• About
  • Contact
  • Give
Newsletter
NOQ Report - Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes
Sunday, April 23, 2023
  • Home
    • About
    • Give
  • News
  • Opinions
  • Quotes
  • Around the Web
  • Videos
  • Podcasts
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • About
    • Give
  • News
  • Opinions
  • Quotes
  • Around the Web
  • Videos
  • Podcasts
No Result
View All Result
NOQ Report - Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes
No Result
View All Result

You decide: the gun debate between libertarians and conservatives

by Guest Post
March 10, 2018
in Opinions

Subscribe for free to the America First Report newsletter.

In any given debate on the 2nd Amendment between the Right and Left, the unfortunate truth is that those arguing in favor of drastically heightened or “comprehensive” gun control tend not to know their history or anything about guns generally, and they find it difficult to articulate why a blanket ban on all guns wouldn’t be more productive than simply outlawing certain rifles.
Take, for example, Ben Shapiro’s notorious interview with Piers Morgan, as well as any interview Steven Crowder has done on the subject with SkyNews.
But for a much more nuanced discussion of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, you’re doing yourself a disservice if you’ve never heard a debate between dissenting Right-wing voices. Typically, this will materialize between a libertarian (arguing for as little government as possible) and a conservative (defending natural rights while attempting to maximize freedom through limited yet necessary order).
For purposes of this breakdown, my goal is to simply and briefly present the case for each of these two camps, not to argue in favor of one or another. Again, when two parties hold such similar worldviews, any disagreements will depend on greater levels of nuance than simply “you can’t own a gun” vs. “you can own all the guns.” As such, this might not be the best introduction to the topic, nor would it be very productive to share with your Left-leaning friends. But if you’re a libertarian or a conservative and wish to iron out where you stand on the 2nd Amendment and the appropriate regulation of firearms, then I hope you’ll find this discussion profitable.
(For more background on the 2nd Amendment generally, listen to this episode of The New Guards Podcast wherein I describe the Founders’ views on the right to bear arms.)
Conservatives:
Like any right, the right to keep and bear arms must be respected and upheld, but that doesn’t mean it’s absolute. In general, the appropriate standard for small, justifiable restrictions on rights is the maximization of freedom through the proper response to public safety issues.
For instance, free speech doesn’t apply to those who demonstrate a clear and present danger, specifically one involving a call to action that involves intent, likelihood, and imminence. Religious freedom does not protect female genital mutilation, suicide bombings, or human sacrifice. Regarding taxation in general, citizens are required to “cede to [the government] some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
The 2nd Amendment is no different, and early lawmakers and Founding Fathers understood this. William Blackstone and James Wilson both supported 14th-Century English precedent which asserted, “Riding or Going Arm’d with dangerous and unusual Weapons to the Terror of the People, is an Offence at Common Law, and Prohibited by Statute” — or, as Wilson specifically noted, “[carrying] dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a manner, as will naturally diffuse a terrour among the people.”
This standard was upheld in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, along with 1939’s United States v. Miller precedent, that “the traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
In other words, the 2nd Amendment may be curbed in small ways to ensure the public safety, to avoid diffusing terror among the people, and to limit its protection to weapons in common usage. Herein we find the justification for banning nukes, tanks, RPGs, grenades, and fully automatic weapons like AK-47s and M-16s, which present more of a hazard to public safety than a reasonable check against tyranny.
Another check in favor of public safety is federal background checks, which is a small grievance compared with the extreme risk posed by granting violent felons unlimited access to firearms.
Finally, while the undeniable purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to secure the right of the people in order to stand up against a tyrannical government, this can be done without the aid of such extreme measures. If the War on Terror, Vietnam, and most importantly the Revolutionary War have taught us anything, it’s not to count out the little guy.
Libertarians:
Not all libertarians are anarchists. #NotAllLibertarians. There’s nothing wrong with reasonable restrictions such as those mentioned for free speech, religious liberty, and minimal taxation.
But the phrase “dangerous and unusual” is entirely subjective. Arguably, all firearms are dangerous, and depending on experience, training, and even video game history, a gun that is unusual to some might be perfectly normal to others.
Furthermore, the “common use” test is so slippery that could readily increase dangers to the American public and needlessly restrict natural rights. A gun should not be banned simply because it is has fallen out of style or is ahead of its time, any more than free speech should no longer apply to MySpace, telegrams, and rotary phones. Who deems a commodity “common”? And what of gun collectors, whose trade relies precisely on obtaining that which is not common? Are they no longer entitled to keep their uncommon arms?
Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with this conversation. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the people to adequately defend itself against a tyrannical government. There is no instance in which the people could use nukes against the government without incurring devastating casualties among civilians.
Fully automatic weapons and explosives are a different story. The Founders knew of and sanctioned early automatic weapons such as the Belton flintlock, Puckle gun, and Girandoni air rifle. In 2013, Ben Shapiro erroneously claimed that the 2nd Amendment didn’t extend to owning cannons, but James Madison recognized this very provision in 1812.
Modern semi-automatic rifles are undeniably protected under the 2nd Amendment despite being far more advanced than muskets. Wouldn’t it then stand to reason that an AR-15 is to a musket as an M-16 is to a Belton flintlock or as an RPG is to a cannon?
There is no public safety without the ability to confidently stand against a tyrannical government. Such an occasion is unlikely, but should it become necessary, that’s not the kind of thing to leave to chance. The American people must be suitably armed.
Bring it back in:
This is a compelling debate that I don’t quite know how to settle, and it’s not my intention to do so now. And in all honesty, given that millions of Americans and half the Supreme Court want a total gun confiscation anyway, this is pretty much just a hypothetical exercise in debate rather than a serious referendum on realistic policy.
At the very least, it’s a good space to practice consistency in your constitutional argumentation, so enjoy the practice!


Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Firearms and Ammunition on sale now: $150 off $1,000+ (use code: APRIL150)

Why Many Americans Will Rollover Their Retirement to a Self-Directed Precious Metals IRA in 2023

Covid variant BA.5 is spreading. It appears milder but much more contagious and evades natural immunity. Best to boost your immune system with new Z-Dtox and Z-Stack nutraceuticals from our dear friend, the late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.

Why We “Moderate” a Commentor’s First Post

Tags: 2nd Amendmentantonin scaliaConservativeFeaturedFree SpeechFreedom of ReligionGun ControlGunsJames WilsonLibertarianRight to Keep and Bear ArmstaxationTaxesTop Story
Previous Post

Does Planned Parenthood really want to see the destruction of the Right to Privacy with Intergalactic Background Checks?

Next Post

Cheap lives & Cheap Virtue: Help the Leftists show they are completely vulnerable to crime.

  • jay says:
    March 11, 2018 at 10:51 am

    very well written nice to see someone throw facts over emotion

  • Kathy Deles says:
    March 11, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    Excellent article. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

  • Bypass Big Tech Censors



    My Shows

    The JD Rucker Show (Rumble)
    The JD Rucker Podcast (Apple)
    America Out Loud (M-F 8pm ET)
    America First Report (Substack)
    The Late Prepper (Substack)
    End Medical Tyranny (Substack)

    Our Sponsors

     
    MyPillow Promo Code

    MyPatriotSupply

    Z-Stack Life

    Precious Metals

    Bypass Big Tech Censors

    RSS The Federalist

    • Louisville Shooter Killed Five To Get Firearms Banned — And Democrats Are Happy To Oblige
    • Transgender-Identified Montana Lawmaker Censured For ‘Hate-Filled’ Comments
    • Netflix’s ‘Beef’ Shows Nothing In The Secular World Can Fill Our Inner Void
    • Ex-CIA Official: Blinken Prompted Infamous Intel Statement Calling Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinfo
    • EXPLOSIVE: Whistleblower Points To Biden Admin Obstructing Hunter Biden Tax Probe

    RSS The Blaze

    • Officials bewildered by Texas cattle having genitalia and tongues removed with 'precision' cuts, no blood or tracks left behind
    • Deceased man was left to rot on a cruise because staff stored dead body in drink cooler, widow's lawsuit says
    • SCOTUS acts to keep abortion pill available for now
    • 'People want to see sports as non-political': Legendary coach Phil Jackson says he hasn't watched the NBA in years because it's 'too political'
    • Belgians destroy 2,352 cans Miller High Life because the 'Champagne of Beers' is not champagne

    RSS PJ Media

    • Working-class Houston Suburb Tries a Beautiful Way to Fight Crime, but With an Ugly Edge
    • 60 Minutes Steps Up to Defend Ray Epps, Who Is Absolutely Not a Fed, Oh No
    • John McCain's Widow: 'We All Knew What Epstein Was Doing'
    • The Global Balance of Population and Power Is Shifting
    • Netherlands to Legalize Government Euthanasia for Children as Young as One Year Old

    RSS National File

    • Virginia: Democrat Socialite, Uni-Party ‘Scion’ Arrested on Child Porn, Attempted Rape Charges
    • Horse Fisting Denver Riggleman Launches PAC to Oppose Gaetz, Freedom Caucus
    • FL Congressional Supporters of Trump Meet at Mar-a-Lago
    • Far Left Black Power Groups Charged for Being Agents of the Russian Government
    • White Woke Evangelicals Triggered By Tweet

    RSS Townhall

    • A Quick Bible Study, Vol. 162: ‘Christ In You’
    • ‘Woke Riots’ And How Democrats Created Them
    • Your Taxes at Work: ‘Eco-Anxiety’ Counseling
    • Nefarius: A Faith-Based Horror Film?
    • On Earth Day, Let Us Give Thanks for Fossil Fuels

    RSS RedState

    • Elon Drops Best Joke of the Day on Whiny Liberals in the 'Blue Check' War
    • US Embassy in Khartoum Evacuates Its Personnel, Families out of Sudan
    • University Has Students Confess They're a 'Product of a Heterosexist and Transphobic Culture'
    • LGBT Pride Parade in Florida Canceled for Incredibly Odd and Concerning Reason
    • Houston Suburb Decides the Best Way to Fight Crime Is... Planting Trees
    • About
    • Contact
    • Give

    © 2022 NOQ Report

    No Result
    View All Result
    • Home
      • About
      • Give
    • News
    • Opinions
    • Quotes
    • Around the Web
    • Videos
    • Podcasts

    © 2022 NOQ Report

    Session expired

    Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

    >