One of the undeniable attributes of sovereignty is the right of self defense, or put another way, the right to exclude by whatever means necessary. If you cannot prevent other people from taking something that belongs to you, you cannot be said to truly possess it. If you cannot exclude people from your home, then it doesn’t really belong to you. As a country, without the ability to defend your borders from invaders, you cannot be said to be in control of it. Any intrusion into these things must be done consensually – you invite people to your home, you give them your property as gifts, or you – through a legitimately elected government – enter into treaties or laws that allow foreign nationals to stay in your country.
Likewise, if you cannot protect yourself from either another individual or an illegitimate government, then you cannot be said to truly possess your freedom. You are no longer sovereign. And that’s why Conservatives, who are interested in conserving the natural sovereignty of the individual, consider the right to keep and bear arms so critical.
That’s why, because of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC v. Heller (554 U.S. ___ (2008)) recognizing the 2nd Amendment’s protection of the individual right to own a firearm for self defense, it’s a great day for American Conservatism today. (A great legal breakdown and discussion is going on over at the Volokh Conspiracy.)
Had the decision come out the other way, the Federal government would have been free to disarm any portion of the population that it liked. State constitutional protections for gun ownership could have been rendered completely moot, when coupled with the absurdly expanded Commerce Clause jurisprudence that justifies federal firearm regulation in the first place. American individuals would have been entirely dependent on others for their protection, creating sub-classes of people who are dependent on others – a clear recipe for a more stratified and class-based society, despite the Progressive protestations that this isn’t what they ever would want.
To me, one of the most striking things about the decision was the understanding that just one different person on the court – just one – could have had the practical effect of deleting the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. (If the right to keep and bear arms is limited to militias, and we have no more state militias…)
Elections matter. Who the president is matters. Anyone who complains that McCain is just as liberal as Obama, or that McCain isn’t conservative enough to vote for at all needs to have this drilled into their heads at least hourly until November. Had John Kerry defeated George Bush in 2004, this vote would have been 6-3 the other direction, and a right that is inherent to us all and has been recognized widely for the past 300 years in the western Classical Liberal tradition would have simply vanished. Our society would have become substantially less free, and substantially more dangerous.
Worst of all, though – if the Supreme Court can take away this fundamental right, they can take others away as well. A free people must sometimes take up arms against a government which has so eviscerated their rights that the government can no longer be said to be legitimate – but it’s a heck of a lot less messy to vote correctly in the first place…
