What do the majority of y’all think of 2A rights?
What do the majority of y’all think of 2A rights?
The LEGAL protection [1] (as opposed to a human right) of a right to bear arms is key to human freedom. And, there is demonstrably no substitute for it. I wish there was. Weapons are exceedingly dangerous. I understand. I really do. But there is no other way. The right to protect freedom of thought and that is what it is, is our most important legal right.
If one wants a free mind, you’ll have to have both the wherewithal and will individually to protect it. The power to protect must not be surrendered (through laws) to any other person or group under any circumstances. Otherwise, inescapably, you will be subject to the will (beliefs) of the defender. It is that simple.
Thus, an INDIVIDUAL human’s freedom of thought is entirely dependent on the individual’s power to protect it. Crucially, this power to protect must never be delegated to the state. EVER. If one values their freedom of thought, they must assume responsibility for the rational personal protection of it. This begins with a legal right to bear arms.
There is no other way.
There is only one HUMAN right: freedom of thought.
Our capacity to “think” is what makes us human. This is why I believe freedom of thought is the sole human right. And this right is unlimited. It can be momentarily oppressed but cannot be denied without terminating the person’s life. Thus, I think it is a true right.
However, the expression of free thought in life is not guaranteed nor automatically protected. Actions arising from freedom of thought because they potentially affect the rights of others are rightfully subject to legal limits. Drawing upon their freedom of thought, humans must define and enforce a protective framework of legal rights to protect thoughts and the expression of human thinking fairly for all. But, free thought is fundamental.
The foundation for a just legal framework and free thought is always a defensive right to bear arms.
A right without limit
The defensive right to bear and use arms, because that right can likewise oppress and deny the freedom of thought of others (i.e., its use is irrational—always denying/oppressing the thoughts of others), is a defensive right only. But access to this defensive right should be nearly absolute. But great harm can be produced with it—disproportionate harm.
This is the danger 2A opponents sense and fear. I respect that. Therefore, a society, without limiting the defensive right, must also establish the legal framework so that the victimizer is not unfairly or disproportionately harmed through another’s defensive use of arms. Just societies can.
Freedom of speech is no viable alternative
Yet, freedom of speech will not, in the alternative, protect freedom of thought. Only the individual right to bear arms protects individual freedom of thought. The American Constitution is no legal protection either. The Constitution is necessarily subject to the will of the majority. As such, reliance on the Constitution places freedom of thought under the control of the majority. That act surrenders individual freedom of thought to the many.
No other entity, especially the state, can assume the responsibility of protecting individual freedom of thought
The state cannot ever be entrusted with protecting our human right to think freely. The state is the majority. Only the individual can protect individual thinking. I hope that is now apparent.
Thus, the 2A is crucially important. I hope everyone desires to keep thinking freely. And, scary as it is, the 2A is the ONLY way.
[1] A protected right is a right that constitutional scholars represent as a “negative right”. A negative exists without the action of another (that is, not created by the action of a third party). In this case, because the right to bear arms can affect the rights (life) of others, the right to bear arms is limited to defensive acts only, and only upon the explicit invasion, or threat of invasion, of the victim. [2] The power to defend oneself should be without limit. However, society will not abide by the oppressive (denying the free will of another) use of it.
