Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Favorable article on self defense | Main | Massachusetts, Brady, and reasonable gun laws »

Insight from Canada

Posted by David Hardy · 21 November 2006 08:57 AM

EnterStageRight has it.

"Security of the person is non-negotiable. It is the prime given. It is the excuse government uses for nearly all its other actions. The thing about security of the person is that it is ultimately not something that can be delegated. Anyone who demands under any circumstances that a person delegate that authority 100% by disarming whether voluntarily or under duress is either running a protection racket or planning something very, very bad. Maybe even Pol Pot bad."

An interesting adaptation of Hobbes, who, nearly four centuries ago, originated the concept of "inalienable rights." Hobbes argued that men instituted government for group protection, to end the state of nature where every person had to protect themselves (and were in turn free to attack and rob others, subject only to the risk that the person might defend and kill them). His Levithan managed to annoy almost everyone. Royalists were angered that he found the source of sovereignty in popular will rather than divine right. Republicans were angered that he considered the delegation of power to the government (in his time, most likely a king) irrevokable.

Hobbes considered that the people might give up just about any right (starting with the "right" to victimize others by crime) EXCEPT self-defense. Why? Because they had empowered the government precisely to protect them and make self-defense unnecessary. Anytime it was necessary, the government had failed in its central purpose. The one right remaining, of protection, could not be bargained away, because it was the only thing the subject had received in exchange for making the deal. Thus a subject could not alienate, voluntarily bargain away that right, no matter what the government offered in return and no matter how much he wanted to.

· Self defense

Leave a comment