Your right to life is not separated from your right to defend that life.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

... even the mentally incompetent and the imprisoned still possess the right of self defense -- whether they exercise it intelligently, rightly, or to proper effect or not. This is where keepers come into the picture -- they are a matter of the practical application of such right.

The right to self defense is itself derived from the right to life. It wouldn't make sense to have a right to self defense except against lethal threats. The keepers function [to defend those in their charge] is; also, derived directly from their dependents' right to life (and humane treatment): it is not derived from a dependents' right to self defense.

Exercising our inalienable rights is dependent upon being able to assign the appropriate derivations of social mores and laws to those rights. Playing Devil's advocate here goes to the heart of the personal security versus collective security issue in which some believe that the right to personal defense mechanisms (e.g. owning firearms) can be supplanted by collective security mechanisms (e.g. police) in the right to self defense. Your quoted statement above indirectly makes that argument for them - Q: If keepers (e.g. police, guards, health care providers ... etc.) can provide the right to self defense for some, in practical application, why not for ALL!

A: Because the right to life and the right to self defense are, IN MOST CASES, inextricably bound together.

Everything in moderation.