The Right to Bear Arms is a Natural Right (Guest Post)



The 2nd Amendment has taken heavy criticism almost from its inception. It is no hyperbole to consider it the most controversial passage in all of United States law. Due to an apparent (though imagined) increase in gun crime in recent years, many are calling for repealing the Amendment and instituting tougher restrictions on firearms acquisition, ownership, transportation, and use.

Without addressing the relative effectiveness of such legal actions in reducing violent crime or the practicality of overturning 1/10th of the bill of rights, this article will show that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment will have no legal or moral impact upon the right of private citizens to own, carry, and use firearms for the purpose of self-defense.

Natural Rights vs. Legal Rights

Let’s start with the basics. Legal rights are rights bestowed to individuals by a given legal system – i.e. they are gifts from the government and exist only because of the law. A natural right, on the other hand, is a right that exists as a consequence of being alive. These rights are beyond the authority of any earthly government to retract (in other words, they are inalienable rights). A government can and should enshrine natural rights in law, so as to provide them further protection, but this legal codification of rights is not prerequisite to their existence.

The Right of Self-Preservation

The American Declaration of Independence makes the bold and radical assertion that the natural rights of all men include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” John Locke adds “property” to this list. Any list natural rights must include these freedoms, for they are critical to a person’s ability to self-determine the destiny of his or her life.

That this list includes “life” is particularly interesting. Certainly the right to life implies that murder is a violation of one’s natural rights, and the British would not have disputed that assertion. But Jefferson is implying something deeper about the right to life – i.e. that life is one’s own to protect and direct as the individual sees fit.

A founding assumption, more fundamental to the American experiment even than the Constitution, is that individuals have the inalienable right to direct and protect their own lives. Incidentally, this is why the founding of America set the country immediately upon a collision course with the institution of slavery, which cannot be reconciled with these ideas, which are at the very core of the American identity. Even the articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be seen as a supporting apparatus to this basic assumption. Thus, we do not have the right to bear arms because of the 2nd Amendment; we have the 2nd Amendment because we have the right to self-preservation.

Means of Self-Defense

Self-preservation without the use of force is always preferred by law. However, every state in the union concedes that force may be necessary to preserve one’s own life or the life of another against unlawful and immediate harm. The reality is that most violence can and should be prevented through de-escalation of conflicts and taking proper precautions. You may keep your family safe with home security solutions and avoid traveling in dangerous areas. Still, where the threat of force cannot be eradicated, the right to self-defense by any necessary (including the use of firearms) means must be preserved.


The right to bear arms is a necessary and proper extension of the natural right of self-preservation, and is beyond the authority of any earthly government to deny. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is a legal bulwark against the infringement of this natural right, but the existence of the right does not require the protection offered by the 2nd Amendment. Any law, including a constitutional amendment, that infringes upon the rights of self-determination and self-preservation (including the right to bear arms) is illegitimate, as such would constitute an illegal and indefensible trespass against basic human liberty.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Actually Jefferson and those who wanted to abolish slavery in 1776 knew that the Declaration of Independence and subsequent documents would eventually eliminate slavery in the US.

Remember: Your twitchy neighbor has a natural right to carry around a military-style rifle fitted with a high-capacity magazine, so that your children will be safer playing in the adjoining yard.

There are no rights that are absolute, natural or otherwise. There must be certain reasonable limits to every freedom, otherwise there can be no freedom at all. If your neighbor has absolute freedom to do as he wishes, your own rights and freedoms are diminished as a consequence.

This is a fundamental truth that is part of the reality we share. Grow up and recognize it.


Your position deceitfully implies that the right to personally own a firearm includes the right to murder someone with it. That is not the case, and you know it, just as the right to own a car does not mean one has the right to run over people with it or fill it with explosives to blow up people.

What is interesting is the penchant for people who think no one should be allowed to own firearms because of potential for violating other peoples’ rights, to also believe that taxpayers should be forced to pay for other people to get abortions or have sexual mutilation surgeries regardless of a taxpayer’s religious right to believe such acts are morally wrong.

In other words, to paraphrase pro-aborts: “If you don’t like guns, then don’t have one.”

@Greg: No one has the right to do as they wish… well, no one except for Hillary. Armed or not, everyone is expected to abide by the laws of the land and society. However, since this is not always the case, being able to protect one’s self, particularly when the government has created a protected class, radical Islamic terrorists who shall NOT be called radical Islamic terrorists and shall not be suspected, to name but one modern threat, self protection is more than a right… it is a necessity.

@Pete, #3:

I have a right not to have to worry about some twitchy, heavily armed neighbor who appears to be prepping for the zombie apocalypse, or the sudden inexplicable advent of sharia law. I can support 2nd Amendment rights while simultaneously supporting reasonable restrictions and limitations.

After all the hysteria, Obama never confiscated a single gun. Instead, there was an enormous surge in gun ownership—although I’m not certain they weren’t mostly bought up by twitchy neighbors who think the only safety is in accumulating a small private arsenal. I’m sure the gun industry will miss Obama when he’s gone. He can no longer be used as a marketing prop. Hillary would have served well, but she’s out. Gun sales will likely tank in a few months.

Of course there’s still Trump. No telling what he might get up to. If you’re a leader who’s popularity could suddenly shift, you don’t necessarily want a heavily armed peasantry.

@Greg: I have a smith and wesson .38 bodyguard and an ar-15. I have been watching closely since purchasing them and they haven’t left their spot to go out and kill people. A couple of years ago I wouldn’t have thought to arm myself, however as a single woman and the uncertainty of the shadow government I want to be prepared.

Greg: You get further off the track with every post you make. You need to increase your visits to your therapist . You missed the whole point of the essay.

Theres some intellecuials with walnut sized brains who say the 2nd AMENDMENT needs to be repealed and Hollywood Airhead Matt Damon wants the goverment to confiscate all privatly owned guns Hey Airhead Damon how about disarming your goon squad that protects your sorry little behind

@Enchanted, #6:

Well and good, but you most likely aren’t somebody’s heavily armed, twitchy neighbor. Neither am I, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of them out there.

@Randy, #7:

I had no trouble understanding the article. I believe the logic is faulty.

We have a natural right to the means of defending ourselves; it does not follow that there should be no limitations on the nature of that means, nor does it follow that all people are sufficiently responsible to exercise that right without posing an unreasonable danger to others.

The 2nd Amendment states a fundamental principle; it does not extend universal license. No right is absolute.

During some riots (I think it was the Rodney King Simi Valley jury’s decision) there were 53 deaths in my County.
Even the police were grateful for each property that was patrolled by armed civilians who lived inside.
At one point an officer came around asking if everyone had enough ammo!
He suggested we patrol the block as there were a couple more individuals on the block doing the same.
None of those 53 dead happened on our block.
Buildings only two blocks away burned down.
Buildings on the next block were looted.
Streets very close to us were blocked off so cars could be jacked and drivers beaten.
Our block remained safe due to us and neighbors who were well armed.


No right is absolute.

The left believes that the government, men and women who are infallible, can make determinations as to the “Natural” rights of man in a way they deem in the interest of all.

The fallacy of that belief is not unlike the fallacy of their view of the laws of economics. The left does not accept the providence of The Natural Law of Man nor do the accept the Laws of economics left to exist independent intervention by the infallibility of man. The inalienable rights of man, not given by any government of man, are natural and are endowed by their creator, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

When governments seek to impose limitations on those rights, they are interfering with Natural Law.

The rights to protect oneself from others can not be limited by a government. In a civil society, there are developments that preclude all men from the responsibility of personal safety by establishment of those who enforce just laws of men. Ultimately, man will protect himself in situations where others duty bound to do so are unable.

@Greg: Actually, SOME rights are absolute, aren’t they? For instance, the “right” to an abortion, which really is not a right at all, shall not be regulated or restrict it, shall it? Seems anything the left deems is a right becomes absolute and inalienable. Everyone else’s rights, though, are subject to the whims and fancies of liberals.

American traitor John Kerry signed the UN SMALL ARMS CONTROL TREATY and it was’nt ratified and Hillary the Hag supported confiscation just like Hollywood airhead Matt Damon wants SCREW YOU MATT DAMNS your movies are CRAP

@Enchanted: You need to watch your weapons. According to Greg and other far lefties, they sometimes have a mind of their own. Make sure there is no alcohol in your bore cleaner!

@Greg: Do you have any idea what you just wrote? Start thinking about what you wrote if you actually do think. What rubbish!

Lol I didn’t mean to start a fight. I guess I should have expected it though

@Rachael Murphey: Your article makes sense. The lefties always try to refute everything. Thanks!

@Greg: From your blather: you don’t necessarily want a heavily armed peasantry.
Peasantry, really, well arent we the high and mighty, what an arrogant liberal ignorant way of looking at things. typical to put the government in such a royal light.
We the people are not peasants to be ruled, try real hard to read the constitution, that is the supreme law of the land if you dont like the Republic and its citizens rights, the same document that allows me to be the prepared well armed neighbor allows you to leave as a free man.
My rights end where yours begin and likewise, if I want to mount a 50 cal on my roof, and stockpile dehydrated food water and ammo thats my business . Just keep your creepy lurking nosey ass out of my business neighbor.

Peasantry, really, well aren’t we the high and mighty, what an arrogant liberal ignorant way of looking at things. typical to put the government in such a royal light.

No, we are not. That was the point being made, as you most likely fully understood.

Donald Trump is a multi-billionaire. Other multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires will hold key positions in his administration. We will be watched over and governed by representatives of the upper 1 percent, whom I am certain have only our best interests in mind.

I figure if you think you have some right to intrude into the private business between women and their doctors, I arguably have some right to keep you from watching over my back yard with your 50 caliber machine gun

@Greg: Obama’s administration was full of millionaires. Congress is full of millionaires. What’s your point?

Obama interfered in the business between EVERYONE and their doctors. Again, what’s your point?

@Randy: That was kind of my point. Some people have their minds made up that the founding of America was inherently racist and sexist because the laws favored white, property-owning males. My insinuation is, as you’ve pointed out, that the founders were setting America on a course towards freedom and equality that could not be reached at the time of the founding. Either slavery was going to end or the union was going to end, because the two were fundamentally at odds.

@Spurwing Plover: Exactly why I decided to write this article

The Small Arms Control Treaty signed by american traitor JOHN KERRY is all part of the NWO all under the Useless Nations by far this is the all time worst cabinet and the worst president and secretary of State we ever had

@Bill- Deplorable Me, #13:

Actually, SOME rights are absolute, aren’t they?

NO right is absolute. The Constitution is a statement of guiding fundamental principles. That’s what it was intended to be from the start.

@Greg: I arguably have some right to keep you from watching over my back yard with your 50 caliber machine gun
lol nope wrong again
Who said I would watch over you?? You would be on your own liberal ignorant zombie bait. 50 cal is very expensive ammo. You watch over your own back yard.


Wrong, inalienable rights are absolute….

@Greg: Are you ever right? Why do you not do some homework before you post. You would not look so ignorant.

An absolute right is a right that cannot be infringed under any circumstances.

If you are a convicted felon, you may not be allowed to possess a firearm. It logically follows—assuming that one does not have donkey dung for brains—that the right to bear arms affirmed by the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

This is not a hypothetical situation. It’s the situation that actually exists in reality. Reality is a concept that you should attempt to familiarize yourself with, now that the election is over.


Greg does not understand the Natural Law of Man. He believes government is the arbiter of all rights. What those rights are, who should have them and in what quantity…..are determined by government…..

@Greg: “NO right is absolute.” So then, why do you liberals believe no regulation of abortion (a privilege at best, not a “right”) is permissible?

@Bill- Deplorable Me, #31:

Who said that no regulation is permissible? That’s what the right insists on hearing, but it’s not what most liberals are actually saying. Propagandists claim that it is because it makes it easier to sell their own position.

That women should have sovereign authority and control over their own bodies is an underlying, foundational principle, just as the 2nd Amendment expresses an underlying, foundational principle. That doesn’t mean either is absolute. To any rule there are always exceptions, which to some degree play a part in defining the rule.

Many liberals, if not most, support abortion on demand during the first trimester, become increasingly receptive to certain qualifications as the second trimester progresses, and believe there’s an increasingly stringent need for special circumstances to justify abortion the closer the pregnancy gets to full term. What liberals support almost universally is the underlying right.

Many conservatives insist on seeing the world in absolute terms, where everything is either black or white. That’s the entire problem. They insist that supporting the underlying principle that it’s a woman’s right to decide for herself if a pregnancy should continue is the equivalent of advocating late-term abortion. That’s utter nonsense.

Here’s an in-your-face reaction to republican overreach on that issue. That, in fact, is the point. They are, in fact, that intrusive. They are, in fact, forcing their own narrow, religiously-informed views on people who don’t share them, which is fundamentally un-American, and unconstitutional.

Texas Governor: Obama’s Still Comin’ For Your Guns!


As your Governor, I’m committed to doing everything I can to protect our gun rights – both in this upcoming session of the Texas Legislature and by taking every legal action possible to stop Washington, D.C.’s assaults.

Yeah, I’m reachin’ for my checkbook.

@Greg: Greg why do you insist on being wrong every single time? Congress long ago settled this
No contol no exceptions.

The anonymous pdf—The Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN!—is factually incorrect on virtually every point that it makes. You might want to look the Dick Act of 1902 up on some credible, non-anonymous site that states the actual facts and provides links to genuine supporting sources.

This is sort of thing that now circulates and is widely accepted without close examination, much like innumerable false news stories. Anyone who doesn’t wish to be deceived must fact check everything.

@Greg: I have, the the only fake thing here is you, this law forbids government control of arms, it upholds the constitution. Look on any source of your choice.
Give a cross reference that proves YOUR stance on the Dick act.
how about Yale university a fake law school ?
Cornell University another fake source?
How about the National Archives soooo fake

@Greg: “Who said that no regulation is permissible? That’s what the right insists on hearing, but it’s not what most liberals are actually saying.” Well, no, that’s what the left demands; “Don’t touch my abortion”. Regulate clean clinics? Nope; not permissible. Regulate abortions to the first 20 weeks? Nuh-uh… NOT gonna have it. Liberals love to regulate others, but will not consent to any restrictions on their own responsibilities.

Gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders agree to restrictions which make sense, but abortion lovers and advocates will entertain no such reason. Remember the scene in Texas when reasonable regulation was proposed? Shouting, violence, threats and, of course, liberals throwing poop and pee-pee on opponents. Yeah, Greg, you liberals are open minded, peaceful and dignified.

Obama and Holder tried a little end run around the 2nd Amendment, staging the gun running into Mexico to reinforce their lie that many of the guns used in violent acts came from US gun dealers. Oops… especially for Brian Terry, who was killed by one of the Fast and Furious guns.

Oh, no, certainly there is no plans or efforts to confiscate of ban guns.

Law proposed by Democrat in Georgia to ban and confiscate semi-automatic weapons

California confiscating guns

Man’s gun collection confiscated because he asked for help; how gun confiscation will work

Illegal gun confiscations

DOJ using “Operation Choke Point” to target legal businesses liberals don’t like…/justice-department…/9594113/

Connecticut to confiscate guns…/confirmed-gun…/

Another Obama radical nominee wants to require health care patients to declare gun ownership…/mr-obamas-radical-left…/

Gun confiscation begins in Connecticut…/looks-like-weimar-germany…/

John Bolton; UN Arms Trade Treaty lays groundwork for registration…/bolton-un…/2013/04/15/id/499506

Colorado’s gun bill would ban pump shotguns that can add magazine extensions…/popular-standard-shotgun…/

Pennsylvania insurance law for gun ownership…/pennsylvania-democrats…/…

Colorado gun control pushed by administration…/20/ground-zero-for-gun-control/1…

nah, they don’t want to take our guns…

Obama tells author “people should not be able to own guns”…/author-quotes-then-professor-obama…

Liberals just LOVE to deny others their rights, but bow up and cry when they feel THEIR liberties (even those they have made up) are infringed.

@Greg: Just because someone has money doesn’t mean they act “high and mighty”. That may mean they know how the world works better than ignorant Greg or a felons like Hillary Clinton. With Trump having money and becoming president elect without owing his success to others with money,he does not have to appoint inexperienced people to his administration. You have a very narrow mind Greg. Too many drugs in your youthful life?

@Bill… Deplorable Me:

As an aside, currently the hard left is embracing the popular vote as it is applied the the recent general election.

Where were they when the popular vote in the various states was against abortion or homosexual marriage. In those instances, the hard left opposed the will of the people. Why?

@July 4th American: Well, that’s different. See, that doesn’t support their agenda. Liberals have no principles; they just latch onto whatever benefits them at the moment.

@kitt, #36:

Obviously, no, you haven’t, because the pdf is a nothing more than a compilation of inaccurate information, and that can be quite easily verified by anyone who bothers to take the time. Of course you might have to venture off the right-wing propaganda reservation to do so, into that highly suspect mainstream area commonly known as “reality.”

I grow tired of people asserting that total bullshit is absolute truth. Unquestioning belief in the alternate reality that results is going to be the ruin of this great nation.

@Greg: Verify it Greg! Wrong again? Study up on issues before you post. Maybe you would be right once or twice.

@Greg: #41 oh no fake guy, be specific point out using the legislation where these sites are sooo in error, you just say like a lil kid “is not” , well I say “is so…infinity”

Reparations for Slavery is just another way for some crooked lawfirm to line their pockets with ill gotten cash just like Hillary the Hag and her support for litigation against the gun makers. The Vulture the Shark and the Donkey are partners in crime

@kitt, #43:

The pdf starts off by making a totally b.s. claim:

DICK ACT of 1902 – CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

There’s no such thing as an act of Congress that cannot be repealed, nor are there any statutes based upon such acts that cannot be rewritten or eliminated.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

No it doesn’t. It nowhere addresses the topic of firearm regulation.

It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

No, it does not. It divided the militia into two distinct parts: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia—that is, all able bodied males of a certain age who aren’t in that first category. There is no third part. The Regular Army is not a militia component. It never was.

Clearly we’re not dealing with a factual document. We’re dealing with a viral document, spread through email and on the internet, that is anything but factual.

People need to fact check. If they don’t, they’ll be deceived.

@Greg: I am done you never ever provide the level you demand, you never answered the first question I ever asked you long ago, back under the bridge your answer did not in any part quote a single word from the legislation itself, back back back under the bridge.

Here’s a link to the entire text of the Militia Act of 1903 Jan. 21, 1903, ch. 196, 32 Stat. 775, which is what’s actually being argued about. I have no desire to read the entire document. I trust what legal experts have said about it elsewhere. Feel free to dig in and prove them wrong.

@Greg: don’t know where you live, but if you really want to find the full document, check out a federal repository library. Probably your best bet of finding it outside of going to D.C. I make no guarantees, but that is where I would look first.
Section 1 not there
You think yourself above reading the document perhaps not enough light under your bridge.
how bout you just look up the definition of infringed and add to that definition shall not be.
Its funny in all these years the USA has never been successfully invaded.

@kitt: I laughed when the first Red Dawn movie came out.

@Randy: how many times did teens save the world in the 80s?
This feature about Greg