Limitations exist on all natural rights
One of the deepest criticisms I receive, especially as of late, is that I continually and consistently attack the Second Amendment. The “right to bear arms” doesn’t seem to be my favorite of the Bill of Rights, as I’ve posted regularly on the need to restrict certain weapons that were originally designed for military use but have since seeped into civilian use as well.I don’t take these criticisms lightly, defending my position constantly in the heated (but mostly cordial) arguments on the rights of citizens.
I look at the Second Amendment in a literal sense: and, if we read deeper into the second clause of it, I don’t think that my views necessarily conflict with the intent and meaning of the law.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
What is necessary to preserve the “right of the people to keep and bear arms?” To the most ardent gun rights proponent, it means that every weapon ought to be available to them. It means that any restrictions, and any laws barring individuals from owning certain weaponry, is an infringement of the right.
Yet, the right being bestowed here isn’t an unlimited arsenal to be owned by individuals, but rather the right for people to keep weapons for their own self protection. Restrictions of certain weapons don’t infringe upon the rights of the people, so long as they have adequate access to other means of securing and defending themselves.
To use an example, barring the future sale and distribution of an AR-15 wouldn’t infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of the people because it doesn’t remove the rights for owning other weapons. An outright ban of arms would be an unnecessary and despotic move; but limiting what the public can own, if it’s deemed to be a weapon of significant damage, is a reasonable response to a growing trend of violence while still keeping true to the words of the Second Amendment.
To be sure, the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” isn’t derived from any document, from the pen of any man’s quill; but rather, the right to defend oneself is a natural right, as are all rights we are entitled to having.
Still, this natural right doesn’t mean we should have an unlimited access to weaponry -- as with other natural rights, there are restrictions that are put in place to keep the populace protected. For example, a person can’t use their speech rights as a defense for shouting “BOMB!” on a plane or divulging state secrets to enemy states. Such actions cause potential harm to others, though the harm produced cannot be measured directly.
So it is with gun rights as well. When society deems that certain weaponry, when made public, can wind up causing more harm than good, it’s justifiable to restrict their use solely to the military and police.
Who determines what weaponry should be restricted and to what extent is up for vigorous debate. It shouldn’t be a matter taken lightly; there can be overreaches, and when those occur they should be remedied immediately.
But to say that ANY restrictions on weapons violates the Second Amendment is an opinion I take exception with -- certain restrictions, when done reasonably, do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. So long as the people retain the ability to keep themselves safe and secure, with reasonable weaponry they feel will work to achieve that end, the Second Amendment is not being violated.