Gun Control & RKBA

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

7. Of course not. The right to personal self-defense was simply assumed.

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 11:52 AM

Mar 2014

I doubt that any of the Framers would have thought twice about any need to explicitly define and protect that right. They elected to guarantee the right of the people to possess and employ the tools employed in that activity. They included a supporting rationale (use in the militia), but the language most certainly does not serve to assert that this is the only rationale. That the people would use the arms they were guaranteed the right to possess in personal self-defense would have been taken as a given.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Uptown family concerned by lack of 911 response after break-in, several calls to authorities (NOLA) [View all] davepc Mar 2014 OP

Is this why you think a reference to arms was inserted into the Bill of Rights? Loudly Mar 2014 #1

There are many reasons to own a weapon, I'll Marshall up a few. SQUEE Mar 2014 #2

There are many reasons hack89 Mar 2014 #3

The police have no duty to respond or to protect any individual that is not in custody of some form S_B_Jackson Mar 2014 #6

Of course not. The right to personal self-defense was simply assumed. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #7

It is a gross overreaction by the home owners sarisataka Mar 2014 #8

"Well, maybe guns are okay in the rural areas of... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #4

As illustrated in this story, when your life is on the line and every second counts, Jgarrick Mar 2014 #5