Why Owning Firearms According to the Second Amendment

The right to bear arms, as granted by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is a fundamental right that exists not because it is listed, but because every human being has the inherent right to life and the right to defend that life. This right, as protected by the Second Amendment, is a reinforcement of the essential rights of individuals—even those that remain unenumerated in the Constitution.

Understanding the Foundation of the Right to Arms

The initial understanding of the right to bear arms was rooted in the intrinsic moral knowledge of the Founding Fathers. This principle is affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Each individual has the natural right to defend their life and liberty if they are threatened. As humans lack fangs and claws, they are provided with tools for self-defense, and arms are one such tool.

The Second Reason: Protection and Governance

The second reason for the right to bear arms is expressed in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Following the statement about unalienable rights, the Declaration asserts that governments are established to secure these rights, granted by the consent of the governed. The Constitution further enforces this by guaranteeing the right to arms to the people and the militia to the states against federal government infringement.

Implications of Modern Government and Constitutionality

Historically, the Second Amendment has been recognized as a defense mechanism against the systematic violation of constitutional rights. However, it is important to acknowledge that the current form of governance—centered on an all-powerful, unelected, and practically unremovable administration—mirrors the tyranny the Founding Fathers sought to prevent. This situation prompts the consideration of the ultimate constitutional remedy: the use of arms to restore proper governance.

Challenges and Cultural Erosion

Despite the presence of historical gun control policies, the systematic confiscation of arms has not occurred in this country. Instead, there has been an attack on the culture of arms. Government policies have also eroded the culture of limited government, family, and faith. These cultural shifts make it appear necessary to maintain the power of arms as a safeguard against tyranny. If a truly systematic confiscation of arms began, the rationale for the right to bear arms would change.

Conclusion: The Ever-Present Need for Constitutional Restoration

A free people retain the right to change their government; a people who lose the possibility of doing so are no longer free. When a government seeks to remove the last possibility of a free people to change their government, it violates the principle of governing with the consent of the governed. Using arms as a remedy in such a situation becomes a legitimate act to restore constitutional governance. The ultimate right to bear arms remains, but it should only be invoked as a last resort.