Why We Have the Right to Bear Arms
Certain malicious people would have us beleive that the right to bear arms is a concept completely seperate from, and having no effect upon, any other aspect of human existence. This is untrue. The question of whether people have a right to bear arms is, in fact, a question of whether people have any rights, or whether their supposed rights are simply pretty words on a document, to be quoted by politicians at campaign time.
If people possess any rights, the existence of those rights necessarily creates the existence of a right to defend those rights against those who would violate them. The more important the right they are defending is, the more drastic the measures permitted in its defense must be. Some rights, such as the right to life, and the right to freedom are so important that people must be permitted any means to defend them, including, as a last resort, the use of deadly force.
On the other hand, if people are granted certain 'rights', but are denied the necessary means of their defense, then they do not have rights, but priveleges, which may be revoked at any time for a criminal's convenience, or at a politician's whim. Not that there is any great difference between the two.