No right is absolute

[JDPriestly]

174. Society gives you the right to self-defense provided that your belief that you need to use

self-defense is considered by society to be reasonable. The word reasonable is defined as objectively reasonable, what a reasonable person would believe or think under the circumstances. Traditionally, the right to self-defense is not a subjective right. You cannot simply say, well I was afraid for my life so I attacked this person. A jury or perhaps under some circumstances a judge can, after the fact, determine that your belief that you were in danger of losing your life, while subjectively reasonable because you actually believed it at the time, was not objectively reasonable and that, therefore, what you believed was a necessary act of self-defense was murder. That happens.

A person who is confused about the limitations on the "right" to "defend" against others, a person who has an exaggerated idea about his right to use weapons should stay away from weapons.

I knew a guy who refused to put down a gun after police officers told him to put it down. Trust me. That guy learned that he did not have an unlimited right to bear his arm. The right to bear arms is limited. It most definitely ends when a police officer tells you to put your gun down. No matter where. No matter when, you put that gun down. The police represent the interests of society when it comes to limiting the right to bear arms. Most of them try to do it in a reasonable, fair manner. But society entrusts police officers with that right.

So our right to life and certainly our right to bear arms is entrusted in our police officers and in our legal system. The idea of an absolute right to bear arms would not and could not work in a functioning society. It is a limited right. It certainly exists, but is not an absolute right.