"The reason I believe in the 2nd amendment is that all inalienable human rights, as well as all civil rights, are secondary to the right of self defense. What I mean by that is this: If you cannot defend on your own, with your own resources, any given "right" you have in the instant that another person would seek to violate or deprive you of it, then that right is not inalienable, but rather "on loan" from the government you depend on to ensure your rights.
Unfortunately, though our law enforcement officials diligently work to prevent crime, especially violent crime, it is all too common that violent criminals choose to act when and where the police are not present. In these cases, when there is a lawfully armed citizen present, that individual can thwart the attack preventing property loss, injury, rape, or their own death or that of a defenseless citizen.
Many of the arguments against the second amendment cast it as outdated and no longer applicable. These challenges are based on interpreting the right to keep and bear arms only for the purpose of defending against tyranny. Idealistically, we would be able to trust our government to always respect our rights, but we must realize that, in any case, it is not fully capable of ensuring or protecting them.
When you deny a citizen his or her right to own and carry weapons sufficient to defend against the armed violence of modern gangs and other criminals, that person's rights to life, liberty, property, freedom of movement, freedom from enslavement and torture, etc. are only secure and inalienable if that citizen is surrounded by armed law enforcement 24/7.
This is why, unfortunately, most violent crimes are not stopped by law enforcement, but instead are investigated and, hopefully, prosecuted successfully. It is simply not just to deny a people their right to protect themselves and their families except in cases where an individual has proven him or herself as dangerous and untrustworthy. No court verdict will ever fully erase the pain caused by a violent crime that could have been prevented by a legitimate act of self defense.
The truth is that we will never successfully disarm the criminal population. By disarming our law abiding citizens we only remove a real deterrent that violent criminals face--that they cannot know who is helpless and who is armed. I once saw a bumper sticker that looked out of place among a collage of very liberal bumper stickers on the back of a Honda hatchback. The sticker summed up why the 2nd amendment should not be tampered with or impeded. Its message was simple and accurate;
"Criminals prefer unarmed victims". " Mike Huckabee
http://www.explorehuckabee.com
What do you think?
