by John C. Gregory

Created on: August 24, 2008

Without Gun Rights Oppression Rules

The controversy surrounding the right to bear arms focuses more on the potential consequences of honoring that right, and less on the fundamental soundness of it. Scripture tells us that if we break one commandment, we break them all. The same should be said of the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the United States Constitution were conceived as boundary lines for the people, over which government can not cross. Accordingly, in a perfect world, government is restricted when it comes to controlling speech, assembly, private property, criminal defendants, and so forth. Throughout American history, however, the observance of these rights has been, shall we say, tempered by the need to balance the rights of individuals one with another. Ostensibly, our rights can not be enjoyed unless we are safe (from each other) and secure, thus the need for greater intervention. For example, what we say may incite people to riot or stampede; our peaceful gatherings could nonetheless cause disruption in the right of way for others, or perhaps a fire hazard; irresponsible dumping of chemicals, even if on our own land, can end up threatening the health and wealth of our neighbors; and of course our guns can kill innocent people. If other rights can be limited for a good cause, goes the argument, gun rights should not be immune to such restrictions.

Fair enough. Yet a crucial distinction lies in the means used to set parameters on human behavior. In each of the former examples, the government's recourse has traditionally been to penalize the offender(s) after they have abused their constitutional rights. People are arrested and charged for criminal behavior that causes immediate danger or harm to others. However, the gun control movement and its sympathetic lawmakers have adopted the doctrine of pre-emption in dealing with gun violence. The idea of real justice for violent criminals is, to these groups, anathema, so an alternative must be found. Banning guns is their answer. Suing firearms dealers and manufacturers is their answer. Punishing everybody except the violent reprobates is the answer. The fact that this has not had a significant impact on violence is actually secondary. The aim of such legislation is to disarm the public, whom the banners believe to be incompetent to own such lethal weapons. Since addressing the social pathologies and plain old rottenness that infect today's predators is judgmental, their remedy is to cast a wide net of prohibition so that nobody feels excluded. Meanwhile, the barbarians grow bolder while the lawful grow meeker.

All that would be fine if the gun control zealots could arrange for a constitutional guarantee of police protection for each and every citizen. Since they can not, nor would they if they could, the right to self-defense as articulated in the 2nd Amendment, and recently upheld by the Supreme Court, should stand and be honored. Freedom and security often stand in tension to one another. But when the abrogation of freedom has failed to deliver on its promise of security, the choice should be obvious. In fact, in the case of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom is tantamount to security.

Learn more about this author, John C. Gregory.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.