The Pros And Cons Of Private Gun Ownership

Do citizens have a “serious right to bear arms”? This is a normal question, not a Constitutional one. For the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does in fact grant this right, but it should be determine if there are sufficiently compelling arguments against private gun ownership to warrant changing the Constitution. On the other hand, if this were not a constitutional right, we should determine if there are strong reasons why the state should not ban or control guns, and if these reasons are sufficiently compelling to make this a constitutional right. Most protectors of private gun ownership claim we do have a moral right as well as a constitutional one and that this right is not an ordinary right, but a fundamental one. If they are

The world is a very scary place with many bad people who own guns as well. Because bad people do not obey laws anyway, they always will own guns. Many believe the only way to avoid being an automatic victim is to own a gun that you either carry as a concealed weapon or to have one at home in a specific place so that you might thwart a home intruder. Because a gun is a tool that can be used for good or for ill, it is the position of the gun owners that they should be allowed to own and carry guns. Much of this reasoning is cogent. The argument reasonably grounds the right to gun ownership in self-protection while insisting that what merits protection is the means of effective self-defense. Gun control many be unacceptable to many Americans because it would violate our right to liberty. This violation could occur in several ways. First, by limiting the weapons one may use and the circumstances under which one may obtain them, gun control could violate one’s liberty to defend oneself as one sees fit. Is there such a right? There is a right to self-defense. And it makes sense that one should enjoy considerable discretion, in exercising this right, as to how one might defend oneself. But, surely, legitimate discretion has limits. As the Supreme Court stated, the right to bear arms “is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For this reason, gun

This is very important because some gun advocates believe that accounting for gun rights defeats the case of gun control by outmaneuvering consequentialist arguments in its favor. People have a basic right of physical security. Although some of the details of what this rights implications are controversial. For example, there are rights not to be assaulted, raped, murdered, and tortured. There is also, again, a right to self-defense, which permits one to try to prevent others from violating one’s right of physical security. It is vital to appreciate that the principle base of ethics argument is not a redundant overlay to the consequentialist argument of gun control, even if both arguments are tightly connected with considerations of safety. After all, many rights theorists think of rights as (ordinarily) trumping appeals to the general welfare or consequentialist considerations and constraining attempts to promote the general welfare (DeGrazia,