Ronald R. Cherry
Self defense
By Ronald R. Cherry
In a recent American Thinker essay the author encourages us to pose the following question to those who would undo the American citizen's second amendment protection for our natural right to self defense:
"Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"
The self-evident answer is yes, because without a right to freely act in self-defense there is, in effect, no right to life. The question then becomes "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to live?" We should never refer only to man's natural right to life or only to man's natural right to self-defense – we should always refer to the individual's natural right to life and self-defense – the two natural rights are inseparable and are thus one natural human right. Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that all individuals naturally possess a God-given right to life and liberty, but it was John Locke who stated it first, and it was Locke who also correctly pointed out that without our natural right to freely act in self-defense, i.e.: without our natural right to liberty, human life is vulnerable to the tyrannical actions of evil people.
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's." John Locke
"He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom... To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it." John Locke
The Marxist Constitution of the Soviet Union granted the Russian serfs a right to "inviolability of the person," but the Soviet Constitution did not grant the Russian serfs a right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. No Marxist Constitution has ever had a Bill of Rights which acknowledges that the individual's inherent natural rights to life, liberty and labored-for property come from Almighty God – not from the State or from the State's Constitution. No Marxist Constitution has ever contained a Second Amendment protecting the individual's sacred right to keep and bear arms in self-defense, and so it follows that Marxist governments end up waging war against their own people.
What are we to make of, Democratic politicians, law officers, intellectuals and journalists who agitate against the individual's God-given right to keep and bear arms in defense of their own lives and the lives of their family, friends and neighbors? Since one's right to life and self-defense is natural, sacred and unalienable, it follows that these people are agitating for tyranny, because any law which violates the individual's right to life and self-defense is tyranny, and these tyrannical laws would eventually place such intellectuals, journalists, law-makers and law-enforcers into a state of war against their own people.
"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson
"He that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth [freedom to keep and bear arms in self-defense] must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war." John Locke
Freedom to act in self-defense is simply an aspect of rightful human liberty, and is a pre-requisite for maintaining our preservation in life. As John Locke pointed out, freedom is the picket fence guarding our very lives.
© Ronald R. Cherry
February 6, 2013
In a recent American Thinker essay the author encourages us to pose the following question to those who would undo the American citizen's second amendment protection for our natural right to self defense:
"Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"
The self-evident answer is yes, because without a right to freely act in self-defense there is, in effect, no right to life. The question then becomes "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to live?" We should never refer only to man's natural right to life or only to man's natural right to self-defense – we should always refer to the individual's natural right to life and self-defense – the two natural rights are inseparable and are thus one natural human right. Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that all individuals naturally possess a God-given right to life and liberty, but it was John Locke who stated it first, and it was Locke who also correctly pointed out that without our natural right to freely act in self-defense, i.e.: without our natural right to liberty, human life is vulnerable to the tyrannical actions of evil people.
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's." John Locke
"He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom... To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it." John Locke
The Marxist Constitution of the Soviet Union granted the Russian serfs a right to "inviolability of the person," but the Soviet Constitution did not grant the Russian serfs a right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. No Marxist Constitution has ever had a Bill of Rights which acknowledges that the individual's inherent natural rights to life, liberty and labored-for property come from Almighty God – not from the State or from the State's Constitution. No Marxist Constitution has ever contained a Second Amendment protecting the individual's sacred right to keep and bear arms in self-defense, and so it follows that Marxist governments end up waging war against their own people.
What are we to make of, Democratic politicians, law officers, intellectuals and journalists who agitate against the individual's God-given right to keep and bear arms in defense of their own lives and the lives of their family, friends and neighbors? Since one's right to life and self-defense is natural, sacred and unalienable, it follows that these people are agitating for tyranny, because any law which violates the individual's right to life and self-defense is tyranny, and these tyrannical laws would eventually place such intellectuals, journalists, law-makers and law-enforcers into a state of war against their own people.
"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson
"He that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth [freedom to keep and bear arms in self-defense] must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war." John Locke
Freedom to act in self-defense is simply an aspect of rightful human liberty, and is a pre-requisite for maintaining our preservation in life. As John Locke pointed out, freedom is the picket fence guarding our very lives.
© Ronald R. Cherry
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
