Firearms: Inalienable Rights

As the Supreme Court decides whether or not to overturn the handgun ban in Chicago, IL thus possibly deciding whether or not States have the right to pass laws which interfere and restrict one’s “fundamental liberties” ennumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it is wise to remind ourselves why the right to bear arms is one of the most vital of all human rights.

Every human has an innate right to live and thus it is morally wrong for another to end that life except by act of self-defense or survival.  Being able to defend one’s self from physical harm is a right which exists outside of human society.  That is, whether man lives within the authority of a government or not he has the right to live and to defend his life and the lives of the ones around him.  Indeed, the Declaration of Independence for what became the United State of America proclaims:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a collection of laws seeks to limit the freedom of man to exercise their “unalienable Rights” it must be rejected and overturned for man should not place the responsibility for his “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” solely into the arms of the State for, in doing so, he is placing his Fate in the arms of another and he is allowing an unecessary layer (government) to be placed between himself and his well being.

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberals seem convinced that the State is the best ensurer of man’s rights and, to some extent, this is true when it comes to property laws, labor laws, and other civil matters however the State cannot be everywhere at every time and, even if it could, the State is not the most effective authority to preserving an individuals most fundamental right – to live.

Civil society is a very thin veneer.  People are generous with their food, water, and money because the can be generous due to the fact that they believe any food, water, or money they give to others can be easily replaced.  Should a person’s belief that the fundamentals in life cannot be easily replaced their attitude radically changes to that of self-preservation such as times of national emergency or war.  Most recently, we saw this civil breakdown in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where there were gangs and individuals in New Orleans looting and stealing for their own gain.  During such times it becomes clear that it is the indididual’s responsibility to secure their own safety and this is done with firearms.

A homeowner living in the District of Columbia before the Heller decision most likely could not legally own a firearm (unless they were grandfathered in or passed the numerous hoops the government placed in their way) and thus, should a burglery occur, they would be at the mercy of the criminals who had broken into their house.  Thus the individual would be at the mercy of not only a criminal but also at the response time of law enforcement officers.  Hiding in one’s closet with your family praying either the police would arrive or the criminal wouldn’t find you is no way to live.

Liberals would argue that if firearms were banned nobody would be the victim of gun violence.  Liberals make the mistake of assuming that criminals would not find a way to own a firearm.  They also make the mistake of believing that some other weapon would not take the place of a firearm.  In England, private ownership of firearms has largely been banned and, when this did not make life safer, pointy knives were banned!

The other wonderful thing about firearms is that they are the great equalizer.  Thus, a 100 pound woman, with proper training, has just as much opportunity of stopping a 200 pound criminal from harming her as a 200 pound man has of stopping a criminal of equal size.  Without this equaliziation it would be impossible for people who are not of equal size and skill to defend themselves from harm.

Liberals also are in error when it comes to using the victim in the effort to ban firearms.  Often cases where one’s child finds a firearm and kills a friend are used as an example as to why firearms should be banned.  To be sure, firearms falling into the hands of children is a tragedy however these cases fall mostly on the side of the failure of the individual to secure their firearm or to properly teach their children respect for guns and are not the fault of the guns themselves.  It is much the same with small children ingesting bleach, drowning in swimming pools, or falling from open windows as it is with fireams killing someone.  I have not heard of many Liberals calling for an end to opening windows or swimming pools.  Firearms are an easy target for Liberals because of what the represent – power in the hands of the people not the state.

The tide seems to be turning against Liberals and their need to confiscate and restrict an individual’s right to bear arms.  It is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the decades old Chicago handgun ban and allow citizens to defend themselves from criminals.  As they have done in every case where liberty-infringing firearms laws are overturned, Liberals and “gun grabbers” will howl that the crime rate will increase (it never does) but, when their protests fail to materialize they will fall silent (as will the press) and instead change tactics.

Americans who believe in the rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence must continue to fight to roll back the authority of the State so that our “inalienable Rights” will remain where they belong, with the individual.

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.