I read about this CSM quiz on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

For giggles, I started taking the quiz.

But I haven’t finished it.

I answered question #5:

5. What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2008 case?

That’s the Heller case.

After you answer each question, it of course says if you’re right or wrong and gives a blurb expanding upon the answer. #5’s blurb was this:

The Heller case left open the broader question of whether the constitutional right to possess arms for personal protection extends beyond the home to include a right to carry those arms in public places.

That is correct, the Heller case did leave that open. I read the quiz blurb, clicked forward to the next question, but then hit my browser’s Back button because something about reading that struck me.

If we make it a yes or no question: “can/should people be allowed to possess arms for personal protection outside of the home, a right to carry them in public places… yes or no?” I cannot see how someone could answer “no” to that question. That is, if you understand the realities of life and the world we live in.

I speak with a lot of people on this topic, and so far I’ve yet to encounter someone against the notion of home defense. Home is very personal to us, not just because it’s where we keep all our stuff, but because it’s our little slice of the world, our sanctuary, our refuge. It’s very personal when our homes are violated, and I don’t know of anyone that would deny others the right to protect themselves and their posessions within the grounds of their own home. But then some of those I have spoken with that are fine with protection in the home feel that doesn’t extend outside the home.

And I don’t understand that line of reasoning.

Wife was outside our home when she was sexually assaulted. Are you saying she has no right to defend herself?

When I think about the almost 60 students of Tom Givens that have been involved in personal defense incidents, just about all of them were not in the home. They were in parking lots, parking garages, sidewalks. If the majority of assaults and violent crimes against people are not in the home, how can we say personal protection doesn’t extend outside the home! That’s where most of the incidents occur and thus where you are most likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Why are we denying that to the law-abiding citizenry?

Then you say people could use something like pepper spray, or a taser/stun gun. Before you go recommending such tools, you probably should increase your understanding of those tools, their applications, and their limits. They aren’t what you think. A gun is a lot more effective. It’s like saying we should still use carrier pigeons and pony express to communicate around the world, instead of the Internet. We have better technology, we have more effective technology, and we are happy to use it. So why are we discouraging the use of better, more effective technology when it comes to personal protection?

Remember, I wasn’t always a gun guy. Once I took my fingers out of my ears and started listening to the logic, I changed my stance. Once the ugly realities of the world pressed themselves upon me and I accepted them as unavoidable fact, I changed my stance. I’m willing to be swayed, I’m willing to be persuaded, because the only thing I keep a stake in is finding Truth. If that means I have to abandon everything I know and based my life upon, then so be it. I don’t want to be right, I want to know Truth. So if someone can present me with facts and logic as to why we should be denied the right to preserve and protect our own lives, and to do so with the best technology available, I’m all ears.

Our home may be personal, but it doesn’t get any more personal than your own person. Your home being violated is bad, your body being violated is worse. Society encourages us to protect our homes: alarm systems, big dogs, adequate exterior lighting, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers. Why does society fail at encouraging us to protect ourselves?