People have a natural right to life. This by nature becomes a right to defend themselves, and a responsibility to defend the people they are responsible for. This extends to a right to defend the property you own from theft and/or damage, and the property you are responsible for from theft and/or damage.
I believe that each individual determines how they are prepared for and actually defend themselves, their responsibilities, and property.
Any attempts to deny, limit, prohibit, or otherwise forcefully or under the threat of force remove this right from a person is naturally wrong.
I want to make sure those reading understand me when I say ‘responsibilities‘:
If you’ve brought children into the world via traditional means, or have otherwise taken on the responsibility for the life of one or more individual, those are your responsibilities. This can be permanent (say a child with a chronic physical or mental problem), semi-permanent ( children until they’re 18 or elderly parents until they die…), or temporary (live-in caretakers for the elderly, primary/secondary education school teachers, the neighborhood kids playing with your own kids at your house, etc. ).
Thus when someone attempts to harm you, your responsibilities, and/or your property, you have the right and responsibility (hence the term) to defend not just yourself, but those who you are responsible for as well.
Guns are a modern tool that enables people to easily defend themselves, their responsibilities, and their property. They are a force equalizer, in that regardless of a person’s physical size or strength, they can be on equal ground compared to anyone that attempts to violate their natural rights.
People today should not be restricted by the federal government in their purchase of whatever weaponry they both desire, and are able to purchase – even nukes! Mostly, because a person has to both be willing (that is have the desire to own) and able (that is have the funds to purchase and maintain) and there has to be someone on the other side of the transaction that is also willing and able to sell.
Of course, keeping and bearing arms of any type is clearly different from using arms of any type to violate the rights of others. If you injure or kill anyone or damage or destroy property of others, there should be just punishments for which justice for these things is in severity according to the damages incurred and the will of the injured or owners to bring charges.
Most people don’t own weapons of mass destruction because they’re pretty darn expensive. Most people who could afford them, don’t want to own them. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet probably aren’t on the waiting list. If you can afford something AND want to own it, go right ahead. Of course, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and other such things have a fairly practical utility as a deterrent from having your country invaded by foreign forces. Syria is a great example – even one of the most frothy, raving mad governments with a track record of invading multiple countries over the past decade or so (USA) is extremely hesitant to march right in due to (in part) the ownership of those weapons. So if you’re rich enough to be a dictator of a small country, it’s probably an option on the table regardless of the law.
Of course if you initiate violence and violate others, then there’s a price to pay.
Nearly any person is capable of atrocity. If you have at least one hand and operable fingers, you can do terrible, terrible things if you decide to.
Banning weapons merely makes those who do own them criminals. Those that wish to use them for atrocities will obtain them regardless of the law.
So why would you, “for the good of the people”, prevent those that desire to protect themselves and their responsibilities from the atrocities of mankind from doing so?
I’m not sure, because it doesn’t make sense.
I do know, that those in positions of governmental power, when they wish to commit atrocities, they first disarm those they wish to murder. This is history that has already been written.
SO when I see people clamoring to disarm ordinary people “for the good of the people”, I start to get very suspicious of their motives.
in the past 100 years, governments that have done terrible things to their own people, have first disarmed them. Why? Because they know that it’s a whole lot easier to murder lots of people if they’re not armed. Hey, guess what? Whether it is a murderous government or just one dude on a spree, what do they have in common? They go for people / places that they know aren’t going to be able to put up a resistance. Between the killers in OR, CT, and CO, they all went for “gun-free zones” where the government had decreed that people should not have weapons to protect themselves and their responsibilities.
I do know that even the most vile people that desire to commit atrocities are tempered by the fact that they know they are human and can die. If they die, they can’t commit any more atrocities. Thus those people don’t try to take out a bunch of people at the police station, or the local FBI office, or a gun store, or places where people are going to have a chance of shooting back. If you were in charge of a government with a population that has enough common weaponry that can be used to arm half the population as snipers, you would probably reconsider openly murdering your policial or personal enemies – or at least until you’ve disarmed them.
I believe that people should be able to defend their lives, responsibilities, and property. If someone else has acted on and attempts to harming you or your responsibilities, you should neutralize that threat. Guns put you on equal footing, and are able to quickly neutralize threats (provided you actually know how to use your weapon).
It is non-philosophical – people who want guns bad enough will secure them illegally regardless of the law. Restrictions only place a hindrance on those that aren’t interested in breaking the law. People who intend to do vile things are going to carry out the action regardless of what some piece of paper says. All the laws in the world wouldn’t have prevented the CT incident. The guy murdered his own mother and took her guns when he was denied legal access. If people have a natural right to defend their lives, why is answer from the government to attempt to prevent those who wish to defend themselves from doing so?
There’s a breakdown in the logic somewhere along the line. I understand that people have died and it’s emotional, but letting our ‘in the moment’ emotions control us is not helpful long term.
The founders of the United States wrote about natural rights, in which a few are specifically written into the highest laws of the land (state and federal constitutions) as reminders to those governments that those rights shall not be infringed upon.
The founders were pretty divided on many issues, but they agreed to the creation of the USA only with those natural rights defined and protected from infringement.
These weren’t just some backwoods hicks – these were the most wealthy, educated, literate, intelligent individuals from the entire population. They knew history, and they understood the progress of technology. They owned the most powerful weaponry invented at the time, and used it in a long, bloody war with the British.
As a note: I really don’t see how any of the items in the bill of rights are “of the era” specific – they are still all incredibly relevant to today because they were written with the intention of having to do with natural rights, rather than “of the era” specifics.
–
What it comes down to is this:
Who are you to tell me what is or is not required to defend myself?
If you’re interested in a partial ban, where do you draw the line? Full auto? Semi-auto? Bolt action? musket shot? Above what caliber would make you feel safer if only the criminals and the government were to have them? Who are you to tell me what is or is not required to defend myself?