One of the most basic of human rights must certainly be the right to defend one's self physically from harm. Secondarily must certainly be the right to defend one's family, and last to defend one's property, particularly one's home. Using force to fend off an intruder, it seems to me, is only sensible because it involves all three of these rights - the right to defend one's self, one's family and one's shelter. I would even say that such a right is a simple recognition of common, natural law - one that no just government ought to be able to abridge.

Tony Martin is a British citizen who was recently released from prison, where he never should have been in the first place, after serving three years of a five year term for shooting two burglars who had broken into his isolated farm house. He killed one and wounded the other who is, of course, suing him.

All is not lost in old Blimey, however. Quite a few UK citizens know and understand the fact that what happened to Martin was unjust (see the article below) and they want something done about it. Sadly, their desires are being blocked (for the moment) by their legislators.

Now I can certainly understand that the government has an interest in setting some sort of parameters or ability to investigate circumstances following a home shooting so that you do not, as stated by one of the legislators in the article implies, have kids getting their heads blown off because they went to retrieve a football out of their neighbor's yard, but neither should a home-owner be in fear of their freedom because they exercise their basic natural right to defend self and home. And check out one of the reasons given for the defeat.

BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | 'Tony Martin law' is blocked

Good lord. The infamous cycle of violence. Even to defend one's own home. Is this a sign of the "Palestinianization" of Europe, where the lens of that conflict has come to infect nearly everything?