The Moral Issues of the 2nd Amendment

The Constitution explicitly protects it, a unalienable right.  It is the first thing suppressed by all major tyrannical governments throughout history.  Even the most honored, respected, religious leaders command it;  why?

The Constitution

One of the best lines written by the founding fathers was “…shall not be infringed.”  It contains an idea so simple yet so profound.  It is an absolute of the slightest.  The “shall not” leaves zero room for any excuses or exceptions and the word “infringed” means “to encroach upon.”  Not just a violate but to simply attempt to violate or get near or close to violation.  (Not that it is even listened to now-a-days, that’s what that word means none the less.)  So, it is clear, with the explicit words used by the founding fathers in the 2nd Amendment, a common person with a basic education can understand this absolute statement.

Now why did the authors and signers of the 2nd Amendment feel it was important to include?  Well, from their personal experiences.  The British were beginning to impose strict Gun Control as the colonies began to become more resistant.  “The Shot Heard Around The World” was caused by a British unit going to seize colonial arms.  The colonialist heard about it, and when there to defend their firearms and some dickhead British troop, took the first shot.  The American Revolution began when Americans used their firearms to resist house-to-house gun and powder confiscation at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. The attempted confiscation was part of a royal plan to disarm America, set in motion by King George III’s October 1774 embargo on the shipment of firearms and gunpowder to America.

The Great State of Texas even is famous for their defense and resistance of Gun Control enforcement.  The flag that reads, “Come and Take It” was directly made in opposition to Santa Anna of the Mexican Army demanding the Texans hand over their canon.  And this lead up to a war that won them their independence as a sovereign country before joining the United States.

#1 Moral Objection to Gun Control:  The Necessary Tool of Oppression.

The United States

The Confederation of States prohibited slaves from owning weapons.  But that started long before the Confederacy.  Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to “shoot to kill.”   Virginia’s response to Turner’s Rebellion prohibited free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…” The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks.  Nat Turner’s Rebellion was as successful as it was, largely in part to the access and use of firearms.

Native American restrictions

the Cherokee Rebellion. The war was a conflict between British forces in North America and Cherokee Indian tribes during the French and Indian War in 1758–1761; but the Cherokees had failed because of a shortage of gunpowder.  British commander in chief General Amherst decided in February 1761 to cut back on he amount of ammunition and gunpowder that traders could sell to Indians.  Amherst hoped that future uprisings could be prevented by restricting it.  Many believed that the British were disarming them as a prelude to making war.

The Wounded Knee Massacre, also called the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a domestic massacre of several hundred Lakota Indians, almost half of whom were women and children, by soldiers of the United States Army that occurred on December 29, 1890, following a botched attempt to disarm the Lakota camp. On the morning of December 29, the U.S. Cavalry troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota.  A search of the camp confiscated 38 rifles, and more rifles were taken as the soldiers searched the Indians. None of the old men were found to be armed.  One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.  Black Coyote’s rifle went off at that point, and the U.S. army began shooting at the Native Americans. The Lakota warriors fought back, but many had already been stripped of their guns and disarmed.

Consider the massacre at Wounded Knee in South Dakota on Dec. 29, 1890. After the United States 7th Cavalry confiscated the firearms of a group of Lakota Sioux “for their own safety and protection at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation,” 297 Indians were murdered.  After the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms, the Calvary began shooting and wiped out the camp; 200 of the dead were women and children. Government employees, government sanctioned behavior.

Human History

Nazi Gun Control

We can go straight to the actions of Nazi Germany.  An author of a well written Article stated this: “While much of the early gun prohibition was created with supposedly good intent, Halbrook carefully and meticulously details how a change in political regime facilitated manipulating some well-intentioned gun registration laws and other gun prohibition to be used in inconceivable ways.[1]”   Hitler purposefully disarmed Jews.  The prohibitions enacted by the Nazi regime led to monopoly control of firearms by the Nazis and eliminated the ability of many groups in society to defend themselves.  Germany seemed to have reasons to enact laws. After WW1, when there were no established policies or laws pertaining to firearm ownership. Concern about firearms not being turned in after the war and conflict between extremist groups and the government led to the implementation of gun control laws.  But the laws were subsequently used to provide the government with complete control over gun ownership, creating registries of gun and ammunition ownership, which ultimately fell into the hands of the Nazis.

At the end of January 1933, and the immediate utilization of the Weimar gun control policies to begin the Nazi campaign to seize arms and eradicate the so-called “enemies of the state” (all of whom were tagged as Communists).  This was in 1933!   Then, check this out; less than a month later, Hitler and Göring convinced President Hindenburg that an emergency (COVID-19!) decree was needed, which ultimately gave the Nazis the ability to eliminate constitutional assurances of liberty and free speech, a free press, the ability to assemble (Stay-at-home orders!), and the right to privacy in personal communications.  Furthermore, search and seizure of homes was authorized. This carte blanche for search and seizure essentially became the modus operandi of the Third Reich.

Heinrich Himmler, “Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as having guns doesn’t serve the State.”

By the end of March, Hitler had succeeded in passing the “Enabling Law” which gave him the ability to create laws as he wished, with no requirement for consultation. Following this, the confiscation of weapons escalated. Municipal governments were informed that military weapons and ammunition had to be surrendered by the end of March.  Jews were not forbidden to own firearms until 1938, but the raid led to confiscations and arrests. The 1928 Firearms Law was utilized to identify the so-called enemies of the state, locate them, interview them, and subsequently confiscate their weapons, thereby increasing Nazi control and eliminating private ownership of firearms from the majority of society.

Confiscated firearms were redistributed to the police and concentration camp guards. The number of searches and arrests continued to escalate, and with the adoption of the Nürnberg Laws in September 1935, Germans or those with ‘kindred blood’ were decreed as citizens, leaving the Jews without citizenship and consequently, without civil rights. A new weapons law was drafted in November that would also forbid Jews from operating in the firearms industry.

Jews had been systematically disarmed, and their identity and locations were now on file with local police.

Now, lets look back.  The Pre-Nazi Germany government required the registration of all firearms SO THAT they could prevent Socialist radical, for “public safety” and then promised this registry would never by used by any extremest group.  But In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” [3].

Communist USSR Gun Control

The government had made it a point to “arm the working people” in the Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited People in January 1918.  Then, 12 months later, the December decree of the CPC of 1918, “On the surrender of weapons”, ordered people to surrender any firearms, swords, bayonets and bombs, regardless of the degree of serviceability. The penalty for not doing so was ten years’ imprisonment.  Members of the Communist Party were allowed to have a single weapon (a pistol or a rifle) and possession of the weapon was recorded in the party membership book.  But, everyone else was left defenseless.

On December 12, 1924 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR promulgated its degree “On the procedure of production, trade, storage, use, keeping and carrying firearms, firearm ammunition, explosive projectiles and explosives”, all weapons were classified and divided into categories. Now the weapons permitted for personal possession by ordinary citizens could only be smoothbore hunting shotguns.

During the Great Patriotic War, the civilian population had to hand over all the personal hunting weapons to the Red Army for defence against the German invasion.  The same was true for weapons left by retreating German invaders in the war. They were to be surrendered to Red Army troops.

Some historians estimated that the number of civilians killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher.  After the USSR dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953), around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag some 390,000 deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s – with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.

He forced basically defenseless farmers to shift what they grew and where to send all the food, causing the deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million persons in the famine of 1932–33.

Communist China and Gun Control

Mao Zedong remarked “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” in 1927 and 1938, a sentiment that was continued after winning the civil war. The country’s strict centralized stance on gun control was officially instated in the country in 1966, and extended in 1996 when the government banned the buying, selling and transporting of firearms without official permission. Airsoft guns are also practically prohibited due to the Ministry of Public Security dictating very restrictive new criteria that rendered most such toy guns being defined as real firearms.

The Chinese Communist Party came to power in China in 1949 after a long and bloody civil war between communists and nationalists. There is a general consensus among historians that after Mao Zedong seized power, his policies and political purges directly or indirectly caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. Based on the Soviets’ experience, Mao considered violence to be necessary in order to achieve an ideal society that would be derived from Marxism and as a result he planned and executed violence on a grand scale.  The first large-scale killings under Mao took place during his land reform and the counterrevolutionary campaign. In official study materials that were published in 1948, Mao envisaged that “one-tenth of the peasants” (or about 50,000,000) “would have to be destroyed” to facilitate agrarian reform.[151] The exact number of people who were killed during Mao’s land reform is believed to have been lower, but at least one million people were killed. The suppression of counterrevolutionaries targeted mainly former Kuomintang officials and intellectuals who were suspected of disloyalty. At least 712,000 people were executed while 1,290,000 were imprisoned in labor camps.

Benjamin Valentino claims that the Great Leap Forward was a cause of the Great Chinese Famine and the worst effects of the famine were steered towards the regime’s enemies. Those who were labeled “black elements” (religious leaders, rightists and rich peasants) in earlier campaigns died in the greatest numbers because they were given the lowest priority in the allocation of food. In Mao’s Great Famine, historian Frank Dikötter writes that “coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward” and it “motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history”.  Dikötter estimates that at least 2.5 million people were summarily killed or tortured to death during this period.  His research in local and provincial Chinese archives indicates the death toll was at least 45 million: “In most cases the party knew very well that it was starving its own people to death”. In a secret meeting at Shanghai in 1959, Mao issued the order to procure one third of all grain from the countryside, saying: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill“. In light of additional evidence of Mao’s culpability, Rummel added those killed by the Great Famine to his total for Mao’s democide for a total of 77 million killed.

Sinologists Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals estimate that between 750,000 and 1.5 million people were killed in the violence of the Cultural Revolution in rural China alone. Mao’s Red Guards were given carte blanche to abuse and kill people who were perceived to be enemies of the revolution. For example, in August 1966, over 100 teachers were murdered by their students in western Beijing.

The Chinese communists carried out a cultural genocide against the Tibetans. Margolin states that the killings were proportionally larger in Tibet than they were in China proper and “one can legitimately speak of genocidal massacres because of the numbers that were involved”. According to the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration, “Tibetans were not only shot, but they were also beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned, mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive, drawn and quartered, and beheaded”. Adam Jones, a scholar who specializes in genocide, notes that after the 1959 Tibetan uprising the Chinese authorized struggle sessions against reactionaries, during which “communist cadres denounced, tortured, and frequently executed enemies of the people”. These sessions resulted in 92,000 deaths out of a total population of about 6 million

The Tiananmen Square protests were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square in Beijing during 1989. The popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests is sometimes called the ’89 Democracy Movement. The protests started on April 15 and were forcibly suppressed on June 4 when the government declared martial law and sent the military to occupy central parts of Beijing. In what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre.  Troops with assault rifles and tanks fired at the demonstrators and those trying to block the military’s advance into Tiananmen Square. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

The people of China keep getting murdered by their government, and they are unable to fight back due to gun control, enacted a long time ago.

Venezuela Socialist Gun Control

The socialist dictator, President Nicolas Maduro, enforces a six-year-old gun control bill that stripped citizens of their weapons.  “Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador.

Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.

Chavez initially ran a months-long amnesty program encouraging Venezuelans to trade their arms for electrical goods. That year, there were only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders, while the majority of seizures – more than 12,500 – were by force.

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,” Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.  If guns had been a stronger part of our culture, if there had been a sense of duty for one to protect their individual rights, and as a show of force against a government power – and had legal carry been a common thing – it would have made a huge difference,” he lamented.

On January 23, 2019, Venezuelan security forces used force to disperse massive anti-government demonstrations. Other anti-government protests have also taken place, including in low-income areas where the government has traditionally enjoyed strong support. Venezuelan media outlets and civil society groups reported 26 people killed, use of teargas by security agents against demonstrators, and 364 people detained. Security forces have also allegedly attacked and detained several journalists covering the protests.


The Killing Fields are a number of sites in Cambodia where large numbers of people were killed and buried by the Khmer Rouge regime during its rule of the country from 1975 to 1979, after the end of the Cambodian Civil War.  The results of a demographic study of the Cambodian genocide concluded that the nationwide death toll from 1975 to 1979 amounted to 1,671,000 to 1,871,000, or 21 to 24 percent of the total Cambodian population before the Khmer Rouge took power.

And we can go on and on…

East Berlin…
Socialist Republic of Romania…
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia…
North Korea…

Each and EVERY oppressive government depends on and enforces Gun Control…

The key point here, is EVERY IMMORAL GENOCIDAL LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT begins with Gun Control.  Therefore, Gun Control is a necessary tool for oppressionThe support of Gun Control is an argument that justifies the actions that historically lead to genocide.

#2 Moral Objection to Gun Control:  It Fosters The Desire to Have Self-righteous Power Over Other People

Why do you care if your neighbor has a semi-automatic rifle?  Why does it matter to you that some guy, 5 states away, owns a full-automatic rifle?  Do you care that a complete stranger, somewhere else, living his own life, owns weapons?

How are you to dictate and advocate how someone else defends themselves and their family?  Are you their master, lord, governor, ruler, and king?

Are they your subject, or slave, that you can tell them what is best for them?

Gun Control offers a subtle feeling of being self-righteous with POWER over someone else.  A feeling of being more righteous and more morally strong than someone else.

Historically, we see all these Gun Control laws enacted largely based on the premise of “for public safety” or “the common good.”  But, history also proves that eventually, at some point in time, the Self-righteous power, morally corrupts those who have the power.

(1) An Argument here then is, “But what if evil people can buy guns?”  This is always a failed argument used by the ignorant, blinded by their desire for self-righteous power, because humans have been killing mass humans before guns were even invented.  Humans, will continue to kill humans because that is just the inherent evil-ness ingrained in human nature, for some.

(2) Another Argument is, “But Gun Control makes it harder for evil people to get a hold of guns.”  Again, this is a completely failed argument that ignores that exact same point that disproves the previous one.  “...humans have been killing mass humans before guns were even invented.  Humans, will continue to kill humans because that is just the inherent evil-ness ingrained in human nature, for some.”  A second logical rebuttal is that evil people won’t obey moral laws; hence, they’re evil.  They are evil and kill the same way, no matter the tool.   The UK restricts guns, so people start getting stabbed more.  No guns, but knifes.  No knifes, but rocks.  Make murder a crime, people still murder.

#3 Moral Objection to Gun Control:  Forces People To Become Defenseless.

These moral objections feed off each other.  First, someone, or a group of people have a self-righteous desire to exert power over other people and then invent and implement tools to put that desire into action.  The result of this immoral desire and immoral tool is a forced defenseless.

This is directly linked to oppression because an oppressed people are always rendered defenseless.

As counter arguments 2(1) and 2(2) point out, evil will exist, and thus never be disarmed or eradicated.  This fact of reality requires that good people must natural defend themselves when evil comes.  As history has proven, evil can come in the form of government.

#4 Moral Objection to Gun Control:  Lethal Self-Defense is Not Immoral.

Islam justifies it’s followers the ability to defend themselves, with firearms [9] and it is not a sin in Islam to kill the attacker if there was no other option [10].  Islam, believes Jesus to be a prophet of God, therefore even Jesus’ words in the Bible apply to Islam:

Even Jesus instructed his disciples to be armed [11].  But, it is interesting that Jesus wasn’t necessary justifying lethal self-defense, but instead needed this tool and action to fulfill a prophesy.  Not too long after, a disciple slices off the ear of a roman Soldier arresting Jesus and Jesus states: “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51); “Put away your sword!” (Matt. 26:52; John 18:11). In Matthew’s account, Jesus adds the following rationale to his reprimand: “For all who take up the sword will die by the sword.”  Some then rest here and say that Jesus doesn’t condone lethal self-defense, but they do however miss is the point that Jesus didn’t stop the act either.  Then Jesus says this: Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a criminal?”  The totality of what Jesus taught in this instance is that being armed to defend against criminals seems to be okay as God does not lead people to sin (James 1:13), and Jesus told them to be armed.  It is safe to say that Jesus stopped the disciples from defending Jesus with lethal force, because Jesus was the one to die, as part of God’s plan for his life.  His stopping them from killing the guards was not because lethal force was wrong, but it was in God’s plan for Him, Jesus, to be killed.  We look else where and find God’s command to Noah “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6).   Then later, revealed in the Mosaic Law, “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him . . .” (Exodus 22:2).  When looking at all of the bible together, we see a religiously moral justified self-defense.

An argument here is: “God ordained governments alone to defend it’s people against evil.”  But this argument fails when considering God’s command to Noah, before any sort of formal government existed.   That would also then require the notion that no person can defend himself at all.  And if there is no ruling government, who is to defend the people of the region, no one, not even the individual people of that region?  And what then, when the government itself becomes the evil it is suppose to protect the evil from?

Preventing people from being able to defend themselves and owning the tools to do then actually is in contrary to moral obligations found in the teaches of Jesus and throughout the Bible.  That the necessity of self-defense is not brought about by the weapon but by the evil and sin of the violent aggressor.

From this alone we can see a difference between murder and killing.  Where murder is the taking of innocent life, but killing is the justified taking of a life due to an immediate threat of murder.  In principle, legal self-defense prevents ones self from being murdered.

There is nothing more entertaining than to hear an atheist or agnostic person try to us a moralistic argument for anything.  If there is no external source of morality (God), it must come from and be defined internally (governments/societies).  But, then… they run into the problematic history of governments and societies that justify murder;  where that society condoned it, or a government authorized it and justified it.  And what about future governments and societies that will do the same?  How are any of them wrong?  It’s all natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution right?


To advocate for Gun Control; you are then:

  • A supporter of the primary tool of oppression.
  • Encourage the desire of self-righteous power over others.
  • Advocating for forcing good people to be defenseless.
  • Advancing an idea that contradicts religious beliefs.

Gun Control has more in common with Atheistic Oppressors than it does with moral freedom and rightness.

*More Objections and Arguments will be added through time as more are made.*


  5. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs (1991). Sino-American relations: One year after the massacre at Tiananmen Square. U.S. G.P.O.
  6. Brook, Timothy (1998). Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3638-1.
  7. Buckley, Chris. “Chen Xitong, Beijing Mayor During Tiananmen Protests, Dies at 82”. The New York Times. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  8. Cabestan, Jean-Pierre (November 18, 2010). “How China Managed to De-Isolate Itself on the International Stage and Re-Engage the World after Tiananmen”. In Béja, Jean-Philippe (ed.). The Impact of China’s 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-90684-8.
  9. Calhoun, Craig. “Revolution and repression in Tiananmen square” (PDF).
  10. Cheng, Eddie (2009). Standoff at Tiananmen. Sensys Corp.
  11. Cheng, Eddie (June 13, 2012). “Document of 1989: 21 Most Wanted Student Leaders”. Standoff at Tiananmen. Archived from the original on April 13, 2018.
  12. Cheng, Kris (December 21, 2017). “Declassified: Chinese official said at least 10,000 civilians died in 1989 Tiananmen massacre, documents show”. Hong Kong Free Press. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  13. Lorenz, Andreas (May 15, 2007), “The Chinese Cultural Revolution: Remembering Mao’s Victims”, Der Spiegel Online
  16. Thomas N. Ingersoll, “Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans, 1718-1812”, _William and Marry Quarterly_, 48:2 [April, 1991], 178-79.
  17. Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, _The Course of Mexican History_, 4th ed., (New York, Oxford University Press: 1991), 216.
  18. Eric Foner, ed., _Nat Turner_, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall: 1971), 115.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: