|
"among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This remains some of the most perceptive reportage in the English language.
In any case, the "right" to self-defense, I would argue, is inalienable. Governments may for a time effectively prevent citizens from exercising that right, but it exists and may perhaps be one of the few true "natural rights." The right to bear arms is so intertwined with that right because it becomes inextricably linked to self-defense; "life."
I therefore disagree with you when you state "The 2nd amendment created the right to guns." Once you concede that self-defense is a "natural right," then it is impractical to then attempt to disarm citizens. Even a "repeal" of the Second would not remove the natural right to self-defense, and the practical means by which to exercise that right.
I see where some governments have restricted and banned the ownership of guns. This is an attempt, I believe, to deny the right of self-defense to citizens. This, I believe, will not hold in the long run.
Lest there be confusion about what constitutes reality, I believe humans and their institutions not only "create" but "record and build upon" phenomenon which seem to exist well before self-consciousness and organization; the natural right of self-defense is one of these phenomenon.
|