Vol. III - Penn State Abington

list of grievances to other representatives in the colony (Halbrook, 2008). After being severely
reproved, the House refused to discontinue its circulation of the letter and was dissolved
(Halbrook, 2008).
Meanwhile, one of the Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, advocated the
right to bear arms as an unalienable right by referring to the Englishman William Blackstone’s
writings. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw the overthrow of King James II of
England, Blackstone argued how, in response to an attack, an Englishman has several guaranteed
rights, including the right to pursue justice through the court system, to address the king and
Parliament with grievances, and to use arms to defend his property, person, or liberty (Halbrook,
2008). Also, according to Blackstone, the right to have arms is “a natural right of resistance and
self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the
violence of oppression” (Halbrook, 2008). In 1772, Samuel Adams used Blackstone’s line of
reasoning to promote gun rights when he published, in the Boston Gazette, an essay titled
“Rights of Colonists.”
According to many colonists, the major source of their undue oppression was the king’s
troops. By now, statements were being published of the harassment that well-meaning citizens
were enduring as a result of the quartered troops. The colonists were to petition through more
judicious methods the repeal of the taxes that the soldiers were sent to help collect, but the
rejection of these proposals, along with the previously mentioned altercations were wearing on
their patience. So, when the Massachusetts House of Representatives reconvened in 1769, it
attempted to petition Governor Francis Bernard, a British colonial administrator, to remove the
troops stationed at the State House. But Bernard’s response was that he was no longer in control
of civil matters since the military was present. The colonists protested. In an essay in favor of
armed resistance, lawyer Daniel Leonard argued that in self-defense, the aggressor forfeited his
right to live. Leonard noted that the self-defense rule applied to “states, and to those employed by
them to distress, rob or enslave other states” (Halbrook, 2008).
Arguments in favor and against the right to bear arms
McAffee and Quinlan offer several arguments in favor of why the right to bear arms may
be outdated. The first argument they propose is based on belief that, in interpreting the Second
Amendment, the right is conditioned upon the necessity of a militia. This view would deem
discussion of gun control irrelevant since the right is no longer applicable (2008). The second
view proposed by Quinlan and McAffee is that the gun right discussion is no longer applicable
because the federal courts have issued opinions in favor of gun ownership in cases of military
personnel. (Before District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), these decisions would not have
prevented gun control advocates from having legislation passed restricting the rights of gun
ownership). The final argument McAffee and Quinlan propose is based on a similar notion as the
first. The Founders argued that the right to bear arms was necessary to promote a standing
“citizen militia” and that most American citizens aren’t aware of this philosophy. The idea of the
common good is not as important a concept in today’s republican ideology as the idea of “liberal
individualism” As a result, being an American citizen “does not call for the sort of patriotic
sacrifice upon which the general militia rested” (2008).
Gun control proponents offer several points to counter the reasons given by gun rights
proponents. First, they argue that American citizens have one feature today that colonists did not
have when they were arguing for the necessity of an armed militia: a police force, an entity
THE DIALECTICS ▲ 2009
www.abington.psu.edu/dialectics
47