11-09-2012, 04:48 AM
(11-08-2012, 04:08 PM)kandrathe Wrote: The natural law right here though is that when in defense of your life, or families lives, would you (should you) be willing to kill? Therefore, in 2nd amendment parlance, you should not be denied the means of defending yourself from common threats. You and I may never see them, but should we deny others their rights due to our peaceful and idyllic semi-rural lives. So, just as with the tiger, I choose not to live in violence infested parts of town. I'd rather not be put into a position of having to kill people, but not everyone can afford to change their situation.
I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that people should be allowed to own shotguns and rifles. I just don't see where the 2nd amendment logically leads to the right to own military-grade weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible very quickly.
If someone breaks into my house and my shotgun is not enough firepower to defend my family, then owning an AK-47 probably wouldn't save me either.
Just as an aside, I've actually been in a situation like this when I was very young. The TL: DR version is that a man with a shotgun came to the front door of our house. He was looking to kill my father. We outsmarted him by running out the back door and called the police from a neighbour's house. They responded quickly and he was arrested.