Why do we want guns?

Actually, we don’t want them, we need them. Why? Because it is a natural and unalienable right of every individual to be able to protect themselves. Some political circles tend to label pro-gun people as sociopaths with tendency towards aggression. They are absolutely wrong. Politicians should not have power to restrict the right to defend ourselves. It is the first and foremost argument in favour of liberal gun possession law. Though, it is not only about day-to-day self-defence. It goes far beyond the issue of protecting the house and family before the rapists and murderers.

The right to possess a gun is about our ability to protect the society before the Government which has lost it legitimacy and disregards the rule of law. The history shows that sometimes people have to resort to violence in order to abolish the tyrants and restore justice. The American Revolution could be an example of such a struggle. Once the Founding Fathers won the war and established the brand new Government, they did not forget what they fought for. They understood that even the Government established by the People, for the People could one day turn into tyranny. As a result the famous Second Amendment to the US Constitution introduced in 1791 secured the right to bear arms. It was influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689 which had reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence in England. Historically, this right was designed to be a form of insurance, introduced ‘just in case’ if the citizens are faced with the Government which tries to deprive them of their liberty. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, stressed that the aim of the amendment was not to provide the right to shoot deer, but tyrants.

Therefore, an easy access to guns is an essential element of liberty. Society which is left defenseless, is left at the mercy of its Government. It is believed that for the liberty to be secured, it is the Government that has to be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around. Opponents tend to overlook this argument and often claim that an individual who obeys the law, does not need guns. It seems that the very purpose of this right needs some further explanation.

An easy access to guns is not designed to enable people to destroy peace and introduce anarchy – it is designed to enable people to defence the rule of law and protect their liberty when, and only when, it is in danger. The right and duty to civil disobedience will be useless if the Government is to be fought with bear hands. Therefore, the gun should be regarded as a security valve which will be in use only in case of emergency. To deprive society of this valve, is to remove the last obstacle which the tyranny needs to overcome before it reaches its aim.

Possession of guns for defensive purposes is closely linked with the concept that weapon is only an instrument in man’s hands. The answer to ‘guns kill’ counter-argument is very simple. It must be remembered that it is always a man who pulls the trigger. Thus blaming a weapon for the murder doesn’t differ from blaming a car for the death on the road. What is even more important, as statistics show, ban on the possession of weapons does not help the prevention of crimes at all .Switzerland may illustrate this inverse correlation. In this State which is not a part of the European Union, access to guns is very easy whereas the crime rate is extremely low. It could be inferred that the gun itself is harmless as long as it is not in hands of people who are too eager to use it. Furthermore, from the State’s point of view, fighting the illegal guns trade is as pointless as fighting illegal drugs possession. The ban on guns causes the increase of their price on the black market and that attracts outlawed groups who seek easy money.

Restriction on bearing arms, as any other State regulation, creates more problems than it actually solves. The bottom line is always the assumption that an individual is granted all the natural rights, such as the right to self-defence, and the State is not allowed to take any of those rights away unless it is absolutely necessary and in this individual best interest. Therefore, the Government should not be concerned with controlling the possession of guns for there isn’t any good reason why citizens should be deprived of this liberty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-S-Thompson/507251123 Daniel S. Thompson

    Well said. But I think this gun prohibition is not irrational. Neither is the total surveillance grid, or the “austerity,” or the influx of specially-protected, unacculturated immigrants (a social irritant that grows like money in the bank for a totalitarian rainy day, when a distinct “domestic threat” may be required). Nor have all these complimentary developments arisen in isolation. There are ineluctible, alchemical forces at work here.

    Of course, the apparatus seems cracked in many places, and likely to blow up in the alchemist’s face. But until such time, the operation will continue.

  • PaulLibertarian

    Facts are according to the Home Office there was more gun crime in the UK AFTER hand guns were banned in 1997. The laws do not make us safer quite the opposite in fact.

  • Think Out!

    Interesting thoughts. However, possesing guns offers a range of different choices. From self-defense or defending the rule of law to infrigment of rights. We should not forget that someone’s rights can be violated not only from governments but also from other individuals.
    Moreover, I don’t think that low crime rate and legal access to guns are always relevant issues. In my opinion, low crime rate is more closely linked to other things, such as wealth and well-being.