What is the basis of the right to own a gun for self-defense?

The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one’s life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life (a corollary is here defined as a self-evident implication of a general principle).

It would be absurd to say one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the means necessary to protect that life. It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to purchase food. Yet, this is what opponents to the right to own a gun are really against: the right to life.

Unfortunately, it is the right to life, that is ignored in the debate over the right to bear arms, both by its opponents, and by its so-called defenders! As Adam Mossoff writes in Capitalism Magazine:

“The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man’s rights. Statistical arguments on gun control are a red herring — as the leftists’ appeals to hungry children or the environmentalists’ appeals to clean parks are also meant to distract their opponents from the fundamental issues at stake. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other defenders of the right to bear arms argue over statistics and interpreting the Constitution, the real issues remain untouched and are sacrificed to the enemies of our freedom.”

  • PaulGBurke

    This is a stupid assertion. By your logic, private citizens should have the right to keep nuclear weapons in the name of self-defense? After all, does not North Korean aggression threaten your right to life?

    To reduce the debate to whether or not one supports the right to self-defense is so overly simplistic as to be useless. A real debate over how far the right to self-defense extends is necessary and useful in maintaining civil society.