Deriving Gun Rights from the Right to Life
Posted by Bill Vallicella on March 22, 2005 6:33 PM
I take the view that some rights are logically antecedent to anything of a conventional nature such as a group decision or a constitution. Thus the right to life is not conferred by any constitution, but recognized and protected by well-crafted ones. If so, whether we have the right to life, or any natural right, cannot depend on the interpretation of any document. Therefore, with respect to the question of gun rights, the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, albeit important, is logically secondary. The logically prior question is whether there are natural gun rights that need constitutional codification, recognition, and protection.
Here is a stab at an argument for natural gun rights.
- (1) Every human person possesses a right to life.
(2) If a human person has a right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate it.
(3) If a human person has a right to defend his life, then he has a right to an effective means of defending his life.
(4) A handgun is an effective means of defending one's life, and indeed, in some circumstances, the only effective means.
(5) Therefore, human persons have a right to possess handguns.
It is easy to see that the conclusion follows from the premises. But are the premises true?
Surely (1) is uncontroversial.
- Note that this argument does not assume that every human being is a human person. Saddam Hussein is a human being, but it is arguable that by the commission of his crimes he forfeited his personhood, and with it his right to life.
To see that (2) is true, consider what happens if you negate it. The negation of (2) is:
- (~2) Human persons have a right to life, but they do not have the right to defend their lives.
My having a right to life does not entail any moral obligation on my part to defend my life, but it surely entails the moral permissibility of self-defense. For if I have a right to life, then others have an obligation not to harm me. This obligation of theirs entitles me to meet a deadly threat with force sufficient to thwart the attack up to and including killing the assailant. We appear to be at moral rock-bottom here. I say (2) is self-evident. Reject it, and there is probably no point in further discussion.
- "You have a right to defend yourself, but no right to the possession of any effective means of so doing."
Arguably, felons ought not have the right to purchase firearms. A felon either forfeits his right to self-defense, or has that right overridden by the community's right to be safe from his predation.
(4) is obviously true pending some obvious qualifications that I left out for the sake of brevity, the soul of wit. A handgun is an effective means of self defense, but not in all circumstances, only if the defender is properly trained in the use of firearms, etc. (as opposed to the individual qua member of some collective such as a police force or military unit) has an individual right to posses firearms for the purpose of defending his own life. The existence of such an individual right does not entail that it is unlimited. Thus if I have a right to firepower sufficient to my self-defense, it does not follow that I have a right to firepower sufficent to lay waste to a city. One non sequitur to avoid is this:
- There is no unlimited individual right to keep and bear arms;
Arguments like the foregoing make appeal to people's reason. Like all my arguments, it is directed to open-minded, reasonable people who are doing their level best to form correct opinions about matters of moment.
You decide whether I have been employing right reason. But if you wish to criticize, just be sure that you engage what I have actually written and not something you have excogitated on the occasion of skimming my post.