HWN1011 wrote:
We obviously don't have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves like you guys in the US do and to be honest I am glad about that. ...do you not think this right to bear arm for protection is out dated now and should be looked at??
Ok, so I'm going to go all intellectual on this one. Also, I am going to stick to HWN1011's question, which refers to the right to bear arms in order to defend one's self against another person, and not address the question of the need of the citizens to keep arms as a check on Leviathan itself, though of course the Second Amendment is also concerned with this (and more).
The right to bear arms for protection is certainly ancient, and for that reason it should be deeply respected. It should also be looked at, and taught, that we can remember why it is so important.
The argument for surrendering this right goes back to Hobbes, who laid the foundations for modern political thought. Hobbes noticed that when the state was weak, men live instead in a state of nature in which life is nasty, cold, brutish, and short; and "there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be"
This is why we create the State, and give the State the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The State is a natural consequence of the first natural law (that without an outside, restraining force, we MUST live in a state of perpetual war against all).
"From this fundamental law of nature, .... is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself."
But note the "when others are so too." Hobbes continues: "But if other men will not lay down their right, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to."
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/ ... ter14.html
You can look at it another way, the question of who ultimately has responsibility. If you leave your wallet or purse unattended on a park bench, and someone takes it, your insurance company has no duty to reimburse you for your loss. You are responsible for making an effort to protect it.
Likewise, theft. Or more specifically, burglary. If you leave the front door to my house open and go away, and someone enters and takes your stuff, this is NOT burglary: "entry without breaking is not sufficient for common law burglary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary
How much more so your life? You wish to ask the State to defend something which you are not willing to defend yourself? You want a cop, a guy making a decent but not great wage, to risk his life to save yours, but you aren't willing to put any effort into it yourself?
One could argue that you have not only the right, but a positive DUTY to be prepared to defend yourself against violence. That doesn't have to mean carrying a gun, but a gun makes a powerful deterrent.
Any reason you can think of why the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that buglary, robbery, and rape rates are so much higher in the UK than in the US?
And here you counter-argue that the US has a much high rate of gun homicide-- but when you dig into the CDC statistics, you find that near 50% of these vicitms are blacks-- yes, in our ghettos, men live in a state of nature, because they KNOW that the police won't protect them. And their lives are nasty, brutish, and short. Get out of those areas, though, discount those deaths, and US firearm homicide rates are not out of line with European rates.
My username is honeybadger. I'm posting as a guest because I'm away from my usual computer and don't have my password.
