One thing that has bothered me lately is the morphing of the definition of rights. As in, our inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Rights are things that the government cannot take away. For example, the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. Rights are NOT things the government is required to give you.
I have made a conscious effort to be non-political on this blog, so I will not discuss things such as universal healthcare or social security or political beliefs. But from time to time I will discuss gun ownership, as this is something that is extremely important to me.
As a gun owner, I am often asked why gun ownership is necessary. Today I stumbled upon a thread on Reddit that pretty much sums up my experiences with anti-gunners and my pro-gun ownership stance.
http://redd.it/mfmbc
The question posed is “…what is the point of owning a machine gun or other advanced weaponry? I am genuinely interested in understanding this perspective on the right-to-bear-arms debate because I am of the opposite view…” asked by Reddit user FenrirIII.
And the most eloquent response I’ve ever heard or read to this question is as follows, quoted in its entirety, by Reddit user TerminalHypocrisy:
The main issue of not understanding the Second Amendment is a matter of context….one which both the anti-gun lobby and even the pro-gun lobby propagate. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting…it has nothing to do with sport shooting….it has nothing to do with collecting firearms. At it’s heart, the Second Amendment is simply putting in writing your right as a human being to defend yourself against threats to your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness…..whether that threat comes from a criminal element or the very government the Constitution established.
The Founders understood, and many of us (current Americans) have never learned or forgotten that the right to arms undergirds every other right in the Bill of Rights, including those spoken of but not named specifically (as covered in the 9th Amendment). What good is the Freedom of Speech if the government has the only means of force and is able to repress it? How can the citizenry demand the government respect their rights if their voice is the only weapon in their arsenal?
When the Amendment was written, America had just loosed herself from the yoke of a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that We, the People had the ability (not the right….a right is inalienable and cannot be taken from you unless you willingly give it up) to do so again if the need arose. The Declaration of Independence states:
“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Arms grant the citizenry the final say in how they are governed. Such a thought seems anathema to most modern citizens because we have all lived in relative prosperity under a government that only recently began a rapid assault on individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson understood gun control back in 1774-76:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Have laws against guns kept guns out of the hands of criminals? Have laws against murder….rape….theft kept criminals from committing these acts? A person that breaks the law will not be deterred by yet another law….how does that make sense to anyone?
In short, George Washington summed up the meaning of the 2nd Amendment best:
“A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” –George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790
I commonly respond to anti-gunners with something along the lines of “Criminals don’t obey the law. Anti-gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. You can make all the anti-gun laws you want, and in the end only criminals will have guns.”
My right to bear arms is a right that the Constitution guarantees, and is one that the government cannot take away. It is necessary not only as protection but as a deterrent–and not just criminals but also from a government may one day try to take my liberty and property.
Thank you, TerminalHypocrisy, for eloquently writing what I have struggled to articulate for years–something I have always instinctively felt in my gut.
