Owning My Gun is My Right…Says Who?

What do we mean when we talk about gun rights?

When my grandfather died, he left me a gun. He had been a founding member of a well-known hunting club in Georgia where I grew up, and he used to target shoot in his basement. He and I were close. He had picked the gun out from his collection for me to use the first time I went target shooting. It’s a simple .22 single action revolver, and it is dear to me. I think all the time about what I would do if guns became illegal altogether. I have to admit that I tear up a little bit when I think of letting it go.

After the 2016 terrorist attack in Nice, there was a snarky joke circulating on the internet that the US should now ban all trucks. If guns kill people, rather than people killing people, then trucks kill people too, right? Ha-ha. I pointed out to a friend that this logic wasn’t fully sound because people have to take a test to prove that they can use a car safely before they are allowed to drive — car control, if you will. He responded that driving is a privilege, but owning a gun is a right. What could I say? He is correct. Driving is not a right covered by the Constitution, and I’m certainly not advocating for it to be. Not everyone can use a car responsibly, and people do get killed.

But the Constitution also guarantees another important right: life.
Life, liberty and property were added to the US Constitution as rights in the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights. I’ll delve deeper into that later. The right to bear arms, as we know, was added in the 2nd amendment. And it is perfectly possible for an American to exercise their right to own a gun without ever treading upon another’s right to life, just like driving a car. Both cars and guns are, in themselves, amoral objects. And yet, cars exist to transport us from place to place; guns exist to kill things. Guns, as a right, are in a unique category.

In Mark Philip Bradley’s book, The World Reimagined: Americans and Human Rights in the Twentieth Century, he discusses the term and sentiment of “human rights” as it has existed in the United States over time. He explains that the US is often one of the last nations to participate in global discussions, treaties, and court systems that focus on human rights. Instead, most of the moments of social unrest in US history have centered on demands for civil rights — rights granted to us by our nation rather than simply from our status as humans. Bradley tracks the development of global human rights campaigns and the ways in which the US began to participate. He demonstrates that human rights really entered the modern American vocabulary during the War on Terror. Many argued that democracy was a human right for everyone, not just Americans, and it was just to fight to bring this right to oppressed people. But what do we mean by democracy? Are we referring to all of our specific individual rights as listed in the US Constitution?

For that matter, where do any of our rights come from? God? Our status as human beings? Our governments? Does it depend on which right we’re talking about? Does it depend on the historical moment? When Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal,” did he mean just that? That our rights derive from our personhood? The Founders said these rights came from our Creator, so does that imply that they are human rights rather than civil? Do we agree that our rights come from a Creator just because the Founders said so? Interestingly, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson only mentions what he considers to be a very few basic rights: life, liberty, and the much beloved pursuit of happiness. They say that there are more basic rights, but what are they? It is, of course, impossible to say for sure what they had in mind.

Also important to consider is that there is precedent for the civil rights of Americans being revoked when they violate what are considered other people’s human rights. Slavery is probably the best example (which, of course, also violated the civil right of liberty). Enslaving other people was never specifically endowed as a right, but it still took amending the Constitution to finally put US slavery practices to an end.

This gets complicated so quickly, but I think that looking at the Bill of Rights through a historical lens demonstrates that many of the amendments were added to address specific problems that Americans were encountering at the time it was written. For example, British soldiers fighting to quash the American Revolution forced colonists to house them. The 3rd amendment made sure that you and I have the right to deny soldiers our hospitality if we do not wish to provide it. Similarly, the 2nd amendment has valid historical reasons for existing. Without a well-armed militia, the US may not have been able to win its revolution. When the people were not allowed to have weapons, they were vulnerable to a corrupt government. Additionally, many of the Founders weren’t crazy about the idea of maintaining a standing army, so citizens being prepared for battle in their homes was necessary. With all this in mind, I’m glad that the 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution. We really don’t know where we would be if it hadn’t (although people from American Indian tribes likely have some thoughts on that topic).

The 5th amendment is equally famous as the 2nd, but mostly regarding our right to not self-incriminate. We get to have a jury of our peers, and we cannot be retried for the same crime once we have been declared innocent. We also cannot have our life, liberty, or property taken from us without a conviction in court. The historical need for these rights mostly goes without saying when you simply think about the colonies’ time under British rule. But I wonder if the reasons also seem to go without saying because we can all very deeply relate to them now. The right to a fair trial is not something I would ever want to have taken away from me in any circumstance or historical moment. And I think that it is fair to infer from this law that if the government cannot take my life without due process, then neither can anyone else.

So, what does this history mean for our current civil rights? What if our rights contradict each other? My grandfather used to say that my rights end where another person’s begin. I’ve always thought those were solid words to live by. A US citizen can use their 2nd amendment right to bear arms to protect their 5th amendment right to preserving their own life. That’s the idea. But if a person intentionally kills another person with a legally obtained gun, then they are not only violating their victim’s 5th amendment rights, but are also violating laws against murder. That law goes as far back as you can look in any government or religion. Pretty much everyone agrees that you may not kill someone unless they are literally about to kill someone else. Importantly, this scenario describes a person killing a person; the gun is certainly not responsible. But if our society allows people to have guns who should not have them, are we responsible? Is a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment setting up our society to unnecessarily provide weapons to irresponsible citizens that will likely violate a person’s right to live? Is it even a literal interpretation? The first time the Supreme Court ever defended the 2nd Amendment as a right for individuals to carry guns was in 2008. Does all this depend on if one life is a human right, and another is a civil right?

In spite of many of the Founders’ wishes, we have a massive standing army, and many people vote every year to increase spending on national defense. Because of this heavy funding, however, the US has led the way in developing advanced weapons which have found their way all over the world, creating massive threats. All this considered, I think it’s safe to say that most Americans want a well-armed military that can protect us from other nations in a way we could never really protect ourselves. So what does that mean for our right to own weapons in 2018? After all, the Second Amendment doesn’t say that a US citizen has the right to own a gun. It says that a US citizen’s right to bear arms may not be infringed upon. So, then, what are “arms”? Tanks? Bazookas? Battle drones? Would not any law that tries to define “arms” be unconstitutional? Can just a well-armed militia even keep us safe from a corrupt government or an invading country if we don’t have this level of weaponry in our homes? Is a militia still relevant?

I love my gun. Plain and simple. I don’t want to give it up to you. But when the logic behind having a law is no longer relevant, I wonder if the law is still relevant. Statistics are always showing us that having guns leads to more deaths. Places that have less legal access to guns have less guns in general, and thus less gun violence. Additionally, many people who buy guns legally to commit a crime would never be able to afford the exorbitant black-market prices that would develop if guns became illegal or heavily controlled. And legality is often just as much of a problem as illegality. The worst drug problem in the US centers around medications that are legal, and even drug legalization advocates tend to agree that recreational drugs should be subject to substance control laws. People who own guns are more likely to use them to kill people in their own households than intruders — whether intentionally or not. And people who have guns with them when mass shootings break out are rarely able to use them for protection. None of the reasons that the Founders wanted US citizens to be able to have guns seem to be relevant in 2018.

Ultimately, I’ve realized that I also tear up when I watch news stories about school shootings. I look at the crying faces of parents who have lost their children, and I think: I need to think about this rationally. I cannot let my emotions color how I feel about fundamental civil rights. But I cannot identify any logic that makes me believe that my right to keep my grandfather’s gun is more important than a mother’s right to keep her child, to a child’s right to live. I’ve been won over.

I have concluded that life is a human right, and bearing arms is a civil right. And human rights come first. Weapon laws and rights lose and gain their relevance over time. The right to life does not. People of every faith and nation consider life a right, and I think there is a reason for that.

I’m not really trying to make a claim about whether we should tighten gun control or simply ban them outright. I’m mostly saying that I would give up my gun if it meant that people with no business owning a gun also cannot have one. When it comes down to it, I don’t really need it for anything other than the occasional recreational target shooting. I keep it safely locked up, so it’s not going to help me against a burglar. If making guns significantly more difficult to get would prevent children from having to practice “intruder drills,” then I’m willing to find another hobby.

Gun advocates and gun control advocates tend to make equally emotional arguments, so we have to start asking ourselves more logical questions, not just as a nation, but as individual people. I worked through many of them: What do I think about civil rights versus human rights? What do I think constitutes the arms that I have the right to bear? The amendments had logic behind them when they were being written; when the logic is no longer applicable, is the law? What specifically is it to me personally that makes the right to own a gun so important? Based on facts, what do I think are the real tangible costs of either preserving or limiting gun rights?

The Constitution is not a religious document. We have amended it many times when we’ve realized it needed corrections. You cannot tell me that you have the right to own a gun simply because the Constitution says so. It used to say many things that it doesn’t say anymore. The Founders used logic, so we have and must as well. Just as when the amendment was written, there need to be actual, logical reasons why unfettered gun rights make sense now, and I’m waiting for a satisfactory argument. I’d be willing to hear you out.

In the meantime, innocent victims of gun violence are being denied their right to life at an alarming rate.

Emily D. Quartarone has an MA in American Studies (soon to be PhD, thank you very much), and like a typical intellectual elite, she sits around thinking about America all day, and she wants to talk about it with you.

Sources: