New WFP Video: Goodbye, Piers Morgan…and Yes, We Get to Own Tanks!
Check out our farewell message to Piers Morgan!
If one has the right to life, one has the right to survive—to continue that life.
If one has the right to survive, one has the right to do the things necessary to survive: to acquire food, shelter, tools, property. To labor to better one’s condition. To protect oneself from harm.
If one has the right to self-protection, one has the right to the means of self-protection.
Can anyone see any logical reason to limit those means?
Now . . .
If a people have the right to form a government via a social contract, they have a right to consent to, control, alter, or abolish that government.
If that government refuses to submit to that control, or worse, if it directly oppresses the people, the people have the right to resist.
If the people have the right to resist, they have the right to the means required to resist effectively.
Can anyone see a logical reason to limit those means?
I could see an argument that private citizens should not be able to own weapons designed purely for foreign combat, such as nuclear warheads. But it’s hard to see a logical reason to deny private people the means required to resist tyranny, should it ever come to tyranny.
I fully recognize that there are difficulties here. Foreign powers could secretly arm private citizens with the means for an effective 5th column attack (think jihadis or communists). That’s something about which to be concerned. That said, though, I am still struggling to find a logical justification for denying a free people the means necessary to retain, by force of arms if necessary, that freedom.
I’d love to hear reasoned opinions on the subject!