There’s a popular anti-gun argument that their right to be safe from guns trumps the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They are specifically referring to the phrase: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The logic stems from a section of the United States Declaration of Independence, which reads:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Whether or not the Declaration of Independence should be incorporated into the body of United States case law on the same level as the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as proponents of Declarationism insist, is actually irrelevant here. I’ll even stipulate this single phrase establishes the concept of natural, unalienable rights critical to all that followed for our nation.
At the same time, the concept of claiming an infringement of rights based on a subjective personal preference to not have firearms legally possessed by others around them – because not feeling safe restricts their ‘pursuit of happiness’ is just plain ridiculous. The opposite side of course is where would that right apply to someone whose personal preference is to own and use firearms for their own protection?
Beyond the academic argument, I used to think my Second Amendment rights; my right to bear arms for self-protection meant nothing to your feeling of safety. I now realize it is the exact opposite. My firearm, or more accurately firearms in the hands of private citizens who are willing to defend their lives and the lives of their families, DOES impact you. It makes YOU safer, even if you don’t like it or understand why.
A potentially armed citizen means the criminal doesn’t know if his intended victim is armed or not. Criminals don’t like armed victims because they turn out not to be victims at all. Proactively taking away legally owned firearms because it will give someone else a false sense of security actually makes them less safe. Knowing private citizens are unarmed and no threat to the criminal makes them more willing and able to attack.
If you want to blame someone for not feeling safe, start with the politicians you put into office. By making it harder for honest citizens to defend themselves, they make it easier for criminals to victimize them. Instead of helping their constituents become hard targets instead of soft ones, they refuse to prosecute those that do break the law, fail to insist on harsh sentences for the very few who are convicted, and let the offenders out of jail early or avoid incarceration all together. Remember, “common sense” “tough on criminals” “safety for all” gun laws do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally and using them against you. News flash: Criminals break the law! More laws aren’t going to change that.
Rights in the United States are difficult and we take a lot of it for granted. For example, the First Amendment right to free speech means others are going to have the same ability to speak their mind as we are, even if it’s completely opposite or offensive to us. The same goes for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with it or not, that right is as much a part of the United States way of life as free speech and is protected by the same Bill of Rights.
In the context of the Declaration of Independence, happiness was about an individual’s contribution to society rather than pursuits of self-gratification. Reimagining the definition of this phrase as means of disarming law-abiding citizens is the epitome of self-righteousness.
Perhaps it is time for all of us to be more concerned about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, for our nation – and not for ourselves.
Bob
#oddstuffing, #lifelibertyandpursuitofhappiness, #constitution, #billofrights, #2ndamendment