The Right to Bear Arms and Self Defense: Micro and Macro

by Gerard Emershaw

Human beings possess a natural right to life. Therefore, human beings have the right to defend their lives. If human beings do not possess a right to self defense, then their lives are not truly their own. Without the right to defend one’s life, one is essentially a slave. Human beings also possess the natural right to bear arms. This right is grounded in the right to defend oneself against government tyranny. However, this right also provides that human beings may defend their lives or the lives of others against those who would take them. A human being undeniably possesses the right to defend him or herself or to defend others against imminent physical harm.

Only individual human beings are the proper bearers of rights. However, collective entities such as corporations or nation-states can be the indirect bearers of rights through the rights directly held by individual human beings. A nation-state—or an society—is made up of a group of individual human beings. Such collectives are dependent upon the individuals. The individual human beings exist independently of society or the state, but society and the state cannot exist independently of the human beings who constitute them. Despite being metaphysically dependent upon the existence of the individuals who constitute them, nation-states possess quasi-rights to bear arms and to self defense because the individual citizens possess these rights.

The fact that nation-states are akin to human beings on a macrocosmic level means that several things are apparent. Just as human beings possess the right to bear arms in the form of guns, nation-states possess the quasi-right to bear arms in the form of nuclear missiles and other “weapons of mass destruction.” To say that a nation such as Iran does not have a right to possess nuclear weapons is like saying a specific human being does not possess the right to possess a handgun. One who is not an absolutist concerning the Second Amendment may argue that there are cases where one does not have the right to bear arms—e.g. if one is a convicted criminal, mentally ill, etc. Nations which are typically called “rogue” nations or labeled state sponsors of terrorism are typically far less “criminal” than many nations that are not so labeled. The atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, and Communist China are well documented, yet Russia and China are nuclear nations, and Germany and Italy are NATO nuclear weapon sharing states. Iran is a despotic nation, however, the modern Islamic Republic of Iran has never instigated a war. Iran has never used a weapon of mass destruction—though it has been a victim of Iraqi chemical weapons that the United States aided Iraq in acquiring. While one may claim that Iranian fundamentalist Islam makes the nation akin to being mentally ill, this would also have to apply to nuclear nations like Pakistan. It is also unclear why only Muslim fundamentalists are labeled “mentally ill.” Why not Christian fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists or Jewish fundamentalists? There are many religious fundamentalists in the United States, India, and Israel, and these are all nuclear nations. Thus, while nuclear proliferation is not a good thing, all nations possess the quasi-right to self defense, and in the modern era of neoconservative wars of aggression and regime change, self defense on a macrocosmic nation-state level requires the possession of nuclear weapons.

The macrocosmic quasi-right to self defense that nation-states possess is akin to the genuine natural right to self defense that human beings possess. The boundaries and limits of self defense at the macrocosmic level—i.e. war—can be determined through analogy by considering the boundaries and limits of self defense among human beings.

The basic right of self defense is that one may use violent force against another in order to defend oneself or others from imminent harm. The amount of force legally permitted is typically the reasonable amount necessary to protect oneself and/or others from this imminent harm. Deadly force may be used where necessary. Of course, there are differences in the legal concept of self defense in different jurisdictions. Recent cases involving state laws such as “stand your ground” in Florida and the legal use of deadly force to protect property in Texas have produced much controversy and debate. However, no particular formulation of the doctrine of self defense allows someone to use any force at all against someone who does not pose imminent harm. One may not physically attack a neighbor because that neighbor might pose harm in the future. One may not physically attack a neighbor because that neighbor recently bought a gun. One may not physically attack a neighbor because that neighbor poses some sort of threat to one’s economic interests—e.g. one may not attack his or her neighbor because that neighbor is an ex-con who served time in prison for burglary or robbery. If preemptive self defense in cases like these is unacceptable, then so is preemptive war. The Iraq War was illegitimate. So was American military intervention in Libya. Unless Syria or Iran attack the United States or appear on the verge of doing so, military action against these nations would also be illegitimate.

American entry into World War II was legitimate because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The United States had the quasi-right to defend itself—i.e. defend its citizens and residents—against imminent harm from foreign aggressors. While American entry into World War I was wrongheaded, the United States Congress had the right to defend its allies—the United Kingdom, France, etc.—from imminent harm just as a human being possesses the right to use force to defend his or her friends, family, or neighbors from imminent harm. A similar argument can be made to justify the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars. Of course, it goes without saying that such foreign entanglements are dangerous and a quick path to eventual economic collapse as was the case with the Roman and British Empires. It also goes without saying that even a just war in defense of allies is illegitimate if it is unconstitutionally waged without a proper Congressional declaration of war.

The Afghanistan War was also illegitimate. While the United States had a right to defend itself against Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda cell and to seek justice for the crimes committed in the 9/11 attacks, it did not have the right to use deadly force against the Taliban government of Afghanistan. As unsavory as the Taliban was, it was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Even if one argues that the United States had the right to use the force necessary to capture or kill bin Laden and his accomplices, this did not entail using the kind of “shock and awe” level military aggression that brought about regime change in Afghanistan. This is akin to using deadly force against a person whose crime is harboring a fugitive. While justice dictates that this crime must be punished, deadly force is unjustified in such cases unless the person harboring the fugitive is posing imminent harm to others.

A related issue is how much military force is justified in exercising a nation-state’s quasi-right to self defense. A human being may not use deadly force if less force is adequate to protect him or her or to protect others from harm. If one is slapped by another person, he or she does not have a right to pull out a pistol and shoot the slappy assailant in the skull. Therefore, the use of “shock and awe” level military aggression is also illegitimate. Forcing unconditional surrender and bringing about regime change is unjustified. For example, there was no reason to use the atomic bombs against Japan at the end of World War II given that Japan was already beaten and sought to sue for peace. The result of the Gulf War—where the war ended after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait is far more consistent with the use of defense of others.

In conclusion, nation-states possess the quasi-right to self defense. This means that nation-states may acquire and possess nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves. This means that nation-states may go to war in order to defend themselves or allies from imminent harm. However, nation-states possess no right to engage in preemptive war. Nation-states also possess no right to use any more force than is necessary to remove the imminent harm to itself or to its allies posed by an aggressor nation-state.