Such an idea is a gross misunderstanding of Social Contract Theory, especially when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and the right of self-defense.
This article is from The Editor’s Corner, with insights, short-posts, and general ramblings from Editor/Owner Justin Stapley.
There are some who are putting forth the argument that the social contract is an agreement to surrender certain rights for the best interest of society as a whole. And that, given this social contract, suspending certain aspects of the right to bear arms shouldn’t be resisted given the horrendous crimes we have seen perpetrated with firearms.
I’m a classical liberal, and will never agree to this argument.
Firstly, it’s a gross misunderstanding of the social contract. While the argument has a measure of truth, that we agree to have our exercise of free will limited within a legal framework, it misses the point of why we would do so. It is not that the best interest of society is served by limiting liberty, but that it is in the best interest of liberty to have it reside within a sphere of law. This is what Jefferson meant when he wrote, “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.” (emphasis added)
I believe securing individual rights is in the best interest of society. For most of human history, mass murder has been the purview of the government. Trusting the government to protect us does not line up with my understanding of history.
To be specific, I do not think background checks will have a measurable impact. It will definitely not have the impact so many think it will. A large portion of the criminals who have perpetrated these horrible crimes have passed background checks.
And, the reason why so many of us do not support background checks is because they are being pushed by the same people who advocate for “assault weapon” bans, semi-automatic weapons bans, and some even go so far as to say the 2nd amendment should be repealed altogether.
It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why those who don’t like the idea of the government coming for their AR-15s, their semi-automatic weapons, or their guns altogether might be reticent to allow a universal background system that resembles a gun registry.
And detractors of my argument can no longer write off these fears as histrionic. In the past year alone, a Democratic presidential candidate has said, “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15” and a retired Supreme Court Justice has called for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. It’s neither a reasonable nor a rational argument to say universal background checks could never amount to a gun registry or provide an aid to gun confiscation when such prominent figures are arguing for policies that could easily lead to just that.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment below.
Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk and the voice of The New Centrist Podcast. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter, or subscribe to his newsletter, From the Hawk’s Nest.
- The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
- Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
- The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020
“I’m a classical liberal” Very bold statement, yet very true and correct. You are however not a progressive, too many folks don’t understand the difference. Yet so many people lump the two together anymore, its really done a disservice to true liberals. Your ideas are sound, they remind me of JFK in a lot of ways. I can only hope others hear, understand and adopt your POV from the “blue” side of the spectrum. I tip my hat to you and agree completely, for whatever that is worth. Take care and God bless.
All you say is so. Perhaps it can be said even more directly. “. . . governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people cannot consent to a power they, themselves never had. No one has a power, i.e., a right to take away or give away what belolngs to others (their lives, liberties and property). That is a power no just government can claim or come by. The right to bear arms, aside, it also explains why the whole corporate/social welfare state is contrary to natural law, As Locke wrote, “The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankkind who will but consult it that being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Halth, Liberty, or Possessions.”