The Right to Bear Arms

Many discussions about gun control focus on the use of guns by criminals and the potential for accidents in the home. It's important to realize, however, that the primary reason that the US constitution allows people to bear arms is so that they can overthrow the US government if it gets out of control:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."  -- Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration of Independence and the third president of the US.

Historically, one of the first things that dictatorships do is to forbid their citizens to bear arms. This of course makes them much easier to control and makes an uprising much less likely. Although it's true that unfortunate accidents can occur as a result of the right to bear arms, I think that the pros greatly outweigh the cons.

Update: The commenters have raised some good questions. I'm doing a little more research before I respond. There's a good synopsis of

Comments

So do you believe I should be able to own and use a grenade launcher? A machine gun?

Do you believe anyone should be allowed to own a gun regardless of their ability to use one without endangering others? (e.g., innnocent others)

If you do, then the discussion is over. However, if you believe citizens shouldn't have a blank check to arm themselves as they see fit, then we agree there should be gun control, and the discussion is really about how *much* gun control there should be.

And that's when it becomes interesting.

[Dion Almaer]

The right to bear arms was written in a time where I would have a hard time shooting you if you were 20 feet in front of me.

I don't think it means that people should have uzi's, and I don't think that we really have a chance against a government with the armed forces that it has today.

A better choice is to get people to vote. If the government becomes so corrupt that it rigs elections.. er wait.

Guns are never good. Never.

[Jody Baty]

I'm going to have to take issue with using the term 'unfortunate accidents'. Does this include 'accidents' such as Virginia Tech, Dawson College, and others? Certainly family and friends of the students killed in these 'accidents' would disagree.

Further, what does the statement 'right to bear arms' mean? Given the advances in arms technologies since this declaration, is it still relevant? Why not allow nuclear and biological arms? They are arms after all.

[Stephen Downes]

If widespread gun ownership could help a people overthrow a tyranny, then the people of Iraq would long ago have prevailed against the United States and the Palestinians would ong ago have liberated themselves from the Israelis.

In fact, what it takes to defend against such a power is exactly the sort of weapon that is prohibited by law - things like rocket propelled grenades, for example, to counter tanks and armored vehicles, and SAMs and other effective weapons to neutralize the devastating effect air strikes can have.

An armed population cannot repel an army, and as the deplorable crime statistics in the United States show, they cannot repel criminals either. The 'advantage' touted for guns - of defending a citizenry against tyrants, or even criminals, is illusory.

On balance, guns provide no benefit - and do so while exacting a horrible toll from the population at large.

[Fantasy Writer Guy]

If Bush hasn't prompted an uprising, who would?
;)

[Tim Farage]

I support the right of law-abiding citizens to own and bare weapons. The reason for this is that each individual has the right to protect himself and others from the use of force against them, and the most effective way to do this is with a weapon.

This includes knives, handguns, rifles (including assault rifles), pepper spray, batons, and other weapons that an individual could reasonably use in self-defense or in the defense of an innocent person. They might also be used in defense against a foreign invasion or in defense against a corrupt government. Even if a foreign invasion occurred in the US, it would be almost impossible to occupy us because every other household in the US has guns.

I do support laws prohibiting the private ownership or usage of weapons whose use would entail the broad destruction of life or property. Thus, I support laws that restrict the private ownership of machine guns, bombs, and weapons of mass destruction.

I also support the right of States to license the carrying of weapons in public places.

[Christopher St. John]

Random points:

Basing public policy on incredibly rare events like mass shootings is often a poor idea.

The Iraqis seem to be doing a pretty good job of running an insurgency without tanks or planes.

I've always been in favor of gun control, on the theory that the better you control your gun, the less likely you are to hit an unintended target. Turns out, basic safety doesn't matter as much as I thought to gun deaths, since a huge percentage of them appear to be suicides:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html#

[Graham Glass]

Hi Guys,

After some thought:

I support the right to bear regular "individual strength" guns like handguns and rifles. I don't support private ownership of stinger missiles or nukes.

I still firmly believe that an armed population is the last check-and-balance against a corrupt government. Stephen brings up the Iraq situation as a counterpoint, but I view it as a proof point; a bunch of armed citizens can keep an army at bay.

According to the Wikipedia article I referenced, disarming the citizens has always occurred before genocide; Nazi Germany is referenced as one example.

In addition, my guess is that if the US attempted to mount a "war on guns", it would turn out just like the "war on drugs" - very expensive and ineffective.

Cheers,
Graham

[Alphy]

I happen to be someone who believes that we *do* have the right to keep and own missiles, hand grenades, and even cannons; at the time of the founding of our country, it wasn't unheard of for individuals to own cannons; in Switzerland today, citizens are expected to own machine guns, and many even own grenade launchers.

If we ever need to fight against tyranny (either our own government, or an invading army), it would be very nice to have private ownership of these things!

Most of these big things are too expensive for the average person to own, though, so they won't be the problem others expect them to be. (Consider a police officer: "Someone just robbed the bank with a tank? Hmmm...how many people do we know that owns a tank?")