R: The Second Amendment Improves Society

There are few things around which American conservatives coalesce more than the Second Amendment. The right of firearm ownership has been a hallmark of the Republican Party and broader American right for decades, and, as was on display in the recent presidential debate, conservative politicians continue to play into fears that the power-hungry left is seeking to take away citizens’ guns. Yet, while few conservatives would argue in favor of repealing the two-hundred-year-old amendment, it remains worthy of consideration whether the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” really has made America a better place. This debate seeks to weigh the merits of widespread gun ownership with its social ramifications, asking members to reconsider their positive associations with something so ingrained in the conservative mind.

The affirmative does not merely fall upon the tired tropes and statistics surrounding the gun debate, but rather points to the positive benefit of having firearms in society. The Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted among men in order to protect their rights. But when a government fails in its ability to secure those rights, custody transfers back to the individual. Therefore, societies with widespread gun usage are safer, more cohesive, and more responsible: the citizens maintain an extra line of defense when the government, hampered by bureaucracy or malintent, fails to act. Firearms—which many victims have dubbed “the great equalizers”—ensure that those who wish to do harm will pay the ultimate price for their actions. To the affirmative, guns are not a necessary evil, but a positive good.

The negative cautions against the assumption that the prevalence of guns in American society actually makes it better. Alexis de Tocqueville spoke of “self interest well-understood” as the defining feature of the American economy. In other words, Americans use selfishness as a way of lifting each other up. A similar parallel could be drawn with weapons: guns rely on the assumption that mutual self-interest will curtail others’ abilities to hurt you. While the results may be beneficial, the means are anything but, leading to a society with a complete disintegration of trust. In addition, because the human will is bent towards sin, the addition of guns to society does nothing to actively improve morality: it only makes those sins which are committed more dangerous. In short, when everyone is armed, no one is.

Is the Second Amendment inherently utilitarian? Will we ever be able to truly give a “farewell to arms?” And is it possible to love your neighbor as yourself with a gun behind your back?