Why do we have the right to keep and bear arms? Is it because the Constitution says so, or is there more to it than that? Most Constitutional scholars will tell you that the Founders did not attempt to create any new rights when they formulated the Bill of Rights, but rather that they were attempting to enshrine the existence of what they considered preexisting, inalienable natural rights that could never be legitimately seized.
Such is the case with the right to keep and bear arms as recognized by the Second Amendment. This right is merely the logical extension of our natural right to own property and to defend that property along with our lives and liberty from aggression whenever it becomes necessary. 'Arms' are but the tools that allow us to more effectively defend our rights and the rights of others.
The right to engage in self-defense is necessarily implied by the existence of any rights at all. To claim that one has a right but may not defend it is to negate that right for all practical purposes. To claim that one has the right to engage in self-defense while denying them access to the tools necessary to effect that self-defense likewise neuters the fundamental right to self-defense.
In short, your right to life must necessarily include the right to defend your life and the right to possess the tools necessary to get the job done. It's really not all that complicated.
Now let's take a quick look at some of the common restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms to see how they contradict this fundamental right. The basic rule of thumb when considering a particular situation or individual is to ask the following questions:
- Does this individual in this situation possess his natural rights of life, liberty, and property? If the answer is yes, move to question 2. If the answer is no, please explain how an individual could be legitimately deprived of their inalienable rights when inalienable rights by definition are "impossible to take away or give up."
- Does this individual in this situation have the right to protect his natural rights from aggression? If the answer is yes, move to question 3. If the answer is no, please explain how an individual could be legitimately deprived of the right to defend his inalienable rights.
- Does this individual in this situation have the right to possess the tools necessary to protect his natural rights from aggression? If the answer is yes, any restrictions or limitations on the right to keep and bear arms are unjust and illegitimate. If the answer is no, please explain how an individual could be legitimately deprived of the right to possess the tools necessary to defend his inalienable rights.
It quickly becomes clear that gun license and registration mandates, gun-free zones, and claiming that certain individuals can be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms due to some past infraction of the law are all fundamental violations of the inalienable natural rights of individuals. A person's right to protect himself (and others) from aggression can never be legitimately restricted and any attempts to do so render the restrictor an aggressor who must be stopped.
Ultimately, the simple fact is that the right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting, inalienable natural right just as fundamental to human existence as are the rights of life, liberty, and property. These rights cannot be legitimately taken away or even bargained away in some perverse notion of a "social contract." Every attempt by the state to restrict or limit the right to keep and bear arms is an act of aggression and tyranny. There is a reason why the Founders wisely chose the incontestable phrasing of "shall not be infringed."