Let's reflect back some 200 years & change.
Back then, the "right" wasn't necessarily a right, it was a necessity
. When you strip away every peter-pan point, what you're left with is a man, his family, and their property.
I remember my introduction to Criminal Justice course. The instructor really peeled off a lot to reinforce one (very important) point that is, I think, the keystone of not only law enforcement, but bearing arms as well: It protects the weak from the strong.
Of course, strength isn't ignorantly limited to someone's physical ability, rather the unlawful overpowering ability of someone over another
. While the declaration of independence guarantees "the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness", you can't have the latter two without the first.
You have the right to ensure the safety of your life.
Law enforcement is only part (1/3) of the solution. People exercising their right to protect themselves, either by action on their part, or deterrence from the presence of their ability takes a big chunk out of a third. The remaining third, is of course, the law itself. It's been this way since the days of the founding fathers, and it's just as important today as it was back then.
Let me offer something to think about. What was the one time in this country's history that offered the greatest opportunity to destroy America's 2nd Amendment right? Can we agree that when you take up arms against your own, that presents the best justification? Yet in 1865, offering such a gesture would have been considered madness.
I ask myself: What makes today so different?
I hate to merge topics, but I think it's really important to mention the "wild west" and how it relates to this topic....
How "wild" is associated with the carrying of firearms is beyond me. It's not what you have on you, rather what you do with it
that determines if it's "wild" or not. Honestly, if you want to dumb it down, you might as well arrest every male since it's our gender that statistically leads in aggressors in rape cases...and we're equipped to "do the deed".
I think we all can agree that the vast majority of males who are armed with their weapon of gender act responsibly with their CC penis compared to those who don't.
A silly comparison? I agree! Especially when the Constitution offers me, a law abiding citizen, the right to have a firearm as much a part of my body as the noted above "weapon".
At any rate, the above is what I offer during similar dialog.