David Kopel: Aiming for Liberty. The Future of Freedom and Self-Defense
January 21, 2010 by Jim Pfaff · 4 Comments
Podcast: Play in new window
The Second Amendment is not some throw-away right which government has the right to alter. It is a basic human right. It gives every person the ability to protect their family and property, and, ultimately, it is one of our best protections against government tyranny.
The Second Amendment has a religious aspect to it as well. You probably didn’t think of it this way, but Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” It is our right and our duty before God to stand for freedom.
The Second Amendment also secures our protection from criminals when the local police cannot protect us themselves. Most police officers believe that when citizens can deter crime before they can arrive to a crime scene, it is a great benefit in helping them do their jobs properly.
David Kopel and I discuss these and other issues related to the Second Amendment on today’s The Jim Pfaff Show. Make certain to read David’s book, Aiming for Liberty: The Past, Present, And Future of Freedom and Self-Defense
Listen on the podcast link above.
Right on! The Founding Fathers meant for all law-abiding citizens to be armed. "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense." – John Adams
The idea that self-defense is a basic human right is what is largely ignored. We release the leash when our dog gets into a fight – so he can defend himself. We don't let our cats go outside if they're declawed – because they'll be defenseless. So, why is it that our cats and dogs are more worthy of self-defense than we are? After all, we're the ones taking care of them!
Clair
I couldn't get the podcast to work properly – is it stil up?
I do agree that self defense is vitally important, especially in today's increasingly violent society, however is it only me who sees that the argument 'if everyone had guns there would be no gun crime' appears to be counter intuitive. I'm afraid I don't have an answer as to what would be the best way to reconcile the two.
Perhaps it would work like the mutually assured destruction (MAD!) prinicple of the nuclear arms race.
The problem is you need someone rational at the end of the other weapon, who recognises that they would be destroyed and care. Given that much of crime is related to drugs, you have to ask whether the fact that their victim was armed would be a sufficient deterrent to a mentally unstable (often not very bright) criminal who is out of his mind on narcotics?
I am checking the podcast, and it is working for me. You might check your browser settings.