Guns.

Differences Between the Left and Conservatives Part II

Guns.

For the left, only the police, military, and, in some cases, licensed sportsmen or hunters should own guns. This means arms are primarily in the hands of the government and regulated authorities. For conservatives, the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right, enshrined in the Second Amendment, which protects the ability of citizens to defend themselves—including, if necessary, against a corrupt or tyrannical government.

There’s a catch-22 dilemma: if too many people have guns, public safety can be threatened; but if only the government and criminals have guns, citizens may be left defenseless against both tyranny and crime. It is a stark trade-off, yet it’s no coincidence that the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment, placed immediately after freedom of speech, reflecting just how foundational this right is in the American system.

History shows that states which disarm their populations and concentrate power in the hands of the government—whether fascist, communist, or totalitarian—rarely remain benevolent or free from crime. There has yet to exist a state where people can’t defend themselves and the government remains benevolent or criminals aren’t terrorizing citizens. The only real exceptions are unique cases, such as post-WWII countries in Europe and Southeast Asia where U.S. military bases are present. Nations that enjoy peace without a citizenry capable of defending themselves are rare, and such peace generally lasts only until a tyrannical faction comes to power.

From the conservative perspective, allowing citizens to bear arms carries risks, but the risk of disarmament—leaving people defenseless against unchecked government power or criminal predation—is seen as a far greater danger.