It is a Natural Right to keep and bear arms in self-defense, and commensurate defense of others, against unwarranted and uninvited offense. Providence looks favorably on those who deploy arms in righteous defense,

and with scorn on those who do so in malicious offense.

​

“When you peel back all the layers of Liberty, what is left, at the core, is a Patriot and a rifle.”

​

Nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

​

There is a bright line to be drawn between deploying firearms for protection and using them for unprovoked attacks. In the universe of modern personal weapons, firearms are unique as a means, primarily, of defense. Other lethal tools – blades, blunt force instruments, poison, explosives and a host of others, are best used for offensive attacks and are inferior as a means of protection though they may well be lethal. Surely, firearms can be used as offensive weapons but in the view of American Patriots, should only be deployed in immediate defense of self or others.

    

It was well understood by early Americans that the British monarchy, as with most European kingdoms in the colonial period, sought to subjugate the colonies by first disarming them. It is a hallmark of all tyrannical governments, past and present.  Import bans on firearms and gunpowder, as well as gun confiscation, leading up to the Revolution, catalyzed the concept of self-defense in the minds of the patriots and gave rise to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In the newly formed United States, that concern translated into a predisposition to inoculate against creating a new and unchecked armed force to replace the one that was just defeated. The fundamental purpose of the Founders in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the new standing national army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to establish. Indeed, the object of the Bill of Rights was to further guard private rights and clearly inform the new national government of their boundaries regarding the rights of the people. The necessity to raise a military force to occasionally defend the country must be balanced by the private ownership of arms, should any future tyrannical national government be tempted to ignore their constitutional directives.

​

The reference in the Second Amendment to a “well regulated Militia” must be viewed through the prism of the times. The Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

​

People’s militias that protect and defend their neighborhoods and communities from violation of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Americans, served the cause of Liberty at the Founding and may well again.

  

In addition to the safeguard against governmental tyranny, the evolving question has been the balance between an individual’s right to bear arms (Self-defense) and government’s responsibility to prevent crime (Safety). Some hold that guns promote violence and are a danger to public health and safety. The modern American patriot maintains their necessity for protection and emergency preparedness. Both positions have merit but the general right to safety does not lessen or extinguish another’s enshrined right to self-defense. Indeed, the Natural Right to Defense is superior to the Compact Right to Safety, especially when the government is unable or unwilling to provide adequate defense of the citizenry from criminal action. It can be said, then, that the right to arms is necessary to both protect against a tyrannical government that may look to abuse the liberties of its citizens, and against those criminal perpetrators when an inadequate government is powerless to deter them.

​

Striking the proper balance between Constitutional right to arms, and governmental power and responsibility to safeguard their citizens, might be best understood and decided by applying the concept of “responsible initiation”, which recognizes that defenders have a moral edge when properly initiating force, especially when they are in their own sphere of influence. Conversely, those that act irresponsibly in the initiation of an armed confrontation or do so in the public sphere or private property not their own, have crossed over from defender to offender and have lost the primary protective shield presumptively afforded all Americans, and must then be relegated to the justice system. Justice Under Law ensures the balance of Rights and Freedoms equally across the population but is not intended to scale the rights of defenders in favor of the guilty or to prevent potential harm from what might happen. Only to balance the conflicts that come from plural and conflicting exercise of rights.

​

Beyond the sacrosanct right to self-defense from government abuse and criminal assault, there are several situations that beg a more nuanced approach to arms:

​

• The potential conflict between Second Amendment rights and the First Amendment right to peaceful assembly can be addressed simply in a way that accommodates both constitutional interests. Counter-protesters who wish to carry firearms may create an opportunity for violence when they are present at an event organized by an opposing group. The permitting jurisdictions should give their citizens the right to choose to peacefully assemble in the public arena with, or without, firearms. Such a change would require nothing more than adding that option to special event application forms organizers complete to obtain permits for assemblies on public property. Legal gun owners would still have a right to hold and attend their own events with firearms. Only police, not counter protesters, would be allowed to openly carry firearms to events designated by local permit to be gun-free. Assembly on private property would solely be subject to the direction of the property owner. Similarly, armed protection of private property from violent protesters would be the sanctioned exercise of the right to Defense.

 

• The effort to reduce suicide deaths by firearms (almost twice the number of homicides in the U.S.) has a partial solution that does not violate a person’s stated rights. Voluntary limitations on liberty through personal directives on arms purchasing or relinquishing by choice, offer a middle ground to both sides of the gun debate. Ultimately, suicide is a personal decision that, while tragic, should not cause the infringement of the rights of others.

 

• Mass shootings in public places such as schools and large gatherings can be mitigated by proper preventative measures that do not include unreasonable restrictions on arms. Armed resource officers in public schools with compelled attendance, are a necessary deterrent to mass casualty events. Crowd control and weapons screening at voluntary events is a necessary restriction on arms. If in a public space, the implicit responsibility for protection of the attendees falls to the jurisdiction.  

 

• Domestic violence presents the more difficult balance between restrictions on gun rights and the obligation of the local jurisdiction to provide safety for its citizens. The presence of minors and other dependents adds a complication that requires finesse. Again, the obligation of the local jurisdiction to deter those with criminal intent, with or without mental fitness, should be pressed and may include restrictions or revocation of rights. Providing safe shelter from a dangerous domestic partner and preventative measures that include mandatory treatment and rehabilitation are preferrable to revocation of otherwise inviolate rights.     

 

It is incumbent on the government to address and deter those with criminal propensity or mental health conditions that might predictably be violent perpetrators. Documented violent felony or mental breakdown should allow government restrictions on offending individuals, subject to thorough and balanced due process. False or over-wrought witness or prosecution resulting in the individual's loss of firearms, and thus their Natural Right to self-defense, must be met with severe penalty and sanctions.

​

To be good citizens, patriots must make reasonable accommodations regarding arms and their effects on the broader population having a spectrum of conditions and circumstances, careful that those accommodations do not erode the fundamental rights and responsibilities that exist for all Americans.

​

​