What is your logical argument to support these statements?
... Life forms are born naturally into freedom and must seek food to reproduce and also possess the ability to protect themselves from other life forms that would kill them (usually for food). As such, all life forms have a natural right to protect themselves as self-protection is a part of existence for all life. Life forms are free unless another life form seeks to oppress them in some manner. With humans, since we are so prone to killing each other, one way for us to live peacefully is to create a government that protects our pre-existing natural rights, such as our right to protect ourselves. Other natural rights are things like one's right to live their life as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else, right to free speech, right against unreasonable search and seizure by the government, right to privacy, etc...
So you seem to agree that even things like bacteria have these
natural rights. So doesn't this propose that we defend the
right for all living things in the same manner? Perhaps we can presuppose that one who washes their hands should be charged with the mass genocide of billions of innocent Bacillus, Clostridium, Sporohalobacter, Anaerobacter and Heliobacterium, just to name a few. If humans have the only exemption to these "natural rights", what is your argument for our special privilege?
Likewise, why do we not go further and include non-living matter in all its forms? Should we leave the nature of a raw ore undisturbed because it alters its
natural inclination to be what it is?
If this is absurd to you, we can bring the reality closer to home...should the natural nature of the predators of any species have a right to life since they must kill other animals in order to survive? Do prey have a better right to life if they do not require killing other animals?
If you accept the premises of evolution, then could you not agree that we humans are also continuing to evolve and that divisions such as races that may eventually not be able to breed with each other justify intolerance toward one another if they are in competition to survive? What is unnatural about selectively declaring one group of human species deserving or undeserving of rights since they both may require killing each other in order to survive?
You're trivializing the distinction by appropriating a relative definition that is irrelevant to the discussion. An iron, candlestick, or pipe, can be all used as weapons similarly. They can also be used defensively in similar contexts as well. But why doesn't a dictionary define these terms in those respects. You won't find the definition of an iron as a device that can be used as either a defensive or offensive weapon to harm or protect oneself. in any dictionary, even though they are true. You're evading reasonable argumentation by diverting the ordinary meaning of what weapons or defenses actually functionally and intentionally mean.
Okay, you mean tools that are specifically designed to be used as weapons. However, I wouldn't put a shield into the same category as say an iron or a pipe. A shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, and depending on the design, can serve as primarily a defensive device or equally an offensive or defensive tool. For example, the Greek hoplites carried a shield that could also be used to thwack their opponents with.
If a shield is specifically designed as a tool for war, what does that make a gun then?
Define good and evil; right and wrong.
In this case, I'd say evil is when one person, group of people, or philosophy seek to kill and/or destroy other peoples because it disagrees with them in some way. Good is when one is not evil.
So if you try to kill a person who is offensively placing a gun at your head who just believes its necessary to do so for their own needs or philosophies, because you disagree with them, are you not just as wrong?