Right to self defense?
 

Been reading in another thread concerning the restrictions in place whereby persons having a CCW cannot carry their weapons into certain areas restricted by law. So if the premise is that your CCW is for your personal self defense, then is self defense really a RIGHT, or is it merely a privilege granted by government?

It'd be simpler to kick a hornets next and hope not to get stung, than to try to get a straight answer to that question.

First you're going to have to determine which set of "rights" you're talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

I've never read anywhere, where the government has the "right" to limit your "right" to self defense.
We all have a "right" to attempt to survive, protect ourselves, our loved ones, and to a lesser degree, our property. You know, the whole, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing...

That said, we don't have a "right" to do it with a firearm.

The constitution (depending on which justice is proffering thier opinion today) does grant us the "right" however (by government) to "keep and bear arms.
But it doesn't say squat about concealing them.

Several states antiquated and prohibitive gun laws have been overturned in recent years as a result of these constitutional arguement.

So based on that very limited dissertation, I'd have to say yes, you have a "right" to protect yourself, and if you meet the criteria, you have a "right" to keep and bear arms.

But the State has the right to control "how" you bear them to a degree.

Just my $.02

As always Gordon, good answer....:thumbsup:

My motto: Shoot first then ask all the questions you want...

Actually, that is not correct. The US Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) doesn't "grant" us anything at all. It itemizes the powers and limitations of the government, as well as specifically verifying that all powers not granted to the government, belong to the people and the states. Our founding fathers wrote that document as an attempt to keep the beast they knew they were creating bound and chained. That is why our country is actually a constitutional republic, and NOT a democracy at all. All laws stem from the Constitution (theoretically, and if actually ENFORCED by the people), not the whims of the government. Unfortunately, we have let the beast loose of it's chains, and it will be the devil to pay to get it bound back up again.

The Bil of Rights confirms that we have that right. What if that confirmation wasn't in there? You're both saying the same thing.

Tomato, toMato.:shrug01:

Bob has a point.:thumbsup:

And thanks Tracy.

And I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you in this point.

Although many of our laws support the Constitution, many were once based on Old English "common" Law, much of which was based on religious principles at the time.
For better or for worse, they've changed over time.
Also, the constitution is a living, changing document.

But we're getting off track.

The original question was...do you have a "right" to defend yourself?

My answer is still yes, but not necessarily with a firearm.

Actually no, it's not the same thing. "Granting" and "confirming" are NOT the same thing at all. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not written by the government at all. They were written by people endeavoring to CREATE the government and thereby used as a rule book to try to CONTROL the government. The Bill of Rights was written in order to quell complaints that the US Constitution did not go far enough to protect the people from the government they were creating. Not surprisingly, after recently escaping from the control of England, our forefathers did not want to just jump right back into that situation again with our own newly created government. So they tried as best they can to keep that from happening.

Again, Shadow's comment was:
"The constitution (depending on which justice is proffering thier opinion today) does grant us the "right" however (by government) to "keep and bear arms."

But it's a common mistake for people to believe that those documents detailed the privileges that the government allows us to have, rather than the other way around.

And I do believe that our forefathers knew the difficulty we would have keeping out government within the bounds they set.

Actually all of our laws are SUPPOSED to support and be authorized by the US Constitution. Otherwise they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and therefore invalid.


I guess it depends on what you mean by "living, changing document". In order to CHANGE the US Constitution, there are specific measures written into it in order to do so which are the ONLY valid and legal means of change.

And they are:

1. First Method -- Amendment is proposed by Congress by a two-thirds vote in both houses, then ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures (38 of 50)(27 adopted).
   
2. Second Method -- Amendment is proposed by Congress by a two-thirds vote in both houses, then ratified by special conventions in three-fourths of the States (38 of 50)(Only repeal of prohibition, i.e., 21st Amendment adopted in this fashion).
   
3. Third Method -- Amendment is proposed at a national convention when requested by two-thirds of the State legislatures (34 of 50), then ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures (38 of 50).
   
4. Fourth Method -- Amendment is proposed at a national convention called by Congress when requested by two-thirds of the State legislatures (34 of 50), then ratified by special conventions held in three-fourths of the States (38 of 50).

The Constitution does not change it's meaning because interpretations of terms change over time. Especially when it is the government itself doing the interpretting to suit it's own goals. Whatever the Constitution meant when it was written is how it should be interpreted today. Which basically means that the ORIGINAL LETTER and INTENT of the Constitution are what bills written by congress need to use as the guiding principles to determine if they qualify to become LAW.

Heck, I can STILL remember in grade school my teacher telling the class that the Second Amendment was written only to protect the settlers from indians and was now considered to be obsolete. With that sort of crap coming from the educational system, no darn wonder so many people have no earthly idea what the Constitution is REALLY about.

OR, "I RATHER BE TRIED BY 12, THAN CARRIED OUT BY SIX"...:shrug01:
Amen:thumbsup: