From Aldrich v. Wright, 53 N.H. 398 (1873) (paragraph breaks added):
Higher and earlier in its origin than the constitution or the common law, not superseded by those temporal and finite systems, but sustained and enforced by their declaration and sanction of the highest, primary, eternal, and infinite law of nature the right of defence cannot be prescribed within the limits of a narrow technical rule. It is an original and comprehensive prerogative, necessarily ascertained and defined by natural reason. It is not established by any fallible authority, nor measured by any precedent, nor restricted by any arbitrary dogma.
Long upheld by the common law, it has, under the administration of that law, theoretically been what it was before; and now, reinforced by a constitutional guaranty, it is what it has always been. The authorities of the common law show what it has been held to be by men whose opinions are entitled to great consideration. If any discrepancy should be found in the definitions of it given by common-law precedent and by natural reason, the latter must prevail, because the right is explicitly asserted in the bill of rights as a natural right, and not as one defined by common-law authorities.
The New Hampshire Constitution provides (and provided at the time), "All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights, among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness."
Counter argument: Such statements have been abused by nutcases, extending it to cover groups, to commit group crimes.
Inference(insinuation?): Self-defense is for nutcases. Or those who agree with statement1 are vigilantes. nutcases. evil doers. Kathy Lee Gifford fans.
;)
There's always some scoundrel who will cry "self-defense" to try to get out from under a charge of murder or justify vigilantism. That doesn't invalidate the right of self-defense. Only liberals can (attempt to) do that!
Put it this way: If God gave you life, and a right to life (ref: Declaration of Independence), one is presumed to have the right - and the duty - to defend that life against those who would deny it of you. I know, this is a simplistic way of looking at it, but then I'm a pretty simple person, and I figure that if someone is trying to kill me, I have a right to stop him by whatever means necessary. I realize that this won't fly over in Blighty, but then, perhaps our Founding Fathers were prescient enough to see where the home counrty was heading, and took steps to get out from under....
Um, no. I suppose I'm now a liberal, but that inane hypo was just silly. Burn me on some important site, because I clearly don't have anything more better than a protest vote to offer. It is sad to determine that I'm suddenly a Democratic supporter. But, well, there you go. If you're a Republican, I'm whatever isn't you.I consider myself libertarian/anarchist. But seriously, I voted to make sure Republicans lost. I'm either a traitor or a lesson, your choice.
I guess that I could be called a Libertarian Republican. If that means that I think that much of the current crop of R's in DC wandered a long damn way off the reservation, you're right.
But I always thought that Libertarians and Anarchists were in favor of the right of individual self defense. Did the rules change when I wasn't looking?
I'm not making this up.