My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's not well thought out. Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.
And I have already addressed this point on many occasions. In short, there are many such instances, and the gun owner is expected to know when lethal force is reasonable or not. But let us play your game again anyway...
- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.
Already addressed. An explosive device is a weapon that is indiscriminate, and the gun owner is responsible for the damage that he causes. Therefore a landmine doesn't qualify as a personal arm by any stretch of the imagination, since it's impossible to employ such a weapon with any degree of precision; which is a practical requirement with a firearm.
- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.
See above. This is Reductio ad Absurdum, since you are deliberately trying to reduce our argument of self-defense to the most absurd situation that you can think of, and not even for the first time. It's offensive.
- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).
Indeed it would. And you have also committed crimes against others already, pedibear, and have therefore already lost your natural rights. If you resist a lawful order, and point a gun at an officer who is exercising a warrant, he kills you in his own self-defense, not as a punishment for a crime that you have not been convicted of yet.
- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.
No, it's not reasonable to attack someone. That assault & battery, at a minimum. Also a crime. This has no bearing on whether or not I can carry a firearm at my own will, since I'm not a criminal.
There are also grey areas. Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss? This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.
This is a concern, but as you pointed out, it's highly situationally dependent. How does that justify limiting my right to carry a firearm into a public place? I didn't know I was going to be in that crowd when the bovine fecal matter made critical contact with the rotary cooling device. As has also been pointed out to you on several occasions, every gun owner is personally
liable for the results of every bullet that leaves his gun while it's in his own possession (and often when it leaves his gun when it's not
in his possession, depending on the circumstances therein) and must make those assessments in the moment. Again, this has no bearing upon my own right to carry a firearm into a public place; and the decision to use lethal force, whether in the presence of potential bystanders or not, is alone my legal responsibility to bear if I choose to fire
at that moment.
Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed. Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights. Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable. Arguing that there is no line is puerile.
He was not arguing that there is no line. He was arguing that you
don't have the right to determine his
line, and no one else does either. In this regard, even the opinions of SCOTUS are strongly
supported recommendations, which can change. What he is talking about is eternal and unchanging, even if the 'line' is fuzzy and vague. And it's rarely fuzzy in retrospect, that is what a jury is for.