No. of Recommendations: 8
It's far better to have something and not need it than not have it and suddenly need it.
Unless having it is dangerous - so much so that the dangers of having it when you don't need it are greater than the danger of not having it when you need it. In which case it would be better not to have it.
Fundamental rights are also...fundamental. There's zero need to justify why this or why that. They just...are.
True....but you do have to support the claim that the right is, in fact, fundamental. And even then, most fundamental rights are subject to some limits. You have a right to free speech, but not to commit slander. You have a right to freedom of exercise of religion, but not using practices that violate laws of general applicability (ie. no human sacrifice). Etc.
Every society (I think?) that allows people to bear weapons in self-defense places limits on that right. Some weapons, and not others. Even in the US, your ability to bear a weapon in self-defense stops at fully automatic weapons - well short of most explosives and other ordinance. In other countries (like Japan or Singapore), your ability to bear a weapon in self-defense stops before firearms - you're just not allowed to have one, save in exceptional situations. Their right to self-defense and have weapons simply doesn't extend to firearms.
Just declaring that X is a right doesn't avoid all of the difficult questions about why you think X is, in fact, a right - and what the limits and bounds of X are.
