The Second Amendment: A Contemporary Application

In recent years, Iraq, gay marriage, pork barrel spending, and outsourcing have eclipsed gun control in the public consciousness. However, the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004 demonstrated that the controversy over gun rights remains as real and divisive as ever. Congress’s refusal to reinstate the ban was a blow to gun control advocates, who had previously championed the Brady Bill, gun control measure which President Clinton signed into law in 1993.

To gun control advocates, the simplest way to reduce violent crime across the nation is to restrict—and in some cases, ban—private citizen access to firearms. While supporters of gun control have met with a measure of success in instituting waiting periods and restricting certain types of weapons, a formidable obstacle stands in the way of further legal tinkering: The United States Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights reads “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.”

There are two primary arguments supporting the right to bear arms which can be extracted from the text of the Second Amendment: Citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal acts, and citizens must remain armed in order to forestall any potential tyrannical action by the government.

The first argument in favor of gun rights is the claim that Americans are perhaps the most familiar with: individuals who are free to act autonomously in their own defense act as a powerful deterrent against violent crime. This is not only protection for the individual; it also adds to the collective security of society as a whole.

While the Bible does not have words for the specific issue of gun control, the subjects of self-defense and the use of force in preventing bodily harm are discussed in both the Old and New Testaments. Exodus 22:2 states “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” Likewise, as Jesus instructs His disciples to go out into the world and continue to preach and teach, He has these words of advice: “If you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

In contrast, gun control advocates do not see guns and violent crime as two separate issues; rather, proponents of gun laws see them as one and the same. The argument advocates of gun control make is simple: restrict people’s access to guns, and violent crime will drop. The flaw in this logic is the assumption that those who commit violent crimes are law-abiding citizens. Further regulating legal gun trade does nothing to interrupt the issue of black market weapons which criminals purchase from the black market. Ironically, the ones who obey such laws are the very ones who need the protection that gun control denies them; law-abiding citizens.

The most effective rejoinder to arguments in support of gun control is the fact that it has already been tried, each time with disastrous results. In 1997, the House of Commons outlawed the ownership of handguns in England. Two years later, the number of handgun-related crimes had increased by forty percent. By 2005, robberies had increased by forty-five percent and murders had gone up fifty-four percent over an eight-year period.

Similarly, Australia, which passed a number of restrictive gun measures in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, experienced a thirty-two percent increase in violent crime from 1997 to 2002. 

As John Lott’s seminal study on gun control noted, knowledge of an armed citizenry actively deters violent crime. On the other hand, gun control laws are incentives for violent crime—the criminals in question can steal, rape, and murder, secure in the knowledge that their potential victims are not equipped to defend themselves. 

There is another reason to support a robust set of gun ownership rights in the United States—the “security of a free state.” An armed populace is not merely a deterrent to violent crime—it also discourages erosion of civil liberties by the federal government.

A typical left-wing rejoinder to this argument is to claim that such a position encourages the formation of extremist militias and “survivalist groups.” On the contrary, viewing the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny is not an attack on the rule of law; it is the highest expression of such a notion. This argument is premised on the American belief that everyone, including government, is subject to the law.

In ancient Israel, the Philistines were the dominant political power in the region of Palestine. In order to maintain their position of authority, 1st Samuel 13:19 recounts that “not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!" The Philistines knew that once armed, Israel posed a threat to their regime.

In the same way, governments that have attempted total control over their citizens continue to follow the age-old example of the Philistines, beginning by stripping the populace of any weaponry. Adolph Hitler believed that “The most foolish mistake [the Third Reich] could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” In similar fashion, Nicholae Ceausescu, the Communist dictator of Romania from 1967 to 1989, outlawed and confiscated privately owned firearms in order to ensure that nothing threatened his rule.

Much like capitalism carves out zones of private activity and ownership which limit government’s writ of rule, an armed citizenry describes another boundary to the extent of governmental power. The federal government has internal checks and balances to limit the supremacy of any one branch; the free market and the Second Amendment are external checks against the supremacy of government over society at large.

While renewed calls for an increase in gun control legislation have issued forth in the wake of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, the record on gun control remains clear and unequivocal: to further restrict the use and ownership of firearms is to further empower the criminal elements of society at the expense of public safety. Furthermore, it deprives the American people of a powerful check on the expansionistic tendencies of government. The Founding Fathers understood this better than most, having fought off the excesses of a tyrannical king through the use of armed force. Advocates for gun control may protest, and left-wing politicians will continue to appease them, but so long as the Second Amendment remains intact, so too will our right to bear arms continue to exist.