Gun Ownership A Natural Right, Not a Political One

By AWR Hawkins

Wonen Target Shooting Range
Gun Ownership A Natural Right, Not a Political One
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- As the newly-elected Republicans get closer to assuming office in the House, Senate, and in gubernatorial offices around the country, it is important to remember that gun ownership is a natural right, not a political one.

In other words, although Second Amendment supporters should be thrilled that gun control candidates were trounced on November 4 2014, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. Rather, it is time to make sure incoming officeholders remember that our right to keep and bear arms comes to us via our Creator and not from government, so says Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson expressed these things in the Declaration of Independence when he pointed to “certain unalienable rights” with which we have been endowed by our “Creator.” These rights include those guarded by the Second Amendment, as well as the others protected in the Bill of Rights. And previously reported, Jefferson described them as “unalienable” to show that they are inseparable from us—they are part of our humanity.

Oxford law professor William Blackstone greatly impacted Jefferson's understanding of these things by describing unalienable rights as “absolute” rights. Blackstone explained that they were absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and that they were, are, and always will be, because the giver of those rights was, is, and always will be.

John Locke wrote on these rights too, calling them natural rights instead of unalienable or absolute rights but recognizing their origins in the Creator nonetheless.

Locke studied natural rights extensively and showed that lessons on property and justice are inherent to them. He explained that natural rights are not orchestrated by government but by natural law, and that law presents a framework for freedom within those rights and also communicates the virtue of self-defense (see Locke's Second Treatise of Government).

Therefore, natural rights are not political inasmuch as they exist with or without the consent of those in political office—such rights even exist without the citizens' consent—and the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect them.

So the lesson for incoming officeholders is simple—gun rights are not like speed limits, school funding, defense spending, or treaties with foreign countries. The government's role is not to regulate such rights but to protect them in accordance with the Constitution. This is what our Founders meant by the words, “Shall not be Infringed.” 

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at [email protected] You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

8
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
TimRichard J. MedicusRMMartin Christensenhambone Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard J. Medicus
Guest
Richard J. Medicus

“The government’s role is not to regulate such rights but to protect them in accordance with the Constitution”
I have to disagree with this statement. If the governments role were to protect our rights then the founders would not have limited the scope of their duties. The current state of our country attests to the fact that this and every other government is doing exactly what any and all governments strive to achieve, control. It is up to us, the people of the United States, to protect ourselves.

Martin Christensen
Guest
Martin Christensen

The word describing our rights should be “inalienable’, not “unalienable”. We do not have “unsufficient” funds in our checking accounts because of “uncorrect” addition, and I do not have an “unablility” to do some tasks. These distinctions used to be drummed into my and other 5th grade students 60 years ago. Why can professional writers not get it? (I did once see a book of Tom Jefferson’s writings that had both the Declaration of Independence as he wrote it using the word “inalienable”, and also had the version as edited and printed, using “unalienable”. Was it a printer’s error that… Read more »

Tim
Guest
Tim

The two words mean the same thing and “unalienable” is used in the final version of the DoI. “Inalienable” is used in some of the drafts. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm

hambone
Guest
hambone

Try telling such fuzzy feeling theories to those of us who live in Libtard controlled States, Ammoland. I-594 and the failure of legislators to refuse “voting away the rights of others” is alive and well.

Ted R. Weiland
Guest
Ted R. Weiland

Although the Second Amendment is the closest thing in the Constitution to being Biblical, the late 1700 founders all but robbed arming ourselves in defense of families, and neighbors when they replaced the God-expected Biblical RESPONSIBILITY (per Psalm 149:6-9, Luke 22:36, 1 Timothy 5:8, etc.) to do so for the optional Enlightenment natural right (per the Second Amendment) to do so. Think about it: The Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity are likely to see the Second Amendment… Read more »

TCshore
Guest
TCshore

“Shall not be infringed” simple …..

RM
Guest
RM

Rather than worry about it just do it regardless what man says Like ALL Good God fearing CHRISTIANS will.

Stephen Driscoll
Guest
Stephen Driscoll

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

— from the 1943 US Supreme Court decision
— WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)