58 votes

We are defending the right to bear arms with the wrong argument

I see a lot of back-and-forth about the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms and it dawns on me that we are going about this completely the wrong way.

The first thing I notice is that people use the Constitution to justify keeping and bearing arms. The Constitution is very sacred, however, the right to arms is not created by the Constitution. It isn't even created by the founding fathers. It is a right endowed upon us by our Creator. When you use the Constitution as the "force" behind our right to keep and bear arms, you allow the enemy of your rights to declare those rights void by declaring a portion of the Constitution void. Without a doubt, there are people that would give up a portion of the Constitution to enjoy undeserved safety.

Another major problem with using the Constitution as the basis of our rights is that it leaves the debate up to the interpretation of the words of the Amendment itself. The words are just a means of communication. While they do serve as specific instruction to the government exactly what to do with an armed people (shall not be infringed), it does not by itself stand the test of time. The words themselves tend to take on slightly different meanings over time. That means that same Amendment will have different meanings to different people at different times. This is the source of the "militia right vs. individual right" argument.

Another thing I notice is that people argue the intent of our founding fathers when defending our rights. This leaves the argument up to the various interpretations of the several statements of the founders. The founders couldn't agree on a lot of things but they were very good at compromise. The argument then shifts to our recollection of those statements and our recollection of what the founding fathers intended.

In order to make our arguments infallible to the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms, we must defend the rights on behalf of a higher power. A power higher than government itself. Indeed, the right is not derived from people, from government, from paper, or from the intentions of a group of people that passed away a long time ago. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the inalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator. Our founders recognized that people had these rights. Of course, they also knew that governments didn't always respect those rights so they did write them down as a set of instructions for our government. What you must keep in mind is that our rights exist not by grant from the government, but because we have a right to life and liberty. How do you preserve a right to life and liberty if you do not have the means to protect it. It is why the rhinoceros was given a strong horn by its creator, to protect its life. It is why the shark has so many teeth. Whether you are predator or prey, your only right to life is your willingness to preserve it. I can not reinforce this enough, it is simply by our Creator's design that we have such rights.

Never let someone argue that changing the sacred document of the Constitution, or that any mild piece of legislation can ever take away our right to self defense. The government didn't give us the right to self defense, so it can never take it from us. It was never theirs to begin with. It is no less cruel to disarm a free people than it is to cut the horn from a rhinoceros.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gary North

Gary North has an interesting analysis of the Second Amendment


No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

it is...

an excellent analysis

three words

Cold dead hand

The second amendment is a

The second amendment is a prohibition upon the government. It prohibits the government from infringing upon our right to bear arms. Specifically:

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.

It is obvious from the wording that the second amendment does not give the right to bear arms, it prohibits the government from being able to take that right away by mandating that the right "shall not be infringed."

We do not get the right to bear arms from the Constituion. Rather, the Constitution simply mandates that government protect this right.




When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Natural rights?

I'll probably get some heat for this comment, but the idea of natural rights is ridiculous. We arent endowed with inalienable rights by our creator. Thats total bullshit. If these rights are so inalienable, how is it that the government manages to take them away? Why is it that we have to fight to achieve and preserve them? What an ass of a creator we have if we have one. If i were creator I would actually make these rights inalienable, not play some cruel joke and make all of my people work themselves to death fighting for these rights that theyre never going to actually get before they die. I realize my attitude makes me come off as an ass, but it really is irritating. Our rights arent natural or inalienable, and theres no creator that's going to make everything okay. Believing in any of that only gives us less reason to fight for our rights. When you realize that it is you that creates, asserts, and maintains your own rights, you realize that if you dont, youre f""ked. No government, no god, no creator, no mother nature, no real or imaginary authority figure is going to keep these rights for you. Its up to you and whatever loved ones you make along the way.




Then pray tell, who defines a

Then pray tell, who defines a "right"? Because I'm sure Stalin defined his rights as being able to kill and rule over others.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

You define your own rights.

You define your own rights. And they only exist to the point that you are able to defend them. Of course, the most common way in which we assert and defend our rights is through government. Calling rights natural only contributes to the mass-delusion that government is natural. It's not. Governments only exist because of force. Similarly, rights only exist because of force.


Point of Clarification: Inalienable

means you can voluntarily surrender your rights.

Unalienable means that even you cannot waive your rights.

The declaration of independence uses "unalienable" and not the former.

Thanks; I guess I meant to

Thanks; I guess I meant to say unalienable, then.


With 3D printers gun laws are irrelivant,

is the best argument to me. Especially as it's semi auto's they want to get hold of since people have made lower receiver for AR-15's with them...

The lower receiver is of course the regulated part, in legal terms it is the firearm.

Here's one being fired.


"Firearm" is a legal word

which is created by the BAR association class. Since they created the word they can regulate the use of that word all they want in their legal circles and COMMERCIAL statutory courts.

Rod Class did a great job digging up the "government's" actual definition of the word. Don't have the link off the top of my head but it ironically does not include MOST guns.

The right to bear ARMS is in the 2nd amendment... not the right to bear FIREARMS. This is what the general population in this country does not comprehend about the legal system.

In order to get around violating your rights they simply change the words and in some cases just change the definition of the words.

Of course... thanks to the ninth and tenth amendments you also have the right to bear FIREARMS since the power to regulate that is not included in Article 1 section 8 - however again... people don't read the document so they have no idea what fundamental NATURAL rights are guaranteed by the document.

You can add to that

the whole list of rail guns, coil guns and the like. These use electromagnets to shoot projectiles (most often metal) at velocities ranging similar to a .22 and up to 7,000 mph. DIY kits abound. I've even seen them up to 300 rounds per second.

Combine these with off the shelf and diy high res cameras, facial tracking, camera targeting, and EMP (electronics killers)... I think the DIY crowd will soon outpace the oppressors. Should be interesting.

Interesting you saying about overtaking.

I was thinking that last night.

To give it some context the whole purpose of 2nd amendment was to set up a militia as well as ensure the people had a right to keep and bear arms. I was thinking that if there was some hypothetical scenario where the people had to act as a militia, say a foreign occupation or over throwing an oppressive government, Libya style (as the fed clearly approve of).

That DIY firearms might be better than currently legal ones, with full auto or burst fire capabilities, not to mention more innovative designs with millions of minds improving them and hackers sharing them. (As wars will be virtual too). Or like you say shifting from firearms all together...

Though I'm not sure about coil or rail myself looked some up didn't see any as powerful as you described. Got any links?

I think a modern update on the Gyro-jet could be effective with 21st century tech. Perhaps if it were long barrelled rifled and had a tiny amount of gun powder to try to eject it accurately, so it would still have near no recoil but could potentially actually work...

Wrong Argument

You won't win anyone over who doesn't already agree with you.

The right to bear arms is the right to self-defense.

Anyone who would make it difficult for people to defend themselves is in favor of people being victims of rape, robbery, and murder.

Let the liberals be in favor of criminals. Let them defend why they want more crime.

The Noble Lie

What you describe is "the noble lie" or false argument.

You are 100% correct, and probably those arguments only work if your opponent believes in the Constitution or tradition, and fears change. You make them feel better by taking them back to their roots.

However, I agree with you, and I like to point out that this is why our foreign policy and drug policy is wrong, and the NDAA an abomination against people.

Citizenship has nothing to do with unalienable rights and whether you have them; it may have some impact on whether they're respected and by whom.

I have more in common with libertarians in other countries than I do with statists, here. If it were up to us, we'd have world peace.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

What did we learn from the 5000 year old Iceman?

Like all life on earth, his right was to survive. When he was found in the Alps, it's interesting to look at what he was found with. He knew nothing about constitutional rights, however he knew what he needed to have to survive and that has not changed. He was found with a long bow, arrows, and a knife for defense and hunting. He had an adz, a multifunction tool used to make the arrows and bow, he could not have lived long without it. He had a pouch with antibiotic mushrooms, medicinal herbs(?), a flint fire starter and food.


What does this have to do with gun control? Simple, it's about natural rights and the right to survive as a human being. The Iceman would not have given any of these things up to any individual, tribe or government without a serious fight to the death. 5,000 years later the tools may have changed, but the natural sovereign right to own our lives, our bodies and the tools of survival have remained the same.

Keeping IT simple.....

When dealing with an anti-gunner, maybe the only argument should be, something like:

"I believe in the 'Right to Bear arms' because I am morally obligated to act to help defend myself, family and country against evil". Arn't you?

I get lost in trying to remember 10,000 different come back lines.

Maybe some of you can improve on this, just keep it simple.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

SImply and well put

so a vote up and a bump.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

tasmlab's picture

Is the constitution a valid argument for anything?

It's only us who give a fig about it.

And even half of us realized that it has failed miserably.

And maybe half of that group aren't wild about the formation of the state to begin with.

And we inherited it. It was a contract agreed upon by a past generation.

even the language of the second amendment is kind of squishy, it does read like the right to form state militias.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

The Constitution hasn't failed

A written document's strength lies in the willingness of the people to defend it. The American people have failed.

The Founders specifically stated that the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment was "the whole people". It protects everyone's right to bear arms.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien


wrong spot

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

A well thought out arguement

how ever the opposition would leap upon your premise and ask if you came out of the womb armed. It won't matter if other rights could be dissected in this manner they are only concerned with abrogating the Second Amendment.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

my father was.

i don't advocate arming babies.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Well put

You are one who understands the tenants of liberty. Rights are inherent. I would also point out that the specific argument you bring up is the foundation, but it is not where we rest. For example, the argument you bring up is good, but it would be difficult to defend the right to posses semi-automatic rifles with 30 magazines under that argument. Now, don't get me wrong, I think we should be allowed those. I'm just saying that we should always start where you point out. But then we must keep going.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

Here is an argument one doesn't hear or read about much:

We've been embroiled in a War on Terror now for over a decade and yet, our government wishes to disarm us. I suppose if 100,000 terrorists made their way through Mexico into the Southwest, we'd be completely reliant on our military for protection, even though it's been proven our military was completely inept at stopping an attack by 19 terrorists lead by a man in a cave.

Also, here is a University of Maryland Scientific Study completed in 2000 titled:

Multiple Victim Public Shootings


Great read, very insightful and concludes that concealed carry is the one and only answer.

Download the pdf and spend an hour reading it and you'll be armed with FACTS.

My creator(s)

My creators: my parents. They wanted me to have rights & freedoms.

Lucky for me I was born in the United States of America and the founders of my country were revolutionaries and enlightened men who opposed tyranny.

They set a belief system for a new country, a republic that focused on the rights of the individual and documented this. The people approved it. They and every generation following fought to protect the principals of this document. When some of our citizens were denied their rights it was through this document that their rights were reinstated and protected.

I am grateful, that in this land, the US Constitution is supreme. I am also grateful that this document is difficult to amend. If it were easy it would be trivial.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

I agree that most people are

I agree that most people are using the wrong argument on this subject.

If someone is jacked up emotionally by the press's non-stop barrage of images of children, pictures of guns and fear-mongering, they will not care one iota about some "old piece of paper" nor will they care about some "theoretical principle". That is exactly how they will think about the constitutional argument and the don't-increase-gun-control argument. Rational, thinking people would care about those things, but unfortunately we are not talking about rational, thinking people on this subject at this time. Those arguments do not meet most people where they are in their "thinking" at this point.

Why don't we instead talk about the 22 year GUN BAN at these schools?

Every public school is under a 1990 federal law that bans firearms on school property, effectively disarming anyone from being able to defend the kids at the school. That is the reason why all these mass killings have occurred after 1990 and not before then; access to guns didn't increase. The first that I remember was Thurston High in Oregon in 1998 and Columbine in Colorado in 1999. That was during the ban on semi-automatic rifles, too.

There was a poster on DP last week that made a great point about commiserating with people's feelings about the killings and making the argument AGAINST something (the gun ban) instead of trying to DEFEND something (right to bear arms). That is very wise advice, and we must be smart, not just "correct", in order to convince people about what's right.

People are mad, they want something done, something changed. Ending the school gun ban is what we can offer as a solution to the problem. The message must be simple and phrased as CHANGING something, not defending some right. The details about who should be allowed to be armed at the schools (teachers, staff, parents, security, etc.) can be filled in once you have the person's attention.

We will not be able to talk any sense into people until after we have changed the debate from "get rid of guns" to "get rid of the gun ban". Then we will have a level playing field on which to offer the answers that only liberty can supply.

Please think about the actual person you are talking to before you give some pat answer that means nothing to them.

The Constitution would have

The Constitution would have never been ratified without the Bill of Rights; which are the ``Among These" defined in the Declaration of Independence defining ``Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

One of many inalienable rights abuses listed against King George in the Declaration of Independence was:

"He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power."

If having a military power superior to civil power was an abuse of an unalienable right then, it is an abuse of an unaleinable right now. They established the second amendment to prevent that abuse from ever reoccurring.

The People nor the Government have the power to change or abolish inalienable rights. They cannot be given away, taken away, sold or transferred.

Check out the link below; it's an absolute must read. If you don't have time to read it now, save the link and read it when you have the time. You'll be glad you did...I sure was!