The principles outlined in the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms go beyond the usual debate and can be looked at philosophically. For those who believe in libertarianism, one of the central themes to all other issues is that by existing as a citizen of the United States, this citizenship concludes that you also have self ownership. No one else controls our thoughts and dreams and no one can force you to take actions or say things that you have not decided on. Since you have control of yourself, you in turn also have free will.
Unalienable rights are absolute regardless of the circumstances. Philosophers such as Thomas More, Machiavelli, and Rousseau have all concluded that self ownership and an individual's right to bear arms are an important check against tyranny. If the state were to forcibly disarm the citizenry, it would amount to being enslaved by the state. If you have the unalienable right of self ownership then you also have the right to protect yourself.
Many people believe that since we have police, there is no need for an individual to protect themselves. The function of police in our society (or any other for that matter) serves as a general deterrent against crime. Those who do not believe in the right to arm themselves against attack, also do not value themselves. A society which has disarmed their people is not a civilized society. It is tyranny, totalitarian, and dehumanizing.
There are other societal benefits of gun ownership as well. The whole population benefits from our right to self ownership and the right to bear arms. This right has far reaching effects for the entire society. Those who own guns provide benefits to those who do not own guns.
To prove this point, The United States has very few "hot" burglaries (break ins that take place while the residents are home, and are more likely to lead to confrontation and violence) compared to other countries that have limited gun ownership policies. Roughly 10 percent of burglaries are "hot" in the United States compared with countries like Great Britain and the Netherlands whose percentage of "hot" burglaries is over 50%.
The founding fathers, especially James Madison who drafted the second amendment understood how an individuals right to bear arms would have benefits for the entire population. In June of 2008, the Supreme Court took on the case "The District of Columbia v. Heller" which favored on the side of the right to bear arms and also confirmed that one of the purposes of gun ownership is to provide a deterrent against criminals.
Those of us who value self ownership and dignity will defend themselves when confronted with death or bodily harm. The police cannot protect against all attacks and as I mentioned earlier they only function as a general deterrent against crimes. If we truly are free and believe in the principles of self ownership then an extension of that is the right for one to protect themselves.
Comments
great article!i wish more people understood this!we would all be safer,and so would our rights!
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one”
Vladimir Lenin
“Every Communist must grasp the truth that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Mao Zedong
“We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”
Joseph Stalin
“We want them registered.”
Nancy Pelosi
You can readily expect the Statists to want to restrict your right to defend yourself.
You can readily expect the Statists to want federal control of every gun sale transaction as a precursor to a registration system.
And you can readily expect them to want to confiscate guns – they are Statists, it's what they do.
What? Rights and Arms? Again?
A ‘debate’ is thought by some to be for the purpose of arriving at certain determinations--the best of which end in the fashioning of wholly true statements.
An ‘argument‘ most often proves itself to be no more or less than the meeting of two fools.
Having personal knowledge and experience with the purely humanly-contrived philosophical idea as associated with the word ’rights’; and
certain tangible objects identifiable as ’arms’; and
having engaged in more than a few discussions involving ’rights’ and ’arms’--
I can state without any undue reservation that when directly challenged, the vast majority of people simply cannot provide an adequate definition for the word ’rights’.
Anyone willing to distinguish themselves as one of the few among the masses, by all means, please,
define the word ‘rights’.
Question for aspiring philosophers.
"Do Apes have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?"
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United Tribes of Indigenous People
“A well regulated Vilitia being necessary to the security of a free Tribe, the right of the villagers to keep and bear bones, stones, slings, clubs, knives, spears, bows and arrows shall not be infringed.”
Realm of Mind asks: "Do Apes have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?"
Since we're speaking philosophically, the short answer is "Yes". For that matter, so do dogs, cats, or whales. All living creatures have a right to life; the right to defend one's life is an axiom of the right to life. The right of self-defense necessitate the further right to possess the means of defense, including the possession of any tools (arms) suitable to their physical condition and needs. In the case of apes, such arms would naturally consist of claws, fangs, large rocks, and tree branches used as clubs. Humans have simply evolved to produce better "clubs".
As to the definition of "rights", a right is an "inherent good" which is defined in opposition to a "wrong".
"Life" is an inherent good - it is wrong to take a life without justification. "Defense of Life" is also an inherent good.
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are all inherent goods; i.e. "rights".
What now, Realm?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!