not only impossible, but also a violation of the rights to freedom and privacy of every person in the country. The only things we can constitutionally, morally do are things that affect primarily the one who committed the crime in the first place. These options are few and not very effective.
Ok then, let's back up. If we can't stop criminals from getting guns, we need to stop them before that. But when? Back when they showed so little value for human life that they used a deadly weapon while committing a crime. This is the moment when they proved that they were murderers, and this is the point at which the problem has to be taken care of. You don't give cold-blooded murderers a second chance if their gun jammed or the victim miraculously recovered. They should have been killed at the scene, and if they weren't, it should be taken care of at the earliest possible opportunity.
Now we see the liberal plan at work. First they push to eliminate the death penalty in almost all cases, then as the criminal element re-enters society and begins wreaking havoc, they use the 'crisis' to push for more gun control to "keep guns out of the criminals' hands." Well it's too late for that. The moment we released them back into society, we put a gun in their hands.
So you see, the right to gun ownership has now become a moot point. The answer? Every person who has been found guilty of willfully taking the life of another person in cold blood should already have had their right to life revoked. End of problem.