What the Right to Bear Arms is All About

decision

One of the issues that repeats itself in practically any gun argument is the trope wherein the anti-gun party commences its argument by stating: “We are not here to take your hunting shotgun. We are here to ban some extremely dangerous firearm that is only useful for killing other people.” Many times the people who are trying to defend their gun rights are lured into attempting to argue that their firearm of choice is actually meant for sports, and not actually meant for combat or self-defense. The extent to which this line is bought by gun rights advocates is quite fearsome – I have had numerous discussions with European gun owners who told me they actually feared discussing the concept of armed self-defense in public for fear of reprisals from the government.

It is important to understand that in these cases, the antis are often not deliberately lying. They do not intend to abolish the ownership outright – and there is no European country where gun ownership has been totally abolished. Even in the United Kingdom, individuals can buy shotguns and rifles if they prostrate themselves before the state sufficiently. That said, the right to bear arms in those countries has been extinguished completely as a social institution. (While a right of course is innate, and cannot be abolished by government fiat, the practice of defensive gun ownership has been de-facto eradicated in most of Europe).

To be clear, what the anti-gunners oppose is not guns as such. They are not lying, in that sense. What they oppose is the notion of people owning weapons. To an anti-gunner, there is no legitimate application, in modern society, of private armed force. He intends to take it from you, either by outright banning the ownership of weapons, or by making it as bothersome and complicated as possible. Nobody believes, of course, that introducing ‘universal background checks’ will prevent criminals from buying guns – but it might reduce gun ownership by, say, 1%, just by making it as bothersome and irritating as possible. Nibble a bit there, a bit there, and eventually the amount of gun owners decreases – like that of smokers – until it becomes politically tenable to do anything to restrain their rights and freedoms.

At first it might appear – and millions of gun owners the world around believe this – that you can compromise with these people, after all not all of us personally own guns as weapons, if we but explain to them rationally that our guns are not weapons, we can preserve our hobby…

Every gun rights organization around the world that tried to have this as their driving strategy has been utterly crushed. The reason is simple: once you’ve accepted the narrative that the only legitimate reason to own firearms is to use them in the shooting sports, most people do not empathize with your desire to participate in shooting sports. When the average person – who does not have the shooting sports as their hobby – is offered the chance to choose between some gun control measure that is peddled as increasing the security of his children, and the right of some person he doesn’t know to engage in a strange hobby, he will only naturally choose his children’s security. (Obviously, in real life, these measures won’t make him safer,  but he doesn’t have any way to know that).

Sadly, while the more advanced and knowledgeable segments of the RKBA movement have already understood this, there are still millions of people – especially outside the US – that haven’t quite grasped this concept. The lesson of the past few decades of gun rights activism is one that needs to be spread far and wide, beyond the core of the RKBA faithful.

The only meaningful strategy to defend the right to bear arms is to recognize what the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution have meant it as: a right to have weapons, implements of self-defense with which you will fight and kill people who intend to do you harm. Self-defense is a concern that all human beings share, and if you can poise an alternate narrative – telling the listener, in effect, that the right to bear arms is the mechanism by which you mean to enhance your own safety (a desire everyone shares), and that it arguably also enhances his safety, you will be able to forge a universalist argument.

The truth is, we support the right to bear arms – and we own various guns and other implements of combat – because we recognize that there is evil in the world, and because we hope we are prepared to face it with guns in hand. If we attempt to cede our opponents’ argument, to try and haggle with them based on the false notion that our firearms are not tools of self-defense, we will end up humiliated and vanquished – as gun rights advocates around the world have been.

Only digging in on the position of the truth – yes, I defend guns because guns are useful for killing criminals and tyrants – is going to be successful. Only the truth shall set you free.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

12 thoughts on “What the Right to Bear Arms is All About”

  1. Bravo! And welcome.

    A reader just today asked me how I felt at the moment I pulled the trigger defending my life. (Story here: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846)

    Many people expect me to “feel” badly about it, horrified even, or guilty somehow. I don’t regret it at all. I did what I had to do, and would do it again any time it was necessary… only much better.

    I now spend a lot of time teaching people that yes, my gun is most definitely intended to cause as much bodily harm as possible if someone attacks me or those around me. And then I teach them how to prepare to do the same, if necessary.

  2. When the average person – who does not have the shooting sports as their hobby – is offered the chance to choose between some gun control measure that is peddled as increasing the security of his children, and the right of some person he doesn’t know to engage in a strange hobby, he will only naturally choose his children’s security.
    Pretty much the heart of the argument, even for some people who do have shooting sports as a hobby. “I’m really sorry you have to give up your sport. But what you do for fun can never balance the deaths caused by guns. So they have to go. Except for the government guns that will protect us from bad people, of course.”
    The only viable counterargument, to balance innocent lives taken by bad people, is the innocent lives protected by good individuals with guns.
    On the other hand, hunting and target shooting are also important. It’s the fun they provide that attracts new shooters, because those new shooters become the voters that we need to legally protect ourselves from government.
    Great article.

  3. “To be clear, what the anti-gunners oppose is not guns as such. […] What they oppose is the notion of people owning weapons.”

    Too right. I forget who originally said it, but I bring it up in conversations on this topic: “If you’re opposed to me carrying a gun in public, then how about I carry a sword everywhere instead? I have a lovely katana that I know how to handle.” [insert “rapier”, “claymore”, “machete”, “tomahawk”, etc., as you please]

    Somehow, they’re not too thrilled about that idea. Many aren’t pleased at a 3″ folding knife or multi-tool, either.

    It’s not guns they’re opposed to, it’s anything that can be used for effective self-defense.

  4. Well said Boris. Your post reminded me of a hunting trip in
    Australia I did a couple of years ago. When talking with my Australian guide ( a retired policeman from Sydney who was pro gun) about gun rights and gun control issues in our two countries he kept referring to America as having a strong hunting tradition and relating that to our Second Amendment. I explained to him that it really has nothing to do with hunting traditions but was all about both defending oneself, community and country from tyrannical governments and evil doers foreign and domestic. Although he acknowledged my point he kept going back to hunting traditions. All I could do was smile and hope the light would come on sometime.

  5. Those that want to take away or infringed on our right to bear arms methinks are doing it because of their need and desire to control us. It can’t be to control criminals because criminals are criminals because they don’t obey the law anyway.

    So what is it really about, IMHO because they want us to obey them and they know as long as we own guns they can’t make us; we can always say come and take them, we will not comply, and BTW we can’t be your slave because slaves do not have guns.

    As Captain Parker said;

    “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

    You know folks that kind of attitude is what started this country and it is the same attitude that is alive and well today with anyone who really loves this republic and the constitution that it stands for.

    When tyranny becomes law
    Rebellion becomes duty!

    1. When tyranny becomes law
      Rebellion becomes duty!

      Tyranny has been the law of the land since at least 1791, rebellion seems to be throughly crushed.

      1. 1791 is the year we got the Bill of Rights.

        Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights is Tyranny has a different definition of tyranny than I.

        When tyranny becomes law
        Rebellion becomes duty!

  6. It’s a position I came to a while back – my guns are for defense against criminals and fedgov thugs. I stopped even having ‘discussions’ with anti-gunners after that – as soon as I say that there is no discussion any more, only whining, ranting, accusations of murderous insanity and threats from them. So I figure I’ll just be quiet until I have to prove the usefulness of those guns to those who would take them.

    But I want to make it clear that I’m very pleased to see such a position getting expressed in print more frequently of late. And I hope all gun owners come around to this point of view pretty soon.

  7. Good article; however it would be improved by leaving out references to rights. That way such illogic as the following can be avoided: “(While a right of course is innate, and cannot be abolished by government fiat, the practice of defensive gun ownership has been de-facto eradicated in most of Europe).”

    The real reason Americans are armed, is that we have the WILL to remain so despite all the pressures against us (unlike those in England for example); and will go to war if necessary to keep it that way. That’s the only reason we are armed. Rights have nothing to do with it.

    By the way, most people misunderstand what guns are used for. They are not only for killing; very few guns have been used that way (except for surplus military arms). They are not much used for defense either; only a vanishing percentage has actually been used that way. They are instead a form of insurance. Every time someone carries a gun, he pays a premium in discomfort, just on the off chance he will need to use the gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *