January 10, 2013
-
January 10, 2013
The following letter to the editor was in this morning’s edition of the Wichita Eagle.
Self-protection is a natural right
America’s Declaration of Independence is based upon the “self-evident” truth that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” By referring to them as “unalienable,” the founders of our liberty meant that they are natural rights distinct from legal rights. That’s an important distinction to note, because natural rights are those neither incidental to the laws of any government nor contingent upon any customs or beliefs of any particular culture.
First and foremost among our few natural rights is the right of self-protection. Thus, it must follow that ownership of adequate weaponry to facilitate that right is itself a natural right. While once musket fire was returned with musket fire, warfare technology has taken us far beyond. Now that bad men brandish assault weapons that no laws will prevent them from having, what are the chances of good men without them?
For those who demand that the natural right of self-protection become a legal right for government to decide and dispense: Let us tread lightly here. Does government really protect us? How well? We need only look to history to consider what happens when a society begins to believe government will provide for the protection of the people and the people are, thus, not required it for themselves.
Ron A. Hoffman, Rose Hill, KS
The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document. It is not the basis for our legal system. It is a mixture of final plea for help in resolving the problems some colonialists have with their legitimate government across the ocean, and a threat.
The population of the American colonies was approximately 2.5 million in 1776. This included slaves. Some 56 white men did not - could not - represent all 2,5 million people.
The language of the Declaration is high hyperbole. The document speaks of unalienable rights, those rights which are innate and cannot be taken away. Inalienable rights are those rights which can only be modified or surrendered by the will of the people.
Three unalienable rights are mentioned - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If one actually has an unalienable right to love, then we might never die. We might never execute anyone. And we should certainly fid fault with the supposed creator who seems to have engineered humans to eventually die.
If we have unalienable liberty, then the only basis for a society of two or more people would be constant struggle as each person decides what liberty means, and pursues such liberty vigorously. For example, I have the unalienable right to your property. Therefore, it is right that I should seize it.
We have an unalienable right to pursue happiness. That seems reasonable, until balanced with such things as it makes me happy to take what is yours, or to deprive you of your happiness in the pursuit of my own happiness. If it makes me happy to rape your daughter, then I should diligently pursue that goal, regardless of how your daughter gets treated in the process.
Above, Mr. Hoffman claims we have an unalienable right to self-protection. I wonder if he considered that the declaration doesn’t even come close to making such a claim? I wonder if he considers that the declaration is not part of our legal system? I wonder if your right to defend yourself interferes with my right to happiness when I rape your daughter or steal your property?
Mr. Hoffman probably hopes that he has said something essential, meaningful and top-dead-center correct? I doubt he comprehends that his letter is a crock of bull exhaust.
Because the term unalienable is not appropriate, then if we swing toward inalienable, we find that the Articles of Confederation (our first constitution), the Constitution of the United States (our second constitution), recognize that we do have a need to look toward government for protection and defense.
Comments (6)
Which brings us to Sarrin Gas and Hand Grenades should be made availible at the 7-11.
@tendollar4ways
With an idea like that you may become a NRA poster child. LOL
I guess it could help your golf score. Just blow a hole near the ball, and then nudge the ball in the hole. You should be able to get just two strokes per hole that way. Drive, create a hole, nudge the ball in. Wonder what kind of handicap that would give you?
In December, Kansans went into high gear applying for gun checks so they could get armed before our nasty old gummit takes all their toys away.
I never thought of that but it is an excellent idea. You wouldn't even need a golf course and you would save quite a bit on green fees.
Go so some feild, tee it up, drive the ball then huck the HG and that is your make shift hole! They could sell Hand Grenades in 18 packs!
@tendollar4ways - Wouldn't it also shorten the time frame for reaching the 19th hole?
Between the two of us, I think we have the best ideas.
As always, you are a voice of reason among the irrational. Did you see Jon Stewart's rant on the gun control argument earlier this week? I thought he had some interesting insights as well. I think it's important to note that in all of the recent mass shootings, all of the equipment purchased was done so completely within the law. These were not criminals in the sense that they bought their guns on the black market. Granted, the people who bought the weapons weren't necessarily the ones who brandished them in the attack. So the argument that criminals will still get guns, while true, doesn't at all address the issue at hand. The thing that's most frightening is that the gun enthusiasts are not even willing to entertain ANY discussion about ANY sort of gun control. It's an all or nothing kind of group. There are a few other problems I see with the whole argument. 1 - You don't NEED that assault rifle. The chances that you're going to encounter a full on military grade assault that would give the need for having this weapon in ridiculously small. Also, even if you did encounter someone at a school brandishing this type of weapon, I highly doubt you'll be carrying an assault rifle with you, so the fact that you own it means nothing. 2 - That you want to own that weapon is not good enough. I want to own a tank to go four wheeling on weekends, but that's certainly not going to happen. Next argument please. 3 - If and when the time actually came where you had to fire said weapon at a person, are you willing to take on the responsibility of having killed someone? What if the person you shot was actually another 'good samaritan' like yourself trying to take out the real shooter? That's certainly a possibility. If everybody has a gun and a fight breaks out, how do we even know who the bad guy is? Are we ok with just shoot first, ask questions later as a viable response? Ugh, makes my head hurt!! I grew up in a family that hunted and went target shooting and we never had weapons more powerful than a hunting rifle and they were ALWAYS securely locked in a safe in the basement (behind another locked door). My parents stressed gun safety from day 1 and if we acted even one inch out of line with a gun, all privileges were immediately revoked. Even play guns, hand gestures, any of it, were never allowed to be pointed at a living creature. Not even in jest.
Sorry, guess I have some strong feelings about the subject!
Comments are closed.