Do people have a ‘natural right’ to preserve their lives by passing protections from small arms fire?
I asked that very same question.
Never got a response.
I must have missed that one.
Of course people have a right to protect themselves from lunatics who are so unsprung that gun ownership is a bad idea for them.
And to that end I am in favor of whatever reasonable steps necessary to separate out such lunatics.
Speaking of the so called "protection against tyranny" factor, while I am fairly certain that the average gaggle of law abiding citizen gun owners like myself don't have a fart's chance in Hell against the United States military, I nevertheless am confident that ownership does avail me of extra options in more localized instances of "tyranny", which usually boils down to individual and unauthorized demonstrations of same where my own life and lives and safety of my loved ones are concerned.
In other words, us law abiding citizens might not be able to defeat the US military but we can certainly stand our ground against random rogue elements that may shake out during instances of civil unrest, and that would also include instances where certain ragtag self-proclaimed pseudo-authorities decide to take matters into their own hands.
What I'm saying is, while my firearm might be useless against an organized state sponsored expression of military might, I am confident that a group of organized citizens can and should protect themselves from rogue unauthorized paramilitary nutjobs.
I don't imagine myself to be any kind of vigilante, or amateur neighborhood watch, or amateur enforcer, or amateur toy soldier, but I do see myself as an ordinary simple law abiding person who intends to protect myself and my family from anyone who may wish to enter my property either in criminal malfeasance or "acting under false color of authority".
One of the reasons so many innocent families down in certain Latin American countries wind up victimized so badly by violence is that many of these countries disarm their civilians while simultaneously playing fast and loose with the definition of what constitutes military and law enforcement.
I daresay that the average Guatemalan cannot tell the difference between law enforcement, the Guatemalan military and a ragtag group of men who just put on some fatigues, strapped themselves with a gun and proclaimed themselves as a militia...under circumstances that for whom and for what is often the subject of mystery.
We here in this country are witnessing a slightly similar state of affairs, where an Ammon Bundy clan or some Oath Smellers can don some milsurp attire, strap on some guns and call themselves whatever they like, and a good many average yokels think they are the law.
Last but not least, let us not forget that, at some point in any military altercation, if the mission is muddied enough, and enough of the local citizenry have decided they have nothing left to lose, every once in a while, a bunch of poorly armed civilians HAVE INDEED defeated the mightiest military forces in history...sent them home packing, sent them home sapped of the will to fight.
The price may be astronomical, but in the end that is what we've witnessed in real time, unfolding before us an ocean away.
Let us hope to God it never gets that bad over here, because many of us will be long gone and bloody in the ground before it ever reaches that point.