You have a God-given, inalienable Right to own a firearm, correct?

If you’re a diehard, pro-2nd Amendment, God-given-rights supporting American, then you and I are in total agreement.   You have an inalienable Right to those things.  You have the inalienable Right to bear arms.  Good?  Good.

Now…here is something our Founding Fathers wrote that you’ll need to grasp in order for our country not to fall apart.  Are you ready?  

Your Rights are inalienable…but they are not unlimited.

Here.  Let me repeat that phrase: your rights are inalienable, but they are not unlimited.  And we know they are not unlimited because that is the nature of a Social Contract like our U.S. Constitution: it protects our inalienable rights and it enshrines the Rule of Law.

And what is the “Rule of Law”?   Well, you can ask John Locke about that.  John Locke is the author of “Two Treatises of Government,” which became the philosophical basis for our United States Constitution.  In fact, John Adams lifted almost whole passages verbatim from Locke’s work when drafting it.

What does Locke discuss in “Two Treatises of Government”?  Well, he is certainly a proponent of limited government.  But he is also a proponent of something else: what Constitutional scholar John Stuart Mill described in 1859 as “the Marginal Surrender of Liberty”.

In other words, if you have a society in which “The Rule of Law” is in effect, and not “The State of Nature” (which means you live like animals), then you have already agreed to a “Marginal Surrender of Liberty” – regardless of your inalienable Rights. Conversely, without the Rule of Law, your rights are deemed unlimited, and inalienable rights, such as the Right Liberty, become absolute.

Wild animals have absolute, unlimited freedom. But, as such, they are unable to develop a society. In a sense, they are enslaved to their instincts, their fears, their instant gratification. Why? Because they are unable to form contracts with one another. They are unwilling to give a marginal surrender of Liberty.

And our Founders knew and expressed all of those things when drafting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

“Marginal Surrender of Liberty” is the reason why you can be sent to jail for breaking the law. In fact, it’s the reason why there are “laws” to begin with: because you can’t do whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever manner you choose. Because it will infringe upon other people’s inalienable Rights and inflict harm.

For example: you have the Right to Freedom of Action…but you are also not allowed to run Red Lights in your car without getting fined and/or arrested.   Why?  Because if you crash into someone, you violate someone else’s Right To Own Property.

You also have the Right to Freedom of Speech, but you are not allowed to willfully misinform police during an emergency, lie under oath, or shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater because this would also inflict harm.  Why?  Because your improper exercise of the Right to Free Speech has violated someone else’s Right to Own Property.

You have the Right to Freedom of Religion but you cannot shove someone, punch someone, or kill someone if your God tells you to.  Why?  Because, again, you’ve violated someone else’s Right to Own Property.

You may have noticed I used the phrase “The Right to Own Property” three times now.   That is because, under The Constitution, the most fundamental unit of “Property” is understood to be your own physical person, your “Body”.   Literally, the most basic unit of property is the flesh you inhabit, your biological form.

And you have a Right to that Property. You have the Right to the well-being of your body.

It is your “Right to Own Property” that also forbids you to possess a nuclear weapon, a chemical weapon, a grenade-launcher, a land-mine, or a host of other weapons considered to be “Arms”.  You’re forbidden from owning those things not because you don’t have a Right to defend yourself (the Right to Bear Arms). You’re forbidden from owning them because possessing items that are too powerful are deemed an excess of Liberty. This excess is called a “Liability”. In legal terms, a “Liability” is anything that can inflict great harm upon People’s Right To Own Property.  

Thus, without such a check on The Right to Bear Arms (or any other inalienable Right) our Rights are exposed to increasing Liability, to the imminent destruction of Property. Under these circumstances, in which property is under increasing threat of destruction by a single, overarching “Right”, the American People come closer and closer to being reduced to the “State of Nature”. You may remember that phrase from earlier. It means people exist as “beasts doing whatever they want,” just as John Locke described.  The closer we come to the State of Nature, the more the Rule of Law erodes, and vice-versa.

People are reduced to animals as Liberty becomes absolute – regardless of how many inalienable Rights they possess.

So, is forbidding you from owning a specific type of “Arm” an infringement of your 2nd Amendment Rights?  No. 

Why?  Because, as an American Citizen, you don’t live in a “State of Nature” where your Liberty is absolute.  You live in a civilized society with a Rule of Law. You live in America.  You’ve agreed to live according to the United States Constitution. And, since the Constitution is a Social Contract, you agree to a Marginal Surrender of Liberty to prevent absolute Liberty. Otherwise, you become an animal and your Rights become meaningless.

End of story.

Again, you don’t get to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and in whatever manner you choose.  Again: your Rights are inalienable, but they are not unlimited.

So, no one is “oppressing” you. No one “taking away your inalienable Rights,” whenever they talk about “banning” this or “banning” that.  That’s total bullshit.  That’s not an accurate interpretation of our Constitution.  That’s made up from out of thin air. When people talk about “banning” something, they’re usually referring to something very specific: bump stocks, automatic weapons, guns that are easily convertible into automatic weapons, etc..

But what they are not talking about?  “Banning the 2nd Amendment.”  That’s not on the table.  That’s not something anyone is trying to do.

Just like driving, talking, marching, moving around, protesting, flailing your arms, there are limits to what you can do with your Fire Arms.  And, if a particular kind of weapon inflicts mass casualties on the population, then it incurs too high a liability to the general populace. It is a Right that must be marginally surrendered since the Right to own that weapon infringes upon other People’s Right to Property.

Sorry. That’s our Constitution. That’s what you agreed to.

Again, you do have the Right to Bear Arms. And, again, Your right is inalienable. But: your Right to Bear Arms is not unlimited.  It’s why you’re not allowed to own a surface-to-air missile.  Or a howitzer.  Or a vial of Anthrax.  You can’t own any weapon you want.

You can’t. You’re forbidden by law. You’re not allowed.

It doesn’t matter how you “feel” about the issue.  It doesn’t matter if you own a T-shirt that says “The 2nd Amendment Makes All Others Possible” (hint: it doesn’t).  It doesn’t matter what spin you or the NRA try to put on it: under our Constitution, you’re not allowed to own any kind of weapon you want. 

The Founders said that.  John Locke said that.  And Constitutional scholar John Stuart Mill said that.

It’s why the phrase “well-regulated militia” is in The Constitution to begin with.

The only reason you’re claiming “Liberals are trying to take our guns away” is because you want your Right to Bear Arms to be “unlimited”.  

Again: sorry.  It can’t. No single Right is unlimited.

You don’t get to decide how much, how far, and in what way you may express your God-given Rights. Our elected Representatives do that for us when we elect them.

Did I say “Sorry” earlier?  Sorry.  You’re not allowed.

Too bad, so sad. 

Have a tall glass and sit down.

To quote, John Locke, architect of the Constitution:

“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”

And:

“Every man has a Property in his own person.  This, nobody has a right to, except himself.”

And, to quote John Stuart Mill, scholar of The U.S. Constitution and Contract Law:

“The Liberty of the individual must be thus far limited.  He must not make himself a nuisance to other people.”

But, after all of this, if you still honestly believe, deep in your bones, that your inalienable Rights are being infringed upon by a tyrannical government, and that your local legislators are oppressing you because they won’t vote in favor of letting you possess an automatic, or high-capacity magazine weapon?   Then, by all means: start shooting at anyone who tries to fine you into surrendering it.  I’ve seen all of the “Watering the Tree of Liberty” T-shirts.  I know how some of the Pro-2nd Amendment guys like to chat online.  By all means: fire away.  Start shooting at whoever comes knocking on your door to take it away.  

But before you start shooting, just be sure to ask yourself: is it worth it?   Is it worth taking the lives of good, upstanding police officers, or American Soldiers, just to have a bump stock? Is it worth killing someone to have an twenty extra rounds in the chamber

Because that’s why you’d be shooting and killing those people.

You’d be killing those people not because they’re taking your 2nd Amendment Rights away.  No. You’d be killing them because you refuse to budge. You refuse to fulfill your civic duty under the Constitution. You refuse a marginal surrender of something. 

You’d be killing them because they are enforcing the laws of our U.S. Constitution.

Would you do the same thing if the traffic light at the end of your block stayed red for too long?  Would you shoot a traffic cop if you decided to run that light and got pulled over?

Would you do the same thing if you were watching a movie and the movie theater played an announcement asking you to silence your cell phone? Would you shoot some guy in the projection booth?

Some people do. They do shoot innocent people because they believe they’re “protecting their Rights”. You’ve probably heard about those people. They’re the ones we keep saying “need more Jesus in their lives”.

So, is it worth it to fight, kill and die just to have that bump stock?  Or an extra twenty rounds? Or a shorter waiting period? Or one less background check? Or a vintage AK-47?  

Is it really, truly worth it to you?

And don’t give me that “But people are just going to do it anyway” argument.  Because we all know how ridiculous and lazy that argument is.  If that’s the basis for the law (which it isn’t) then, according to your logic, we shouldn’t have any laws at all.

In which case, congratulations.  Without laws, you’ve brought us back to pure animalism.  We’re back to before civilization began. 

We’re back to the “State of Nature”.

So, don’t complain when your local police department shows up, draws weapons, and shreds your ass.  They have a “Right to Own Property” just as much as you have a “Right to Bear Arms”.

But, unlike you, they have the Constitution on their side.

Because the Constitution is a Social Contract.

The Constitution is an agreement requiring a “Marginal Surrender of Liberty”.

Not “lawlessness”.

Not the “State of Nature”.

Not animal brutality.

It doesn’t require us to live, and die, like brute animals.

It doesn’t require us to be like you.

Published by Thomas Paine

I'm the Father of the American Revolution and I can't stand "revealed religion".

Join the Conversation

4 Comments

  1. “Decided you wanted to stay in America and remain an American citizen”… do you really believe this crap? It isn’t the 18th century; materialism has won. Use it.

    Like

  2. The Constitution isn’t a social contract. It lays out the restrictions on government and defines its job as it relates to We the People. All three documents should be considered as one.

    Like

    1. It is a social contract. That is literally, legally the definition of what a “Constitution” is. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jacque Rousseau all pioneered and studied social contract theory prior to the writing of our Constitution and referred to a country’s Constitution as a “Social Contract”.

      Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: