In the U.K., is it not a given that you have the right to use force against an intruder in your home? This isn't even about gun ownership or anything
If so, that's news to me. I come from a worldview where rights are inherent, intrinsic, unalienable. They are not granted by the government; they are only acknowledged and protected (or ignored and infringed) by the government. You have rights by virtue of the fact that you own yourself. From my worldview, it is the government's right to act with force that is to be questioned, and it possesses that right only by virtue of the fact that we delegate it: we employ the government to defend us, just as we might employ a private security guard to defend us. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "all men
I'm in the depths of misunderstanding as to why anyone would question whether or not a person has the right to use unarmed force against an intruder with clear malicious intent in his own home. I understand some have qualms about allowing people to keep arms for personal defense; I understand some would say you have to be absolutely sure an intruder is really there to kill or harm and that failing that you could take no force. But when it is clear that the person is there with intent to steal (and possibly hurt or kill you to escape detection, if they've discovered you are there), I can't believe there are some who say you have no right other than to call the government police and hope they arrive in time.
I presume noone would question an individual's right to hire private security guards. Where does this right come from, if not from the fact that they possess the right to defend themselves and may delegate it to employ help? Or is the right of personal defense beyond that which the government provides a right that belongs only to those rich enough to purchase it?