It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong - Andrew P. Napolitano [75]
In addition, the right to keep and bear arms removes a monopoly of force (i.e., the government) and creates a pluralistic use of force, which is the power of multiple individuals. This in turn creates a respect for Natural Law and other natural rights, such as property. As James A. Donald, a libertarian commentator, explains,
122
Similarly a belief in natural rights tends to result in pluralistic use of force, because people obviously have the right to defend their rights, whereas disbelief in natural rights tends to lead to an absolute monopoly of force to ensure that the state will have the necessary power to crush people’s rights and to sacrifice individuals, groups, and categories of people for the greater good.1
Without this right, we would be unable to defend our property from others and our own government. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of this natural, or fundamental, right and created the Second Amendment, so as to assure that no government in America could infringe upon it.
Enacted in 1791, the Second Amendment states, “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.” While the language of the Second Amendment appears clear, controversy over the true meaning of the language swirls to this day. Yet, controversy did not always surround the idea of protecting the right to self-defense. The 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protects a right to keep arms for self-defense. And when James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was the least “debated” amendment.
In fact, the right to bear arms was not debated at all at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. During the 1788 state ratification debates, Federalists and anti-Federalists often campaigned on opposing platforms. However, on this issue, there was a consensus regarding the importance of the right to own and use guns. But politics being politics, a “debate” ensued. On one side, anti-Federalists lobbied for the right out of a fear the government would disarm individuals and impose a standing army or select militia. On the other side, Federalists argued the right was adequately protected because the Constitution embodied the limited powers of the federal government.2 Consequently, the “debate” turned into a competition as to who would take credit with constituents for the virtues of the Second Amendment.
123
The Founders formed a consensus as to the meaning of the amendment. The Second Amendment is not a collective right, but rather an individual right. There is no record of the Founders viewing a “well regulated Militia” as only state militias, such as the National Guard or police departments, but rather the sum of individuals in a state who choose to create a militia. Furthermore, “the right of the people” in the Constitution is always in reference to individuals, not to some state entity.
The Founders may have agreed on the necessity and meaning of the Second Amendment, but subsequent governments fought to curtail this right. However, because the right to keep and bear arms is a modern-day extension of the right to self-defense, it is natural, or fundamental, and these governments had no legal authority to take away an absolute right without due process. Yet, despite the unconstitutionality of their actions and the clarity of the Founders’ vision,