Beyond the 2A,RTKBA is part of right to Life

HiBC · July 10, 2009, 02:17 AM

I'm not a legal scholar and I'm sure someone else has thought of this

Seems like the Declaration of Independence teams up with the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self evident...."

"Life,Liberty,and the pusuit of Happiness"

I'm thinking,tjhe right to Life would have to include the right to defend ones life.

States typically have laws about the citizen using deadly force in self defense.It seems this implies the citizen's right to the means to apply deadly force,gun,knife,rock,or nunchucks.

I certainly treasure and support the 2A,but it might be that on a more basic level,regardless of the militia and free state arguement there is a right to be armed for self defense.
I do not understand how a state could define the terms of justifiable use of deadly force by a citizen without the presumtion of the armed citizen.

Makes sense to me,anyway.

maestro pistolero · July 10, 2009, 03:37 AM

Your logic is sound. Put another way, If we have a right to defend ourselves, then the state cannot deny us access to the means of defending ourselves without denying the right itself. The same is true for ammo limitations. Denial of any amount of ammunition, up to and beyond the amount of ammo that we are able to shoot up in our entire lifetime, is an infringement on the right.

At some point in our learning to properly handle and use firearms, we need to practice. And that takes lots of rounds. A newbie shooting only 50 rounds a month isn't going to become proficient, or learn safe gun handling very quickly. It's a necessary part of exercising the right.

But no matter what lawful use we have for our firearms, even if it's pure entertainment and recreation, the fundamental right exists to be exercised at will, as long as we aren't endangering others.

Tennessee Gentleman · July 10, 2009, 10:06 AM

Self-Defense and the means to do it predate the COTUS and come from the Man Upstairs IMO. I remember once as a young LT being taught about friendly fire and we were told that the Right to Self Defense was never denied. So, when Mr. US Air Force came in and dropped bombs on us if we couldn't ward him off we could shoot him down. Of course, I am not sure how we would have done that for some of those fast movers but we had the right to try.

Might have been a good lesson to those jet jockeys from the suck and blow world.

July 10, 2009, 02:17 AM	#1
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,286	Beyond the 2A,RTKBA is part of right to Life I'm not a legal scholar and I'm sure someone else has thought of this Seems like the Declaration of Independence teams up with the Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self evident...." "Life,Liberty,and the pusuit of Happiness" I'm thinking,tjhe right to Life would have to include the right to defend ones life. States typically have laws about the citizen using deadly force in self defense.It seems this implies the citizen's right to the means to apply deadly force,gun,knife,rock,or nunchucks. I certainly treasure and support the 2A,but it might be that on a more basic level,regardless of the militia and free state arguement there is a right to be armed for self defense. I do not understand how a state could define the terms of justifiable use of deadly force by a citizen without the presumtion of the armed citizen. Makes sense to me,anyway.

July 10, 2009, 10:06 AM	#3
Tennessee Gentleman Senior Member Join Date: March 31, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,775	Self-Defense and the means to do it predate the COTUS and come from the Man Upstairs IMO. I remember once as a young LT being taught about friendly fire and we were told that the Right to Self Defense was never denied. So, when Mr. US Air Force came in and dropped bombs on us if we couldn't ward him off we could shoot him down. Of course, I am not sure how we would have done that for some of those fast movers but we had the right to try. Might have been a good lesson to those jet jockeys from the suck and blow world. __________________ "God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier.

July 10, 2009, 03:37 AM	#2
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Your logic is sound. Put another way, If we have a right to defend ourselves, then the state cannot deny us access to the means of defending ourselves without denying the right itself. The same is true for ammo limitations. Denial of any amount of ammunition, up to and beyond the amount of ammo that we are able to shoot up in our entire lifetime, is an infringement on the right. At some point in our learning to properly handle and use firearms, we need to practice. And that takes lots of rounds. A newbie shooting only 50 rounds a month isn't going to become proficient, or learn safe gun handling very quickly. It's a necessary part of exercising the right. But no matter what lawful use we have for our firearms, even if it's pure entertainment and recreation, the fundamental right exists to be exercised at will, as long as we aren't endangering others.