RE: Firearms in the Hands of a Philosopher
I always like it when I come across a rational and reasonable discussion of this issue, absent the usual mob who can't get beyond stomping their feet while shouting "my rights, my rights, my RIGHTS!"
The sticking point for me is typically a moral-ethical-philosophical-values one: When — if ever — does ANY human being have the "right" to be judge, jury and summary executioner in the taking of another human being's life?
That's not a political question; it's a question of how a person — absent affiliations to politics and religion — feels about what we might call "the sanctity of life."
It doesn't matter to me whether someone calls themselves a "liberal" or "alt. right" or "libertarian" or "anarchist;" the question is posed at a completely HUMAN level.
"Freedom" can be a slippery slope; the moment we make a declarative statement such as "Freedom is ________" we've created a "box," with ourselves in it. Meanwhile, someone else's "freedom box" may be quite different from ours... so whose freedom box "wins" the day? One might argue "those with the bigger guns!" That might be, but does that not invite a descent into chaos?
I have no significant "skin" in this argument, merely curiosity and questions.
Bright Blessings!
I agree, taking someone else's life should always be avoided. The only exception I make is in the protection of life. According to Locke it violates natural law to do so. That being said he also points out that by violating that natural law, you forfeit your own protection. Now that is time sensitive. If someone is in the process of killing someone it would be lawful to protect them or yourself by defending yourself up to and including killing them, but if they leave the scene and you track them down and kill them that would not be lawful.
As for Freedom, the definition I like is - The state one is in where no one is forcing their will upon the individual.
If you track down and kill someone who has actively attempted to murder you/is an imminent threat to you or your family, this is not unlawful in view of individual self-ownership.
what one person is forcing their will on the individual in the US?
that's easy, when defending themselves or others from a physical threat. Except of course they are not any of the people you listed, "execution" is being legally killed by the state, not an individual.
This is an old post, but I would still like to make a reply to your comment. I will state that I am very much a 2nd Amendment supporter.
Outside of shooting someone in an official capacity (Military, Police etc.), yes I did leave out Militia because that gets into a very political aspect of what each person considers what is right and what is wrong. I personally don't look at it from the stand point of being Judge, Jury and Executioner. The reason I don't is that the combination of those 3 terms implies very much forethought in the action of killing someone. So from the perspective of a civilian killing another person, this should only be done in Defense of Self, Family or Others (which in any scenario I can think of) this would happen in a spur of the moment type of situation i.e. someone breaks into home, someone pulls a gun on me etc. These scenarios would not be preplanned from my side, therefore there is no forethought of any action taken beyond the mere seconds or few minutes of the scenario.
There was a reply about tracking someone down that has actively tried to harm you or your family, to me this is very tricky because I have always believed that the best offense is a good defense, so ignoring the legality portion, morally I would prefer to exhaust all options before resorting to such a drastic measure (though I could never rule it out). Which, by the way, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this would be the 1 scenario which would become Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Now in regards to the sanctity of life part of your reply, I personally would prefer to never take a life, BUT I will not sacrifice mine or others (close to me) to avoid doing so. Also, if there is ever a situation where I would mount a defense, I believe in doing it full force. I have heard people state in the past that they would aim for an arm or a leg to wound not kill. To me attempting to wound versus kill leaves the person defending themselves in just as much danger (the threat must be completely neutralized)!