There should be, and are, limits to self-defense by individuals. You can't, for example, chase down the guy who just raped your wife on your front porch and kill him down the street. The rule of thumb is usually: You must be in fear for your life, and there are no alternatives that a reasonable person could choose. I haven't really studied the subject much myself, but I believe that the limits of using deadly force against a person within the confines of your home are more tolerant than those outside your home.
There are also generally accepted limits on firearms, such as fully automatic machine guns.
Reasonable people do not propose that the individual should be permitted to use military hardware other than sidearms and rifles or shotguns (such as gren@ades, flame throwers, chemical, biological, nuclear, whatever) in self defense. These weapons are offensive, not defensive. A pistol is unsuitable as an offensive weapon and is clearly defensive. Rifles and shotguns are on the margin and can be both.
Some unscrupulous people try to claim that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the individual right to keep and bear arms because by extension the individual should be able to possess a nuclear weapon. This is clearly preposterous and is merely a straw dog that they throw up to be argumentative.
The Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from other people who want to impose their own peculiar set of values on everybody.
Like outlawing snowmobiles because idiots abuse other people's property and rights with them. The people who abuse them should be held accountable, but that doesn't mean everybody should be prevented from having a snowmachine. |
