Gordon Fink
Member
Forget linguistic and Constitutional arguments for a moment. Instead, consider the idea of inalienable sovereign rights.
One of the founding principles of the United Sates is “that all Men are created equal.…†This principle has been enshrined legally and is known as equal protection under the law. Philosophically and legally, therefore, no one should have special rights in the United States.
So what are sovereign rights? A sovereign individual is independent from other individuals, having complete authority over his own life. In other words, he owns himself and is free to determine his own destiny. By comparison, the United States of America, as a sovereign nation-state, own its own territory and is idependent from other states.
Historically, however, individuals were not always treated as sovereign beings. In fact, they were often divided into different ranks, classes, or castes. These groups did not have equal rights. The “commoners†had few, if any, rights, while the “nobles†enjoyed many rights and privileges.
One of these “noble†rights was the right to keep and bear arms. Outside of military service, which was usually conscripted at that, commoners were forbidden weapons. In fact, it was this monopoly on arms that allowed the nobles to maintain their control over the vastly more numerous commoners. Thus, by force of arms, the nobles could deny the commoners of any freedom at a whim—including freedoms we now consider sovereign human rights. Disarmed, the commoners lacked the means to resist tyranny, and therefore tyranny remained the normal state of human affairs for thousands of years.
When the United States of America was established, as the first democratic republic of the modern era, its founders took an unprecedented step. They declared “that all Men are created equal†and eliminated the legal distinction between “commoner†and “noble.†Americans would be equal before the law, enjoying equal rights and privileges.
Setting aside this history for a moment, though, let’s return to the idea of a sovereign nation-state. No one would deny that a nation-state has the right to defend itself and its interests through the use of armed force. However, if the state derives its authority from its sovereign citizens, its citizens must share this right. If we fail to recognize this fact, then we must also accept that our “freedom†is no more than a house of cards, as the state would have the power and, indeed, the legal authority to deny its subjects of any rights or privileges.
However, the Founders also provided us with a saving grace. They recognized that sovereign rights are inalienable. They can neither be surrendered nor taken away. We have these rights—among them, the right to arms—even when they are suppressed by a tyrannical regime. The only just way to suppress an individual citizen’s rights is through due process of law.
This brings us full circle, back to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment to that document says: “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.†In short, we have no special classes of citizen (equal protection), and persons may be deprived of their rights only on an individual basis (due process).
To declare that a broad category of citizens does not have a right to arms or to free expression or to privacy is to reject the idea of inalienable sovereign rights. It is to deny that humans are independent, self-governing beings. It is to accept that tyranny and all its potential abuses are morally and legally justified. It is to embrace slavery, discrimination, and genocide. It is to agree, finally, that might makes right.
In the end, rights are an all-or-nothing affair. If you allow even one to be infringed, you must accept that all will be diminished. Rights may be abused, but to prevent that abuse by suppressing the right is to invite the abuses of tyranny in its place. The right to keep and bear arms is especially important in this respect, because it is the one right that gives common citizens the effective means to resist tyranny, whether at the hand of the petty criminal or the despotic state.
~G. Fink
One of the founding principles of the United Sates is “that all Men are created equal.…†This principle has been enshrined legally and is known as equal protection under the law. Philosophically and legally, therefore, no one should have special rights in the United States.
So what are sovereign rights? A sovereign individual is independent from other individuals, having complete authority over his own life. In other words, he owns himself and is free to determine his own destiny. By comparison, the United States of America, as a sovereign nation-state, own its own territory and is idependent from other states.
Historically, however, individuals were not always treated as sovereign beings. In fact, they were often divided into different ranks, classes, or castes. These groups did not have equal rights. The “commoners†had few, if any, rights, while the “nobles†enjoyed many rights and privileges.
One of these “noble†rights was the right to keep and bear arms. Outside of military service, which was usually conscripted at that, commoners were forbidden weapons. In fact, it was this monopoly on arms that allowed the nobles to maintain their control over the vastly more numerous commoners. Thus, by force of arms, the nobles could deny the commoners of any freedom at a whim—including freedoms we now consider sovereign human rights. Disarmed, the commoners lacked the means to resist tyranny, and therefore tyranny remained the normal state of human affairs for thousands of years.
When the United States of America was established, as the first democratic republic of the modern era, its founders took an unprecedented step. They declared “that all Men are created equal†and eliminated the legal distinction between “commoner†and “noble.†Americans would be equal before the law, enjoying equal rights and privileges.
Setting aside this history for a moment, though, let’s return to the idea of a sovereign nation-state. No one would deny that a nation-state has the right to defend itself and its interests through the use of armed force. However, if the state derives its authority from its sovereign citizens, its citizens must share this right. If we fail to recognize this fact, then we must also accept that our “freedom†is no more than a house of cards, as the state would have the power and, indeed, the legal authority to deny its subjects of any rights or privileges.
However, the Founders also provided us with a saving grace. They recognized that sovereign rights are inalienable. They can neither be surrendered nor taken away. We have these rights—among them, the right to arms—even when they are suppressed by a tyrannical regime. The only just way to suppress an individual citizen’s rights is through due process of law.
This brings us full circle, back to the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment to that document says: “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.†In short, we have no special classes of citizen (equal protection), and persons may be deprived of their rights only on an individual basis (due process).
To declare that a broad category of citizens does not have a right to arms or to free expression or to privacy is to reject the idea of inalienable sovereign rights. It is to deny that humans are independent, self-governing beings. It is to accept that tyranny and all its potential abuses are morally and legally justified. It is to embrace slavery, discrimination, and genocide. It is to agree, finally, that might makes right.
In the end, rights are an all-or-nothing affair. If you allow even one to be infringed, you must accept that all will be diminished. Rights may be abused, but to prevent that abuse by suppressing the right is to invite the abuses of tyranny in its place. The right to keep and bear arms is especially important in this respect, because it is the one right that gives common citizens the effective means to resist tyranny, whether at the hand of the petty criminal or the despotic state.
~G. Fink
