Essay on Gun Rights And Noncompliance : Two Problems Of Prohibition

1926 Words 8 Pages
With gun control debates emerging as a major topic in the past election and currently in our communities, it is imperative to distinguish the justification for the allowance of guns to remain apart of our society. Michael Huemer and Daniel Demetriou both suggest that individuals have a prima facie right to own a gun and that prohibition of such would violate the right to self defense. Both Huemer an Demetriou offer their own respective conclusions without citing the second amendment. Offering arguments without citing the second amendment is beneficial because typically those who oppose gun control commonly use the amendment as their sole source of justification. Huemer’s and Demetriou’s arguments both offer different and unique reasons in justifying gun rights. Huemer argues for gun rights mostly off of freedom (or libertarian) considerations and in contrast Demetriou believes we have rights to guns based upon dignity related reasons. These are the two arguments that will be evaluated in later parts of this essay. In Michael Huemer’s article Gun Rights and Noncompliance: Two Problems of Prohibition, he takes us step by step to his justification of one’s right to a gun. His argument is divided into two parts. The first argument describes how gun prohibition would violate the right of certain individuals to protect themselves. The second, supposes that, gun prohibition ultimately would fail because individuals like criminals would fail to follow the law. Huemer…

Related Documents