Is the 2nd Amendment Really That Important?

It’s too late to fight for freedom and individual rights when you need to use your guns to defend yourself against your own government

The gun control debate never seems to get out of the headlines. After each tragic mass shooting, the left reflexively demands more gun control and the right equally reflexively responds “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

I have no problem with people owning firearms. Hunting is an enjoyable pastime for many, and it plays a critical role in controlling wildlife populations; if anything, we need more hunters. Competitive shooting can be as thrilling a sport as any. Keeping a firearm at home for self-defense purposes is often sound advice assuming you know how to use it and practice frequently (although using it in self-defense comes with its own set of legal troubles even if you’re in the right). And the industry—manufacturers, retailers, range owners, and instructors—go to extraordinary length to educate about safety protocols and responsible gun ownership.

As a champion of capitalism, I don’t feel at home either on the political left or right, but on gun control I consider myself in the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” camp. As I wrote last year in The Comprachicos – The Chilling “Our Killing Schools” Version, reviewing C. Bradley Thompson’s analysis, the causes for school shootings go much deeper than access to firearms. And most other forms of gun violence have deeper roots as well that won’t be solved by more stringent gun controls—workplace, mall, church and other mass shootings, drug related and domestic gun violence, etc.

But defending the 2^nd Amendment is not my #1 priority. In fact, I question the view, especially among many on the political right, that the 2^nd Amendment is the only thing that stands between us and an authoritarian government takeover. I get the historical context of "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." And I understand and appreciate how deeply ingrained it is in many patriotic Americans. But I think it’s a mistake to prioritize the 2^nd Amendment at the expense of fighting more fundamental threats to the republic: the infringement of the welfare and regulatory state on our individual rights. Government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and government (public) education are increasingly limiting your right to be in control of your life. And free speech, environmental, healthcare, pharmaceutical, food, bank, finance, insurance and other regulations enforced by the administrative state similarly infringe on your freedoms. Defending the right to bear arms may feel more tangible and concrete than challenging these government behemoths. But truth be told, a large number of 2^nd Amendment champions are mistakenly in favor of many welfare statist programs and regulations that threaten their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If it were more widely understood that the continuous expansion of the gradually more authoritarian welfare state is the threat that eventually may force them to take up arms, they would perhaps change their priorities.

All responsible gun owners know that using a firearm in self-defense at home is a last resort. Locking the doors, having a security system in place (and arming it!), looking out for one another in your neighborhood, etc., always have higher priority, and will hopefully prevent that dreaded scenario when firing on an intruder is the only remaining option. Similarly, fighting to abolish the welfare and regulatory state by getting the government out of healthcare, retirement, education, and every other area where it infringes on our individual rights is the best recipe for ensuring that we never   have to exercise our 2^nd Amendment rights at the societal level.

Ayn Rand once said something to the effect that if society has got to the point where you have to take up arms to defend yourself against your own government, then it’s already too late. (I’ve searched for the quote without success, so I’m paraphrasing here; let me know in the comments if you know where she said it). In other words, don’t kid yourself into believing that you’ll stand a chance against a militarized, authoritarian government coming after you. There is no living-happily-ever-after in a romanticized off-the-grid scenario. It would in fact be miserable without the “backup” of a highly civilized society. I suspect some survivalists may be dreaming of ruling their own little big-fish-in-a-small-pond fiefdom in the wild, but they’re fooling themselves if they think it will last long. The rest of us should focus the fight on restoring the respect for our individual rights to live our lives free of government force. And one day, when we’ve won this battle, we’ll hopefully consider the 2^nd Amendment a quaint relic to remind us of more dire times, but without any real-world relevance.