The morality of the 2nd Amendment

When the constitution was written, and this cannot be repeated enough, it was a concerted effort to put limits on government action. The constitution is basically a charter that outlines specific actions that government is permitted to take. The founding fathers however remained worried that the wording in the constitution was not enough and the government may abuse its power. They ended up drafting a bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, which in contrast to the constitution outlined things that government may never do. Boy, were the founding fathers ever right. As we look around today government has gone well beyond the limits outlined in the constitution. We are at a stage where the government can do almost anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only on permission. A total inversion of the original intent of the constitution. Today we are even fighting against the government abrogating the bill of rights.

The specific freedom that an administration routinely tries to violate is the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. The right to own a gun is not some arbitrary right handed to us by the founding fathers, it is based on the natural right of every person to defend them selves, the right to self defense. A gun is just a tool for self defense. If you are physically smaller, a piece of technology like a gun allows you to defend your self from any assailant. Some however, use this tool in order to murder or hurt others. The anti-gun side focuses and the wrong uses of guns. However, while not reported in the news very frequently, cases of gun use for legitimate self defense happen on a daily basis.

The typical argument for gun control says that lives can be saved, but what about the lives of the people who use guns for legitimate defense purposes? Ultimately any gun control ends up sacrificing the lives of some for the lives of others. Anti-gunners will use statistics to claim that gun control will only impact a few lives negatively for the good of the many, while the pro-gunners will use statistics to claim the exact opposite. Human lives are however not balanceable against each other, and it is not morally legitimate to sacrifice anyone. When human lives are at stake, you must throw out any cost benefit analysis schemes, they are not applicable, and rely on the principles of justice. These principles are outlined in the 2nd amendment. People have the right to own a gun, unless there is evidence that they intend to hurt someone.

“No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. ” – Harry Binswanger –

Some will argue that a gun is a dangerous object, and we already regulate dangerous objects like cars. Yes, indeed cars are very dangerous, causing mass amounts of deaths every year. However car regulations are surprisingly rational, especially when compared to the gun control regulations that are being proposed. In order to use a car in public you have to register the car, attain a license by passing a test, and acquire liability insurance. All of this however, pertains only to the public use of the car. If you keep that car on private property, you don’t need to register it, have a license or any insurance. In addition, keep in mind that when you do acquire all the requirements for public use, you are free to take the car anywhere as long as you operate it responsibly.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.