Citation

Ponzer H. Essays in philosophy 2015; 16(2): 204-216.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015)

DOI

10.7710/1526-0569.1532

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The debate about whether the United States federal government should or should not enact gun control regulations typically does not get very far. The public discussion is usually dominated by two ideologically distinct points of view that are so entrenched in their own set of beliefs that neither side adequately understands the other. Instead of having a constructive debate, each side simply asserts its own reasons either for or against gun control with little regard for why the other holds a different position. The ideological divide is about whether the federal government has the constitutional authority, given the Second Amendment, to place legal constraints on the ownership as well as the sale and distribution of guns. The gun advocate argument is most often based on the principle of limited government. The general idea is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights codify limits to government power that prohibit the infringement upon the right of all American citizens to own guns. The intent of the Second Amendment would therefore be to keep the federal government from overreaching its constitutional authority. According to this argument, any form of gun control on the federal level would be unconstitutional because it would exceed the enumerated powers of the government. The argument is not against gun control per se, but about the constitutional right of the federal government to get involved. Except for extreme cases, the belief is that gun control regulations should be decided by each individual state. On the other side of the ideological divide is the idea of an energetic federal government. This view is based on the Implied Powers reading of the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' of the Constitution, according to which the federal government is permitted to enact any laws that are requisite (necessary) in order to fulfill its responsibilities to the people. In this case, the argument in favor of gun control is that the federal government is obligated to place legally binding regulations on the ownership, sale and distribution of guns to protect the American people against the threat of violence. Thus, the enactment of gun control regulations should not be allocated to the states alone for the reason that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect the American people.


The unfortunate result of this ideological battle is an ever-widening rift in the United States on the gun question that continues to grow without much hope for effective solutions or political compromise. However, the need to get beyond this impasse is particularly urgent at the present moment due to the many incidents of arbitrary and senseless mass shootings around the country in recent years.

In the following, the author presents a case for federally mandated gun control regulations. Specifically, the author argues--with reference to The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights--that the principle of limited government often used against federal gun control laws actually provides legitimate justification for them. The aim is to persuade gun advocates to accept such regulations from their own point of view.

Language: en