The Second Amendment is our one and only right to self-defense. Laws that restrict this right weaken the law-abiding citizens against violent criminals and support the black-market gun trade. Studies have shown firearms are used “eighty times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.”1
Any law that restricts the right to self-defense is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment reads, “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.” The first clause of the sentence is one of reasoning, and only the second bears the command. It is absurd to claim that “the people,” used in every other Constitutional context to mean all of the citizenry, is in this instance meant to only include “members of a well-regulated militia.”
Free people have the right to defend themselves without regulation. This is the right that distinguishes citizens from subjects. Without it, we are left to depend on the government to defend us—and we know how reliable that can be.
Restrictions on the right to bear arms typically emphasize banning only the most dangerous weapons. But inevitably, criminals are able to find these weapons whether or not they are illegal, and the restrictions only mean that the criminals are assured that they can out-gun the law-abiding citizens. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry them.
Another excuse for restricting guns is to prevent accidental killings. But the facts point in the opposite direction. As Gun Owners of America notes, guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, or about 6,850 times a day. In contrast, the National Safety Council reported 776 accidental firearms deaths. In other words, you’re about 3,200 times more likely to use your gun to defend yourself in a deadly situation than to accidentally kill somebody.
Recent legislation targeted people with histories of mental disorders. Of course, the records can’t possibly give an accurate picture of one’s ability to own a firearm: there are dangerous people who are undocumented just as there are perfectly responsible people whose health records are misleading. In yet another example of the failure of regulation, the government is asserting authority it does not and should not have. It is also targeting our veterans, who by the nature of their duty, are more likely than most Americans to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
From a legal perspective as well as a practical perspective, the Second Amendment should be taken literally, and there should be no restriction on the right to bear arms. Efforts to reduce crime and violence by restricting gun ownership have backfired: they are leaving the law-abiding public defenseless against criminals and dependent upon police to keep them safe. For freedom and security, the Second Amendment should be unconditionally defended at all times.
____________________
1 “Gun Control Fact-Sheet.” http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm. By Gun Owners Foundation.
