absolute right to bear arms?, page-16

hi Jessie

"Since 1787 in the US, with this gun control debate, following concern over by far, the highest rate of gun-related murders, gun use seems to have morphed into purposes other than protection against a tyrannical govt, specifically protection against other individuals - I'm sure that is not what TJ had in mind."
...........................

Perhaps you are correct about the last sentence, that TJ wasn't talking about the right to bear arms in order to protect oneself against fellow citizens. Perhaps he wasn't thinking about that at all because the notion of not having the right to protect oneself against aggressors would have been considered preposterous then as it is now by most people.

Logically speaking, an armed citizenry may be armed for many reasons simultaneously, protection against tyrannical government primarily while coincidently serving self defense needs or vice versa combined with sport shooting, hunting etc in any combination. They are not mutually exclusive.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the right to bear arms signifies a certain type of relationship of government to citizenry.

To get down to basics rather than debate details and motivations etc, what rights do humans inherently possess if any? Do we have rights without them being granted by government?
Do we have a right to our own lives? If so, then do we have a right to self defence? Everything else flows from that.

cheers