Martin writes:
>The right to kill is created by the state, just as the right to own
>guns is created by the state.  These rights don't exist unless there
>is a state to enforce them.  In the absence of a state to enforce
>rights, people would simply kill and/or own guns.  They wouldn't have
>the right to kill or the right to own a gun, because the concept of
>rights doesn't make any sense without a state.  I can talk about my
>beliefs about rights in the state of no state, but those are beliefs
>about rights, not rights.

>>    The question was, "Do people have a right to kill"? not "Is it morally
>>right to kill?".

>No on 1, yes on 2 (in some cases).

    Though I have serious reservations about your belief that rights come
into existence and go out of existence at the whim of the people who make up
a state, I am simply confused by your claim that rights are bestowed by the
state upon the people while you simultaneously claim that people do not have
the right to kill.  In America, if I break into your home you have the State
sanctioned right to kill me.  In some states, if I attempt to carjack you,
you have the State sanctioned right to kill me.  There are numerous other
situations in which you would have the State sanctioned right to kill me.
So, based on your claim that all rights exist only when created by a State,
and the State recognizes that you have the right to kill in certain
situations, how can you then also claim, as you do above, that people do not
have the right to kill?
Yours,
Issodhos