The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:
“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.”
Advocates of gun control and gun bans argue that the Second Amendment only applies to the “militia,” which they interpret as the military and police.
In other words, according to such an argument, the Second Amendment does not protect the right of an individual to own a weapon; only the right of the government to possess weapons. This is like saying, “You have a right to defend yourself if it’s the police or the army defending you; but not on your own.”
It’s true that in exchange for living in a free society, individuals give up certain things. For example, they give up the “right” to determine (on their own) that someone is guilty of a violent crime or fraud; instead, they submit to the rule of law.
But claiming that you must submit to government authorities even when it comes to defending yourself physically defeats the whole purpose for having a legitimate, limited and rights-respecting government in the first place.
The rational basis for supporting a limited, rights-respecting government is to protect your own life. But if that very same government outlaws your ability to own a weapon for defending yourself in case the police became unjust or were simply unavailable in time, makes no sense at all — not even on its own terms.
Keep in mind that such a policy is entirely consistent with that of any totalitarian state – Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, in the past; or Islamofascist Iran, Communist North Korea or Communist Cuba of today. In such countries, the government also claims that only the government may own guns. That should tell you something about the true intentions of those who twist the Second Amendment to argue in favor of its repeal.
According to such a mentality, rights are collective in nature. There’s no such thing as an individual right in a Nazi, Communist, religiously totalitarian or any other kind of statist society. In such societies, claiming a right to anything individual is to part with the rule of the collective will.
That’s the same premise behind the leftist progressives who demand an end to gun ownership (whether masked as “regulation” or not). There are no individual rights; or, if there are, the right of the collective comes first. If someone is trying to attack you, then you had better hope and pray the police or the army will take care of you. Because nobody else can or will.
“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.”
Advocates of gun control and gun bans argue that the Second Amendment only applies to the “militia,” which they interpret as the military and police.
In other words, according to such an argument, the Second Amendment does not protect the right of an individual to own a weapon; only the right of the government to possess weapons. This is like saying, “You have a right to defend yourself if it’s the police or the army defending you; but not on your own.”
It’s true that in exchange for living in a free society, individuals give up certain things. For example, they give up the “right” to determine (on their own) that someone is guilty of a violent crime or fraud; instead, they submit to the rule of law.
But claiming that you must submit to government authorities even when it comes to defending yourself physically defeats the whole purpose for having a legitimate, limited and rights-respecting government in the first place.
The rational basis for supporting a limited, rights-respecting government is to protect your own life. But if that very same government outlaws your ability to own a weapon for defending yourself in case the police became unjust or were simply unavailable in time, makes no sense at all — not even on its own terms.
Keep in mind that such a policy is entirely consistent with that of any totalitarian state – Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, in the past; or Islamofascist Iran, Communist North Korea or Communist Cuba of today. In such countries, the government also claims that only the government may own guns. That should tell you something about the true intentions of those who twist the Second Amendment to argue in favor of its repeal.
According to such a mentality, rights are collective in nature. There’s no such thing as an individual right in a Nazi, Communist, religiously totalitarian or any other kind of statist society. In such societies, claiming a right to anything individual is to part with the rule of the collective will.
That’s the same premise behind the leftist progressives who demand an end to gun ownership (whether masked as “regulation” or not). There are no individual rights; or, if there are, the right of the collective comes first. If someone is trying to attack you, then you had better hope and pray the police or the army will take care of you. Because nobody else can or will.