Yes, for a variety of reasons. If the imputed right to privacy is sufficient to establish the right to an abortion, then a right of armed self-defense does not seem an outrage. Years ago my wife and I lived in a rural area 12 miles from the nearest town of 15,000 (Hanover, NH). The village we lived in had no night police coverage. The st…
Yes, for a variety of reasons. If the imputed right to privacy is sufficient to establish the right to an abortion, then a right of armed self-defense does not seem an outrage. Years ago my wife and I lived in a rural area 12 miles from the nearest town of 15,000 (Hanover, NH). The village we lived in had no night police coverage. The state police and Hanover police provided mutual aid after hours. One weeknight at 2:30 am, four men tried to break into our home. My wife dialed 911. I went downstairs in the dark with a 12 gauge shotgun and a pistol. As the first man entered our doorway I turned on the lights and aimed the shotgun in his face. Unsurprisingly he and his friends left the doorway. Rather than leaving our property they began looking for other ways to gain entry. Fortunately after ten terrifying minutes the police arrived and arrested the four men at gun point. Ten minutes further on the state police arrived and transported the men to the county jail. Some of our friends were shocked by my behavior, suggesting the men were just out for a joy ride and looking for booze. A year later, two young men from VT entered a Hanover home owned by the Zantops, a Dartmouth faculty couple and murdered them in cold blood. The right of armed self defense is as important as any of the others in the bill of rights.
No, held overnight then released. We were never asked if we cared to press charges. They likely would have been let off as our front door was unlocked (most who live in the country don’t lock their doors). The practical problem (one of many) is that the country is awash with guns. On the constitutional theory side, self-defense seems like a right when the state is unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection of life and property.
Yes, for a variety of reasons. If the imputed right to privacy is sufficient to establish the right to an abortion, then a right of armed self-defense does not seem an outrage. Years ago my wife and I lived in a rural area 12 miles from the nearest town of 15,000 (Hanover, NH). The village we lived in had no night police coverage. The state police and Hanover police provided mutual aid after hours. One weeknight at 2:30 am, four men tried to break into our home. My wife dialed 911. I went downstairs in the dark with a 12 gauge shotgun and a pistol. As the first man entered our doorway I turned on the lights and aimed the shotgun in his face. Unsurprisingly he and his friends left the doorway. Rather than leaving our property they began looking for other ways to gain entry. Fortunately after ten terrifying minutes the police arrived and arrested the four men at gun point. Ten minutes further on the state police arrived and transported the men to the county jail. Some of our friends were shocked by my behavior, suggesting the men were just out for a joy ride and looking for booze. A year later, two young men from VT entered a Hanover home owned by the Zantops, a Dartmouth faculty couple and murdered them in cold blood. The right of armed self defense is as important as any of the others in the bill of rights.
This is crazy! Were they prosecuted?
No, held overnight then released. We were never asked if we cared to press charges. They likely would have been let off as our front door was unlocked (most who live in the country don’t lock their doors). The practical problem (one of many) is that the country is awash with guns. On the constitutional theory side, self-defense seems like a right when the state is unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection of life and property.