imported post
It goes against natural order not to defend oneself.Self defense has been a recognized 'right' (legally)of a citizenfor over 2,087 years (in western civilization) sinceCiceroargued the matter before the Roman Senate. Arms are the tools of self defense. The 'state' is not responsible for your personal safety or protection. SCotUS has already ruled on that. (Gonzales vs Castle Rock, CO) and others.
'Quote': "Why do you think that you should be allowed to have a gun?" First of all... the premise of your question is couched in the language of the subserviant statist.Rights are not 'allowed'... rights are recognized. The Arizona Constitution is similar to the US Constitution and mirrored word for word in several other state constitutions:
AZC Art. 2, Sec. 26:"
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm"The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that
"no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law
"to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the
"right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State."
New York has no such recognition of that right in it's state constitution. It is a right denied.
I've written a piece on 'rights', for my sister-in-law who teaches high school. Not just the right to self defense, but all rights.:
Rights
All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.
Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.
Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of an individualRight requires personal responsibility and moderation.
Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny.
Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs, oligarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them as 'they alone' control and determine such liberties as the people may enjoy or not. Such governments abrogate personal responsibility to the authority of the State.
In answer to your question...I don't 'think' I should be 'allowed' to own/carry a gun... I have the absolute right to do so if I choose. I choose to do so daily w/o interference from the 'state'. I need permission from no one.
