2nd Amendment: Balancing Liberty and Security for Citizens

The right to bear arms is a critical element of the liberal order derived from the Founders of the country. It is founded on the premise that individuals in political power will always seek to limit the freedoms of those they rule over. The Second Amendment is one framework that targets to counter the overbearing tendency of those with political power. It also addresses the possible exchange of civil liberties for elusive safety. Thus, armed citizens are allowed to take responsibility for their security and to cultivate self-reliance and an unrelenting spirit that genuinely defines self-government.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

There is no much difference concerning human nature as exhibited today compared to the situation in the 18th century. Discussions against gun ownership are majorly supported by references to multiple instances of mass shootings. The government can claim no authority to forbid citizens from purchasing and using firearms in self-defense because of the fundamental importance of such ownership undermines the provisions of the charter of individual liberties.

The right to bear arms serve to advance the right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, which are founded on the inalienable right of self-preservation and resistance, mainly when society and the relevant legal frameworks are insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. There are many times when the distinction between the government's violent authority over criminals and its unlawful tyranny over its people becomes blurred. The federal government enjoys plenary authority to establish an army, which might be misinterpreted as the award of a monopoly of violence. Assigning such powers to the federal government allows its authority over the army and militia. However, the Second Amendment came in place, in part, to ensure that the government did not disarm its citizenry.

The foundational liberal principle of the inalienable right to life, better understood as the right to self-preservation, derives directly from philosophical perspectives that support agreement or convention. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) addresses this issue in his articulation of the primacy of the right to self-preservation. The jus naturale, the right of nature, every human has an intrinsic power to preserve their nature, which translates to their life.

This singular natural right is translated by Hobbes to imply a license within natural constructs to undertake anything that contributes to self-preservation. Hobbes noted that every man is desirous of what is good for them. The biggest threat to humans is death. Therefore, it is reasonably proper that humans should have an impulsion to use all their endeavors to defend their bodies and that of their close relations from death. Such a right cannot be entirely delegated.

The Hobbesian perspective on political discourse is ignited by calls for an expanded government role that involves the disarmament of the citizenry. The fight to retain gun ownership demonstrates a despotic assertion that has its own set of ramifications. Hobbes's perspectives are strengthened by those of John Locke, who rejects the Leviathan state. Locke held that the citizenry was justified to revolt in the event of long, sustained abuse by the government. Locke's social contract theory is founded on the idea of consent. Both Hobbes and Locke concurred that there had to be initial consent before any social contract. They also asserted that sovereignty was supposed to exhibit autonomy and independence. Thus, man's main war should be that of all against all, not one meted by a few against many.

The most significant consideration in the gun ownership debate is the ethical perspective of both perspectives. It is essential to determine whether private citizens deserve the right to own guns. Similarly, it is essential to consider whether private citizens deserve to carry their arms in public or the extent of government control. It is noteworthy that laws may not always be acceptable or sufficient. Cases in point are the apartheid laws in South Africa and the slavery laws of the south. Hence, laws alone cannot be sufficient to deny individuals their right to arms. The role of the various arms of governments in placing checks and balances on each other is indeed laudable. However, it is also noteworthy that political power must not be underestimated for its capacity to put pressure on the various arms.

While considering gun ownership debates, it is important to note that guns do not, in themselves, guarantee a better life for citizens. It is common knowledge that it is not the individuals that own guns that have the best lives. However, people own guns because of the values they derive from them. For instance, an individual may own a gun purely for purposes of hunting. Another thing to note is the fact that, compared to the number of shootings that occur, there are millions of guns that are privately owned across the nation. If individuals did not assign any value such as self-defense in a gun, it would not be possible for them to prioritize their purchase. Therefore, what the government needs to do is retrospect on its role in protecting the citizens. It must also reflect on if the citizens are genuinely content with this role.

William Blackstone offered perhaps the first admissible idea about an armed citizenry that forms a community that protects its natural right of self-defense. His perspectives justify the right to arms from both the self-protection and criminologists' perspectives. The foundational rights of citizens are those that preserve the free government and the liberties of the citizenry.

It is important to ask why Blackstone attached a political perspective to the right to arms. The fact that he was able to associate the right of a citizen to arm themselves against criminals and robbers with that of the protection against a potentially rogue political system tells a lot about the level of trust in the political system. A review of the principal objectives for the drawing of the second amendment indicates that the capacity for individuals to self-determine was stressed as resulting from self-reliance, independence, and responsibility, which could be delegated but not relinquished.

Guaranteeing equality of the citizenry is naturally an antecedent to the establishment of a civil government. Hence, citizens deserve the need to defend themselves against any injurious situations. Therefore, any reasonable spectator would agree that humans must not lose their capacity for self-defense. The fundamental marriage between Hobbes and Locke offers an understanding of the natural right that comes before any social contract. It is this approach that lays credence to liberalism. The two stresses that a state designed to take away the right of citizens to self-preserve should be designed to take up all the rights and responsibilities that relate to the citizens. In so doing, the government is not viewed as applying subtle approaches to tighten its monopoly of violence.

Bibliography

Hobbes, Thomas. Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy). Routledge, 2016.

Locke, John. Second treatise of government and a letter concerning toleration. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Lowy, Jonathan E. "Comments on Assault Weapons, the Right to Arms, and the Right to Live." HARV. JL & PUB. POL'Y 43 (2020): 375-385.

Lund, Nelson. "The Right to Arms and the American Philosophy of Freedom." Heritage Foundation, First Principles 62 (2016): 16-29.