Social issues have seemingly dominated the political field for the past few years; one frequently discussed issue is that of the 2nd Amendment, and the idea of guns more broadly as well.
Being a libertarian, I usually lean left on social issues or choose to take a stance of minding my own business concerning the private affairs of others.
On the topic of gun ownership, however, I’m as far right as a person can be. Rare as it may be, I will vehemently defend an individual’s right to marry who they please, and then turn around and do the same with someone in the realm of firearm ownership.
In my opinion, rights are rights. There are not different types of rights to be applied in different areas of life.
They are unilateral and apply equally in all facets of life. Today I want to explore the right to own firearms, and also look at some of the flimsy arguments the Left uses to infringe upon your rights.
The Left frequently tries to argue that the Founders could not have possibly fathomed the advancement that has occurred over the past two centuries in the realm of weaponry when writing the 2nd Amendment. However, our founding fathers were not stupid men; the advancement of weapons is something that has happened since the dawn of time.
I’ll ask you, which is more shocking— the fact that weapons have gotten faster, stronger and can now hold more ammunition; or the fact that at one point in time the only weapons people had were swords and bows, and then one day the first firearm was invented?
Another flaw with this argument is that the Left only applies this logic to the 2nd Amendment. Why is it that they believe the 1st Amendment applies to modern technology, such as computers, internet, and smartphones, but it doesn’t apply to modern firearms?
You cannot pick and choose where moderninity applies and where it does not.
Another argument I’ve encountered more rarely, is that since the Constitution mentions a well-regulated militia, the Founders did not intend for the common man to own firearms.
The 2nd Amendment was given to the people so that they could defend themselves if the government should become too tyrannical. The people are those who will form the would-be militia.
The Founders wanted the people to have an avenue to fight the government. The military is a force controlled by the government. The Founders were radicals who just finished fighting their mother country, so I doubt they intended for their new country to be ran by a government that only allowed the military to own firearms.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherit in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed”.
The last argument I would like to look at is that in favor of Gun Control. The typical rhetoric of the Left is that if policies are put in place that limit who can purchase guns, and which guns can be purchased, gun crime would decrease. This simply is not the case. According to the Center for Disease Control, gun ownership rose 56 percent from 1993 to 2003.
Consequently, gun related violence decreased by almost 50 percent. If more guns equate to more gun violence, then how are these numbers correct?
The number of people who use guns as a method of self-defense heavily outweigh those who use guns with criminal intent.
According to research from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC, there were 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013.
In the same year, under 12,000 firearm homicides occurred and 414,562 nonfatal illegal uses occurred.
Lastly, and this point correlates with the first, areas with higher gun ownership suffer from less mass shootings.
According to the University of Chicago’s Bill Landes, between 1977 and 1999 “right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed.” Gun crime is not necessarily related to the number of guns within a given area.
I believe in a system of Natural rights; a set of rights that are in our very nature and inalienable. Among these are the rights to life, liberty and property. It is my estimation that governments do not provide rights, they exist to limit rights and even take them away.
Considering that owning a firearm would fall under the “property” category of Natural rights, the 2nd Amendment exists only to show that our government has not taken that right away from us; not that they have given us such a right.
I know a lot of people personally do not like firearms, and disagree with people owning them. However, you can dislike something personally and still support a person’s right to do it politically.
We will live in a much better, much more free society if groups of people would stop trying to legislate the limitation of the rights of others, simply because they disagree with how these people are using their rights.
