A philosophical defense of the right to bear arms

[OakRidgeStars]

Granted, this is a long read but well worth the time.

https://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/ ... bear-arms/

[thekinetic]

Philosophical? A philosophy is just an idea to explain the abstract concept of reality. I think a logical defense would be better, which could be summed up as: I need a way of defending myself that would be both efficient and equalize my weaknesses with my opponent's strengths, therefore a firearm.

Mind you I didn't read it so I, in all probability, just summed up what they just said.

[AlanM]

There's a link to another quite interesting article in that essay.

The Gun is Civilization: The best pro gun argument ever....

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

[Swampman]

The right to keep and bear arms comes from the right to self defense, recognized here by Roman Law. The Romans rightly decided that in the absence of other protections, that individuals have the right to defend themselves with weapons to the point of visiting death upon their assailant.

The basic premise that I see here is that it's better to have a weapon in hand than a cop on the phone.

Roman law was very protective of the individual’s right to defend himself and his property from violence, whether offered by a thief on a darkened highway or a soldier in search of plunder.[viii] A provision attributed to the late fourth century a.d. reads:

We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves (liberam resistendi cunctis tribuimus facultatem), so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a soldier, who trespasses upon fields at night in search of plunder, or lays by busy roads plotting to assault passers-by, to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all (permissa cuicumque licentia dignus ilico supplicio subiugetur). Let him suffer the death which he threatened and incur that which he intended (Codex Justinianus (“CJ”) 3.27.1).

The legislator then explains the rationale for this provision, stating, “For it is better to meet the danger at the time, than to obtain legal redress (vindicare) after one’s death.” And he concludes:

We therefore permit you to seek your own revenge (ultionem) and we join to this decree those situations which a legal judgment would be too late to remedy (quod serum est punire iudicio). Thus, let no one shrink from facing (parcat) a soldier, whom it is fitting to challenge with a weapon (telo), just as it is fitting to challenge a thief (a.d. 391).[ix]

https://www.saf.org/journal/16/TheRoman ... nianus.htm

This age-old concept refutes the fatuous argument the anti-2A crowd makes that we don't need to have weapons for self defense. We have the right to weapons for self defense in order that we are not on unequal footing with those who seek an advantage with superior weapons. I will always make every effort to have weapons that are superior to the criminal element I might face.

[dusterdude]

Yessir