On Arms and Self-Defense
Autonomy requires the capacity to protect it.
"The right of individuals to possess and bear arms for self-defense, defense of family and home, and as ultimate safeguard against tyranny shall not be infringed. Autonomy requires the capacity to protect it. No law shall restrict the ownership, possession, or carrying of arms by any citizen not currently incarcerated or under court-ordered supervision for violent crime."
— Constitution of the United States, Version 2.0, Article II, Section 3
The Principle
If autonomy is sacred — if your life, your choices, your finite time on earth belong to you — then you must have the means to defend them. A right that cannot be protected is merely a permission that can be revoked at any time by anyone stronger.
The original Second Amendment recognized this truth but was poorly worded, leading to centuries of debate about "militias." The Autonomist framework is clearer: the right belongs to individuals, period.
Why Gun-Free Zones Fail
People have been fooled into thinking that gun-free zones and prohibition protect them. The reality is simpler and darker:
Criminals don't follow the rules.
A sign that says "Gun-Free Zone" communicates one thing to a criminal: "Unarmed victims here." Law-abiding citizens comply with the sign. Criminals — who are already planning to break laws — ignore it.
The result: only the vulnerable are disarmed. The people who would harm them face no resistance.
The Reality
- A criminal planning murder is not deterred by a "No Guns" sign
- Mass shootings disproportionately occur in gun-free zones — schools, churches, theaters
- Police arrive after the crime (average response: 7-10 minutes)
- The sign is a signal: "This is a soft target"
The Correct Model
Security + Armed Citizens = Deterrence
Deterrence = Prevention
Prevention > Response
When a potential criminal knows there may be armed resistance, that security is present and vigilant, that victims might shoot back — they choose a different target or don't act at all. Most criminals are cowards seeking easy victims.
Institutions and Rights
A common objection: "But what about courtrooms? Airports? Schools?"
The answer is straightforward:
- Private institutions (businesses, churches, homes) have the autonomy to set rules for their property. They can require you to check your weapon at the door. That's their right on their property.
- Government buildings (courthouses, airports) can provide security screening. Metal detectors, guards, secure entrances.
- Government laws cannot pre-emptively prohibit your right to carry. The government cannot say "you may never carry anywhere."
The distinction matters: institutions protect themselves through security, not through laws that criminalize rights.
The Only Restriction
The Constitution 2.0 permits one narrow restriction:
"No law shall restrict the ownership, possession, or carrying of arms by any citizen not currently incarcerated or under court-ordered supervision for violent crime."
This is not a loophole — it's a recognition that someone who has been convicted of violent crime and is currently serving their sentence (or under supervision like parole) has already had their liberty restricted through due process. Once that supervision ends, rights restore.
The Autonomist Position
- The right to keep and bear arms is inherent in personhood, not granted by government
- No law shall restrict ownership or carry by law-abiding citizens
- Gun-free zones disarm victims, not criminals
- Institutions may provide their own security; government cannot prohibit rights
- "Reasonable regulations" is a weasel word that enables endless erosion — we reject it
- Autonomy without the capacity to defend it is merely permission