Rationalamerican: Gun Ownership In America

All available topics:

Gun Ownership In America

First posted October, 2003; edited May 2005, last reviewed September 2007.

Guns have been a divisive issue since our founding. The more precisely defined issue, though, is not gun ownership per se, but the right for individuals to arm themselves in the name of self-defense. We could be talking about invisible ray shooters, or some other technology; it just so happens that guns are still the most efficient means for individuals to arm themselves in the name of self defense. The case for gun ownership is twofold. First, there is a natural right for self-defense that should not be abrogated by a government or surrendered to a government without the consent of each individual. It is true that we look to our government as the instrument of physical force when retaliation is necessary against criminal behavior. Police functions are our form of self-defense in all normal circumstances. However, that isn't the same thing as giving up the right to take personal action when necessary. Second, there is a natural right among governed to "dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another" and sever ties with a government that has ceased to function in a manner consistent with the natural rights of man. So, the necessity for self-defense and for a means to insure that the political bands can be dissolved is essential in the understanding of this issue. Let's look at each factor in depth.

Self-defense is a fundamental right clearly understood by most people. We look to government to bring us away from a Hobbesian state of nature, but it is recognized that government cannot be everywhere at all times. Therefore, it is straightforward to realize that if force is used against an individual by another individual, the first party has the right to retaliate with necessary counter-force. It is simple playground rules: punch me first; I have the right to punch you back. The right of self-defense is generally not in dispute, but the use of guns generally is controversial. Why? Does the particular technology used for retaliation change the basic principle? Is the right of self-defense amorphous so that it is proper for the retaliatory use of a punch, but not proper for the use of a bullet, given similar force on the opposing side? Is it okay to hold lesser means of protection available, but not means that can result in death to an assailant? Surely a principle is a principle, regardless of the actual technology. If we have the right to self-defense, it cannot be meted out by degrees so that we can defend ourselves to a certain point, but no further. It is or it isn't. If we may be allowed to defend ourselves, we must be allowed the freedom to choose an appropriate defense.

By that logic, then, does that mean that Joe Citizen must be allowed to install tactical nuclear weapons in his backyard should he choose? After all, we are not going to limit the right of self-defense, correct? True, but self-defense applies to individuals. Tactical nuclear weapons are designed for the defense of armies and nations. It would be reasonable to prohibit the ownership by individuals of tactical nuclear weapons, and similar technologies. At some point, lawmakers must draw the line between individual protection and army building. That line may or may not be difficult to judge, but we must err on the side of supporting self-defense by individuals.

As an aside, many arguments against gun ownership by citizens focus in some measure on criminal behavior and the use of guns in criminal circumstances. In so many words: guns are used in crimes, guns are accidentally discharged, and guns are dangerous, so let's pass a law to make them go away. These arguments are specious at best. Criminals are, by definition, not likely to pay heed to a law prohibiting gun possession and there are already more guns in America and in the world than could ever be tallied. Criminals would find a different but equally effective technology to use even if we could magically make all guns evaporate. Believe it or not, a 2005 editorial in the British Medical Journal called for the banning of long pointy knives in favor of those with blunt, rounded tips in order to cut down on British stabbings! The real problem being referenced here is not guns, but criminal behavior and a perhaps a lack of police or court effectiveness.

The second argument for gun ownership is far more significant and far more remarkable. This is so because it is the argument most overlooked or ignored in modern America, yet it was the more critical in the eyes of our founders. This argument, stated most simply, is that citizens should be armed so that they can take back their government should it become a tyranny over their liberty! Yes, the founders created and defended the Second Amendment partly on the grounds that the people should have the ability to dissolve their form of government if it becomes tyrannical. It was also thought that the threat of being dissolved will help prevent that very occurrence. The sentence: "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." is stated in language that is foreign to modern ears. The term "militia" was, at the time, defined as "all able-bodied men". At our founding, there was no police function in the sense that we have today. Instead, if circumstances required, able-bodied men would grab whatever weapon or tool they had at their disposal and gather on an ad-hoc basis to put down any trouble. This was especially true in less developed areas of the country. This militia, or spontaneous gathering of armed men, substituted for some of the police functions that we take for granted today.

The militia was specifically mentioned as a counter-force to standing armies, which might ever be created by the federal government. The fear was that a federal government might become too powerful and tyrannical through the use of an army built not so much against foreign aggression but against American citizens who might not agree with those in power. The Federalist Papers numbers 28 and 29 are worth reading in this regard. Noted Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist 29:

"...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...".

The large body of citizens was a reference to the able-bodied men who were armed with guns but not organized in any meaningful way. There was talk of organizing the militia to some degree, but it was thought by Hamilton that,

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen. The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution."

Bringing the argument back full circle: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense..." wrote Hamilton in Federalist 28, then continued:

"...if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and dispair."

In plain terms: if our government leads us to become a military or police state, it is the right and the duty of ordinary citizens to take back what natural rights are theirs. Oh, and they are going to need weapons.

Indeed, at the time there was widespread fear of a military state and a call by many to insure that ordinary citizens could remain armed. Patrick Henry argued that to give up force is to invite inevitable ruin. Richard Henry Lee argued that in order to preserve liberty the whole body of people should possess arms and be taught at a young age how to use them. Noah Webster wrote that the political powers that be in America cannot enforce unjust laws if the people are armed and are a bigger force or power than any standing army. This and other commentary at the time indicated a common interest in keeping American citizens armed in order to prevent a military state or other unjust government power. Still, aren't these 200 and some odd year old arguments just quaint reminders of the past with no real bearing on our lives today? After all, today we do have a substantial police function. Our government is stable. Why do we need our citizens armed when we can call 911 if need be? Isn't it just safer to have the guns off the street?

Those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Of course, it is preposterous to think that, right now, ordinary citizens would rise up in armed rebellion against an unjust law. We don't have a military or police state. That is right now. On the other hand, no one would have predicted in 1900 that in the course of the century Russia would become a part of a massive Soviet police state powerful enough to manipulate its own citizens and threaten the entire world, then collapse under its own weight and the pressure of the free people left in the world. For that matter, our own country would not exist were our citizens not armed against their own British government at our founding. It is true that the foreseeable future does not hold much promise for the need of a common uprising against our own government. However, the whole future is not foreseeable. If we strip our citizens of their weapons now, or if we force our citizens to register their weapons with the government, we negate one counterforce that our founders thought necessary to preserve liberty over the long term. Must we all hole up in a mountain somewhere with canned goods and extra ammo? It is not necessary. However, in five or six more generations such a scenario might not seem so silly. We don't know. We do know, however, that checks and balances are the best means invented so far to preserve liberty. Gun ownership by ordinary citizens is one more safeguard in the defense of self and country.

To cite this article:

Painter, John. Gun Ownership In America. (October 2003). Retrieved month x, 2xxx, from

<http://rationalamerican.com/thorns>