We have all heard the arguments for and against so called “gun control.”
“More guns, more crime!”
“More guns, less crime!”
You know the usual arguments from both the left and the right. But what about an argument that came from a higher source than the political spectrum?
Ever think about how justice and natural law come into play with this particular area? They do.
Gun control is an injustice for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that it punished people that do not commit crime. When a new gun law is passed, the law abiding citizen will comply and live by the law. However, in the process, he was actually the one punished, not the criminal or the mass shooter.
Do you think they will care if what they do is illegal? Of course not, because they do it! What has been done is an injustice, because the criminals do not pay for the crime. In fact, they are the biggest beneficiaries of strict gun laws. You need look no further than a place like Chicago for evidence of that. The losers are law abiding citizens, the winners are gun grabbing politicians and crime syndicates.
Ask yourself this: what does nature do for self-preservation? It has many built in features that provide for the self-preservation. For example, bears have claws and sharp teeth, so that when a predator comes along to attack and take a mother’s cubs, she can adequately and effectively fend off those predators.
Now let’s use government logic.
“A mother bear recently mauled a mountain lion with her scary looking claws and high capacity teeth. No one needs such scary looking claws or that many teeth.”
Does this sound absolutely ridiculous? Of course it does, because ridding an animal of its ability to defend itself and offspring from predators is a part of its nature.
So why, when we come to human beings, do some people say that no one needs a firearm to defend themself? Are human beings not worthy of self-defense like nature?
In the criteria set forth by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, any human law that defies the natural is not a law at all. Gun control defies natural in that the instinct of self-preservation is denied to some while granted to others.
Thomas also said that no one must be above the law as well. So how is it that Mayor Bloomberg was allowed to have armed security guards while the other 99% of New York City residents cannot obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun? It really is the 99% vs. the 1%, huh?
In the case of gun control, though, the government is not concerned with what is just or what complies with natural law. Why? Because it does not benefit them. These Machiavellian politicians really do not know or care what the results of their experiments are so long as they get them implemented.
Is it easy to legislate with true justice, being guided by natural law? Of course not, but law is meant for the common good (or at least supposedly we are told). But politicians don’t do this, as it doesn’t help them get re-elected and line their pockets.
You don’t have to tell us that though, tell it to those who are killed in places like Chicago and New York. Where was there natural right to self-preservation Mayor Bloomberg? Perhaps a shift in perspective is needed, to go after those who actually commit the crime, and leave those who do nothing less than living in natural law.
A gun is the greatest equalizer in society. What could be more just than allowing a 90 year old woman to resist a 25 year old would-be-rapist by the legal use of a firearm? It’s not that complicated, it’s just common sense.
Views expressed are not put forth or endorsed by Red Millennial.