Gun Control Is Re-Branded Gun Violence

TJ Roberts | United States

On January 9th, 2019, Dianne Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons ban of 2019 to the United States Senate. In the authoritarian left’s endless attempt at complete social control, Feinstein has made it her goal to ban guns as small as the Ruger 10/22. Feinstein and her supporters justify this in the name of safety. While one may have sympathy for one’s desire for safety, basic logic refutes this claim. In fact, there is nothing that could make a physically weak person safer than a gun. It must be made clear that all gun laws are infringements. There is no compromise on fundamental rights.

The Case For Complete Gun Rights

The Constitutional Argument

The Second Amendment reads as follows: “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.” Many anti-gun authoritarians make the claim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militias to have weapons, this is not the case. The Second Amendment is divided into two clauses. The first clause states that a militia is needed for a free state to be secure. The second clause is the WHY of the first clause. If asked why the right of the people to bear arms exists, it is because it is the duty of the people, not the government, to keep themselves safe and free.

The Natural Right to Resist Tyranny

Also, this is not a right that the government bestows. It is a right that exists in nature. The most important words in the Second Amendment are “the” and “people.” “The” demonstrates that this is a right that exists beyond government. Whether the government recognizes it or not, you do have the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not a government institution. Next is “people.” One does not have to be in a militia to have this right. It is a right that all human beings have. The reason this right is so important, however, is because of the idea of a militia.

The Founding Fathers concluded a war against a tyrannical government fewer than 10 years before the ratification of the Second Amendment. The Founders were aware of the dangers of a standing army. To give the state a monopoly on security is to ensure violations of liberty in exchange for “security.” With that in mind, the Founders stated the importance of a militia, a private entity that fights against both foreign and domestic threats; this includes their own government.

The Federalist Papers

Assuming one does not concur with the argumentation above and believe the Second Amendment has a different meaning, one has to look no further than the Federalist Papers to see the truth. In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton explains the importance of the militia:

“By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the state shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

James Madison’s Defense

James Madison elaborated on this in Federalist 46, making it quite explicit that the militia is a private entity that relies on private individuals using their right to bear arms:

“Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

The Moral Argument

The constitutional argument is not enough. Not all people are constitutionalists. Some people would argue that the Constitution is outdated. I disagree, but even if they are right, the right to bear arms is still legitimate. As stated before, governments do not create rights. This includes gun rights. Your rights exist whether the state agrees or not. Regardless of the Constitution, you have the moral right to bear arms.

Owning a gun violates no one’s rights. I could have as many weapons as I please. So long as I did not steal these weapons and I do not use them against an innocent, I am within my rights. A gun is just like any other item. Ownership of the item alone does not cause any harm. In other words, the ownership of a gun (or any weapon for that matter) does not constitute as aggression per se.

Because the ownership of a gun violates no one’s rights, one cannot ethically call for the prohibition of a gun or any other weapon. It is your right to do as you please so long as you do not violate the rights of others. If someone does not want guns on their property, it is their right to ban them on their property alone. If you choose to enter that property with a gun, you are trespassing. This is a violation of people’s rights. Owning a gun does not violate rights. Carrying a gun on property that doesn’t prohibit them doesn’t violate rights. Regardless of the consequences, it is your right to own a gun.

Practical Arguments

Do Guns Kill?

Anyone can kill anyone with a gun. That is one of the purposes of weapons. It is important to realize, however, that guns have saved far more lives than they have ended. Studies show that there are anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses per year in America. The threat of immediate lethal force is a powerful deterrent to crime. In an overwhelming majority of these defensive gun uses, no one died or suffered injuries. The mere presence of a gun is enough to stop a violent crime. People with guns save lives. Anytime someone talks about gun homicides (approximately 35,000 gun deaths occurred in  2017 with 22,274 of these were suicides and many of the homicides being self-defense) and gun injuries (approximately 90,000 gun injuries occurred in 2017), they are lying if they do not talk about how guns save lives.

Is Gun Control Possible?

Even if this bill passes, gun control will still fail. First and foremost, no criminal willing to commit murder or assault would follow a gun prohibition. If this person is willing to murder, what makes you think they will follow gun laws? This speaks to the intentions of Feinstein and other gun grabbers. It is so obvious that criminals don’t follow the law, that it shows that safety isn’t the goal of gun control. The goal is disarming citizens so they cannot defend themselves from an overreaching government. Gun control cannot possibly achieve safety.

Up until recently, gun control could only achieve safety for government agents. Now, even they can’t do that thanks to the work of Defense Distributed. Thanks to the 3D-printed firearm, gun control is finished. No one can enforce this gun ban. It is literally impossible.

What Even is an Assault Weapon?

Since this is a response to Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban, it is important to consider that “assault weapon” is a charismatic term with no meaning. It is a term that invokes fear among the public to vilify gun owners. It is a frame that puts pro-liberty individuals at a disadvantage. Calling a gun an assault weapon is entirely illogical.

For the Full Right to Bear Arms

You have the right to own a weapon. You do not have a right to harm someone with a weapon. This goes far beyond guns. You have the right to own anything so long as you do not violate the rights of others with it. This includes rocket launchers, artillery, explosives, nuclear weapons and all the rest. If there is any restriction on the right to bear arms, there is a precedent to eliminate the right to self-defense. In order to have the right to defend yourself, you must have the right to own whatever gun you want without exception. Repeal all weapon laws and restore liberty.


This article was originally published on LIFE.

71 Republic takes pride in our distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source



2 thoughts on “Gun Control Is Re-Branded Gun Violence”

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.