Quote:
|
not the so called "natural right" to defend one's home, which they could easily (as the framers of the Bill of Rights) said - something like "The Right to Keep and Bear arms for any citizen for their personal defence and defence of their goods shall not be infringed"
|
Ah, but the framers recognized something that the English still don't get. That is that government CANNOT be trusted. There's no argument among social scientists that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, but also that "he" inevitibly turns into a despot resulting in the worst form of government.
The fallacy of your argument is that limiting the RKBA to "personal defense and the defense of their goods" ends up with government deciding what arms are suitable for that considering what "likely" hazards a citizen would face.
It may be inconceivable to you that gangs of a dozen or more might descend on your rural home to rob, rape, pillage, burn, and kill you and yours, but it's not now nor was it inconceivable to us or the framers. Seems like a British general employed that tactic to "teach the colonists" a lesson. He did, but not the lesson he intended to teach.
If the "People" are to have control of the government, then the government must not be allowed to gain control over the people. Why is that so hard to understand? That's what "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" means.