We agree on most of your post, LaPistoletta...
"The right to bear arms, in my definition, is when it is cleary states that you can do that, such as the 2nd Amendment."
************************************************************
This is an issue that even most Americans don't understand.
The original intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment , was to provide a listing, or enumeration of what the founders considered to be the most basic, fundamental and valuable of so-called "Natural Rights", i.e., those rights considered to be inherent to the human condition.
Their listing of these rights merely enumerated them, but did not 'grant' them, as they were considered to exist by natural law.
"Endowed by their Creator" was how the language of the time described the source of natural law applied to humans.
************************************************************
"We don't have that right in the law. One can get access to a weapon, but that's a [very strict] licence, not a right. You have to justify the ownership constantly by using it in competitions or such or else they'll take it away."
************************************************************
Yes, I understand that.
It's is the same (or worse) here in Australia.
This demonstrates that the government is not willing to recognise your "natural right" insofar as it pertains to RKBA.
That is not to say your right doesn't exist, but rather your government does not allow you to excercise it. I know this seems a rather fine point, but it is an important one.
************************************************************
"I would say that if draft is ever to be applied, it shouldn't be just for any cause. As you may know by now ( ) I'm against draft period, but the one area that it could make sense is in homeland defence on homeland soil. I'd rather have the tech stuff do the job in other countries if that's not too naïve a comment?"
************************************************************
Yes, my position would be similar, I guess. It is difficult to say where one's "duty" to one's nation or society begins and ends. Perhaps it is indeed in the form of a sliding scale depending upon circumstances?
Chris Rhines:
************************************************************
"If society (who or what is this?) is facing a truly dire threat, why would you think that the individual members of the society wouldn't volunteer to defend it, thereby acting in their own self-interest?"
************************************************************
Well, that's all true enough as well. I think perhaps many in 'society' might need a bit of encouragement if the conflict is long or dirty, but then how does one define the parameters of 'national interest' without including the interest of the individuals constituting the nation?
Not that our politicians are unwilling to try!
************************************************************
"And if the population at large won't defend the society under threat, maybe that's because the society doesn't deserve to be defended?"
************************************************************
The demise of the Soviet Union and the Comblock certainly seems to have made that point well.
************************************************************
"Anyone who tries to force me to give up my life is a scoundrel."
************************************************************
Including, I suppose, the enemy of your nation if they aggress upon it?
Or not, depending upon the situation?
How do you know (in time)?
How does the enemy know to spare you?
