Grassroots Commentary

Self Defense

By Ronald R. Cherry · Feb. 11, 2013

In a recent American Thinker essay the author encourages us to pose the following question to those who would undo the American citizen's second amendment protection for our natural right to self defense:

“Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?”

The self-evident answer is yes, because without a right to freely act in self-defense there is, in effect, no right to life. The question then becomes, “Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to live?” We should never refer only to man's natural right to life or only to man's natural right to self-defense – we should always refer to the individual's natural right to life and self-defense – the two natural rights are inseparable and are thus one natural human right. Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that all individuals naturally possess a God-given right to life and liberty, but it was John Locke who stated it first, and it was Locke who also correctly pointed out that without our natural right to freely act in self-defense, i.e.: without our natural right to liberty, human life is vulnerable to the tyrannical actions of evil people.

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's.” –John Locke

“He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom… To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it.” –John Locke

The Marxist Constitution of the Soviet Union granted the Russian serfs a right to “inviolability of the person,” but the Soviet Constitution did not grant the Russian serfs a right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. No Marxist Constitution has ever had a Bill of Rights which acknowledges that the individual's inherent natural rights to life, liberty and labored-for property come from Almighty God – not from the State or from the State's Constitution. No Marxist Constitution has ever contained a Second Amendment protecting the individual's sacred right to keep and bear arms in self-defense, and so it follows that Marxist governments end up waging war against their own people.

What are we to make of, Democratic politicians, law officers, intellectuals and journalists who agitate against the individual's God-given right to keep and bear arms in defense of their own lives and the lives of their family, friends and neighbors? Since one's right to life and self-defense is natural, sacred and unalienable, it follows that these people are agitating for tyranny, because any law which violates the individual's right to life and self-defense is tyranny, and these tyrannical laws would eventually place such intellectuals, journalists, law-makers and law-enforcers into a state of war against their own people.

“Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” –Thomas Jefferson

“He that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth [freedom to keep and bear arms in self-defense] must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.” –John Locke

Freedom to act in self-defense is simply an aspect of rightful human liberty, and is a pre-requisite for maintaining our preservation in life. As John Locke pointed out, freedom is the picket fence guarding our very lives.

Ronald R. Cherry M.D. practices medicine as a pulmonologist and also writes for American Thinker and Right Side News.

9 Comments

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska said:

Under Constitutional law, self-defense and the defense of others is an optional right. Under Yahweh's law, self-defense and the defense of others is a God-expected responsibility. Which do you think is more easily infringed, licensed, and limited?

See online Chapter 12 "Amendment 2: Constitutional vs.Biblical Self-Defense" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html.

Monday, February 11, 2013 at 1:01 PM

David Hodges in Reidsville, Georgia said:

The Second Amendment is like permission from an older sibling to do what is already authorized by one's parent. It is meaningless, except for the purpose of usurping legitimate authority. My ancestors had the Biblical responsibility, according to Luke 22: 36, to bear arms long before "Big Brother" gave us the Second Amendment. If you are a Constitutionalist (or a prostitutionalist--whatever you want to call yourself for whoring after other gods), be ready to turn your guns in as soon as the Second Amendment slips away. As for me and my house, we'll keep our fingers on the triggers.

Monday, February 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Rob in Texas said:

Which has more valid reason for existence, Peaceful people or those who seek to destroy life?

Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Roger Mitchell in Montana said:

When are we going to abandon this appeal to "natural" law? The nature of things is that the most powerful, aggressive, and evil people will rule and tyrannize everyone else unless something "unnatural" stops them. That unnatural something is the Word of God, the Law of God, and the rule of Jesus Christ in history through the lives of individual, righteous men and women. These men and women know what is right to do and they do it, not because it is natural, but because it exemplifies and models the very essence of God Himself.

We do not have a natural RIGHT to defend ourselves, we have a godly RESPONSIBILITY to do so. Thomas Jefferson, who can't be held up as a model of godliness, had it right, nevertheless. "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

What is ironic about the article above is that repeated references are made to John Locke, who was instrumental in shaping Enlightenment philosophy. Locke almost certainly wasn't Christian and based much of his thinking on the rule of autonomous man's law, not the rule of God's Law.

Natural law simply does not work. Natural man, being evil, will always wax worse and worse. It is only by submitting and surrendering to the dictates of God's Law and Will that man is protected. Anything else is an illusion.

Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Ronald R. Cherry in Knoxville, TN replied:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's...God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man.…Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” John Locke

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM

David in Mountain View Missouri said:

“Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. We also have the right to lose and bind as found in:
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

“Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.” Matt. 18:18-19

Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights. We truly do, have rights as I have proven above and as our Founding Fathers intended. I do not indorse the current state of our nation, but the foundation of this country was true.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 12:54 AM

Taylor in New Port Richey, FL said:

Everyone needs to know self defense from attackers I got my concealed permit and learned all the laws when it comes to my self defense. Go here for concealed class www.equip2concel.com

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 9:42 AM

TSgt B in Lewisville, Texas replied:

Taylor, with this in mind, why should I need a "permission slip" from the state to exercise a Right and Duty levied by God?

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

T Sgt B,

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.

I've seen so many people that are concerned for their "right" to be armed, fall for this trap of CCW permit, and a trap it is.

If you need a permit, then it's not a "right".

Instead of going to the god (name a state) for permission to do anything, this nation needs to turn back to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us and seek His Will/Kingdom on earth.

The King of kings says it's just fine with Him to carry concealed without another god's (government's) permission.

Remember Ehud?

Friday, February 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM