What? That’s not good enough for you? Well then, let me elaborate. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence enumerated some “Unalienable” rights, one of those being the right to life. A right that you cannot defend is as useless as a “No Guns Allowed” sign on a business or school. Therefore, if you have an Unalienable Right To Life, then by extension you have an Unalienable Right to defend that life. The very term, “unalienable” means that it is impossible to take away or give up. Now we know that it is possible to take the life of someone else, hence defending against your life being taken is in complete agreement with the unalienable right to life. It is also quite possible to take (or give up) your own life, which is the basic moral foundation for laws against suicide, assisted suicide and the moral source behind suicide intervention efforts.
Now that is just from the perspective of our founders, what about parts of the world that do not share our founding principles? Take the most remote inhabited regions of the world, where there is little, if any, law enforcement or government other than tribal. They have no Constitution, no 2nd amendment or any other outside “protection” other than themselves. Do they still have a right to defend themselves against predators in the wild? Absolutely. How about two-legged predators among them, do they have the right to defend themselves against the aggression of others? Absolutely. Do they have the right to defend themselves against attacks from other tribes, military forces or any other outside entity invading their lands or threatening them harm? Absolutely. That is the very definition of a basic human right, or an Unalienable Right that they were endowed with by their Creator.
Now that we have established that the right to bear arms is irrevocably tied to defending one’s life, a life that is an unalienable right, then what limits are justifiable regarding the tools used in defense of one’s right to life? While the founders considered this natural right to defend one’s unalienable right to life to be obvious, even self-evident, they did elaborate on it in the 2nd amendment. In the wording of the 2nd amendment, the Framers were intentionally vague and all inclusive. Arms, in modern terms, could mean anything from firearms to knives, clubs, mace, tazers, etc… Any tool that can be effectively used to defend one’s life, liberty or property is implicitly included in the natural right to keep and bear arms. Though some might argue that the common law definition of arms at the time should be applied, that being “light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare.” In modern terms, that would include modern rifles and handguns, fully automatic firearms and shotguns, grenades, grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. It is quite clear that any restriction of arms by either definition is patently unconstitutional.
As for those who would argue that these “killing machines” make it too easy for madmen and lunatics to slay innocents en masse, I would suggest that you take up arms and the training necessary to defend yourself against those madmen and lunatics. The fact that arms may be used offensively is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The natural right of self defense assumes that there will be threats to defend against, ergo your argument is invalid.
Jon Britton aka DoubleTap is Chief Operating Officer of CDH, Inc., a regular contributing author and regularly involved in most aspects of their social media. “Writing was never a goal or even vaguely contemplated as a career choice, it just happened, an accidental discovery of a talent and a passion.” A passion that has taken him in many directions from explorations of the zombie subculture and zombie stories to political advocacy. Joining the U.S. Air Force right out of high school, Jon had the opportunity to experience many different parts of the world and different cultures. His post military career path, both white collar and blue collar, allowed him to work alongside both CEOs and average Joes. As a founding member Cold Dead Hands his study of human nature and writing ability found a purpose. His zombie roots provided a variety of issues from prepping to human behavior under crisis to firearms that he applies to his advocacy for gun rights. A ravenous appetite for the study of history combined with his current events political junkie addiction led to him writing an e-book Gun Sense: Past, Present and Future.