The Moral Implications of Restricting the Right to Bear Arms
It is tragic that this nation has endured yet another devastating mass shooting. In the wake of hatred we have witnessed an outpouring of love and kindness from thousands of strangers to those affected directly by this horrific event. I believe that speaks volumes to the character and nature of humankind.
I think we can all agree that what transpired in Las Vegas was evil, and among the most despicable acts a person can commit. We all feel a remorse and helplessness towards the victims and the situation in general. Times like this will typically bring people together, helping us see common ground and humanity in one another. That doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to mass shootings. On the contrary, the occurrence of mass shootings seems to be cyclical, and with each passing occurrence we become more polarized on the issue of gun control.
Before I divulge my position on the issue I’d like to point out something that is often forgotten as we engage in political discourse. That is that most all of us have common goals. I mean that most of us want the same end result. Everyone wants safety. Everyone wants freedom. In short, we all want a better world. If you find that someone holds opposite views than you, try to realize that they want to improve our situation just as much as you do. Don’t direct your contempt for an idea towards the intentions of a person. For their intentions may be more like your own than you think.
I’d like to offer an uncommon argument in defense of the second amendment. I do not believe it is morally right for the government to restrict the masses’ right to bear arms. I’ll get into the details of why I believe this, but first I want to address what is likely to be an immediate counter response to my position.
The Government’s Duty to Protect its Citizens
In hindsight it is easy to say that we (Americans) let this happen. Clearly, the government doesn’t have the safeguards in place to properly protect its citizens. It should naturally follow that the government will take steps to protect the people from harm. To do this we should enact laws that control the ownership of firearms.
The logic is simple. If more people have access to guns, there will be more mass shootings. Restricting access to guns will therefore reduce the number of mass shootings. It then follows, if there is no access to guns, there will be no mass shootings. Is it not moral for the government to prevent mass shootings?
Of course it is moral for the government to protect its citizens. I believe that is one of the few justified roles of government. I merely believe the method is immoral. I would pose the question, where does this logic end? Here are two absurd examples of this same logic:
If people eat more fast food, there will be more obesity — and in turn more deaths from heart disease, diabetes, etc. Restricting access to fast food will reduce the frequency of obesity. Eliminating fast food will eliminate obesity.
If people believe in Islam, there will be more terrorist attacks. Restricting Islam in America will reduce terrorist attacks. Eliminating Islam will eliminate terrorist attacks.
These statements hide behind the facade of government protecting its citizens. However, some things become apparent when hearing them. To begin with, these statements are very likely not true. Eliminating fast food or Islam will likely not eliminate obesity or terrorist attacks. Furthermore, it is infringing heavily upon the basic rights of human beings. We find ourselves in the same predicament with the notion of gun control. We do not know if eliminating access to guns will eliminate mass shootings. Also, it is an infringement upon our basic rights as human beings.
Going beyond the “self defense” argument.
When I say basic rights as human beings I do not mean our “right to bear arms.” I don’t know if a person has a right to bear arms any more than a person has a right to healthcare.
It is common that in defense of the second amendment people claim they have a right to defend themselves. This is a valid argument. The second amendment is provided for us in the case our government ever becomes so corrupt we have a means to stand against the tyranny. One blatant example of this tyranny is what our African American citizens are being faced with today. I believe the majority of police officers are good men and women truly doing their best to protect and serve. However, there are far too many cases of the police force being excessively brutal without just consequences. This is the government oppressing its citizens, and if it were to come to a head (as may be the case) how would the citizens protect themselves?
That is an entirely different topic that deserves an article in its own right. Self defense is the most common argument used in defense of the second amendment. That is not the argument I’d like to make. As I said, gun control — specifically gun confiscation — mandated by the government is immoral because it is an infringement upon our basic human rights. Let’s begin by describing what these rights are.
The Rights Inherent in Human Beings.
In 1850 the French philosopher Frederic Bastiat published his work titled “The Law.” In it he made a strong case for what we should consider basic human rights to be as well as the role of government.
Bastiat believed, and I agree, that a person has the right to life, liberty, and property.
The right to life is apparent. Of course it is the right of each human being to live.
I take the right to liberty to mean that one is able to make choices for one’s life each day. You have freedom, in the classical sense of the word. You eat what you want, you spend your time as you wish, and you associate with whom you choose; this is all liberty.
The right to property is not simply your home. It is also your money, and everything you have rightfully and lawfully earned through your labors. No one can lawfully take it from you without you giving it to them willingly.
Everyone is born with these inherent human rights. Whenever an individual attempts to violate any of these basic rights, I think we can agree, one is free to defend them self. Additionally, if an individual violates these rights of another, they forfeit their own rights.
Government: The Collective Protecting the Rights of the Individual
In defining government, Bastiat says it best, “If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.”
In short, the government is an extension of individual human rights. This comes with an incredible implication, and that is: The government can do nothing to its citizens that an individual could not do to another. This principle is so commonly violated by the government today it is sometimes difficult to wrap the mind around.
Gun Control is Morally Wrong
In terms of punishment, the government can enact justice only upon those who violate the basic rights of others. To restrict or confiscate guns from the masses in light of this most recent shooting, or any other from our history, would be to violate our rights of liberty and property for the crimes of another.
By owning a gun, you are not violating the basic rights of anyone. That line is only crossed when individuals decide to use the weapon to execute terror and commit murder. The individuals in question are the only ones the government can rightfully and morally punish.
I wish I had a solution to end gun violence, but I do not have one. I want the senseless killing to end as much as anyone else. But, in considering the allowance of such a mandate as governmental gun control we are toeing a threshold that, if crossed, will have serious and grave implications for our future. I don’t have a good answer, but I know we cannot allow the government to violate our basic rights anymore than it already does.
This article isn’t solely about gun control, as I’m sure you’ve realized. It is about surrendering our most basic freedoms. It is about what should be considered morally permissible for our government. It seems we want the government to protect us by controlling us. Eventually the stranglehold of their control will affect everyone and we will see the disappearance of our rights to life, liberty, and property.
