To the Editors,

Upon reading Abraham Weiss ’29’s defense of the Second Amendment, I felt there was room for a more precise and civic-minded defense. For the sake of diversifying political dialogue on campus, I lay out such an argument below.

The right to bear arms exists not just to preserve our right to life. Its larger purpose is to preserve our political freedom by protecting the American regime. Our political freedom is valuable because it enables us to elevate our life aims beyond the mere pursuit of individual survival. It is political freedom that lets us experience “the freedom of individual identity” and engage in the pursuit of happiness.

A defense of the Second Amendment should therefore focus not on how it may bring security to the individual as a member of a political faction, but rather on how it may enable the individual to preserve our collective political freedom. These two points are distinct because democracy can only survive if factions are willing to share power and compromise.

To preserve our political freedom, it is imperative we find methods of peaceful coexistence with all our fellow Americans, even those with whom we vehemently disagree. While violence may sometimes seem like an appealing form of “conflict resolution,” in a situation with two evenly matched groups, countering extrajudicial violence with extrajudicial violence will undermine everyone’s political freedom. Under conditions of civil war, in the absence of a shared governing authority, everyone’s rights cease to exist.

Thus, in the absence of an imminent threat to one’s life, one could argue that a gun’s greatest power comes from its ability to act as a deterrent to violence. But is an instigator of violence truly rational enough to be dissuaded by deterrents? Or might restricting access to weapons be the only way to preserve our social order?

Cassidy Kaler ’28