We live in an era in which public debate is frequently dominated by hasty simplifications and sweeping generalizations that contribute little to elevating political and social discourse. Among such simplifications stands the claim that citizens of conservative orientation, merely for defending the right to own firearms within the limits of the law, would be intrinsically inclined toward violence. Such a proposition does not withstand a serious analysis grounded in history and law.
First and foremost, it is important to recall that in any State governed by the rule of law worthy of the name, the legitimacy of the use of force belongs primarily to public institutions vested with that authority. The defense of the right to legally own firearms by certain sectors of society must not be confused, nor can it be confused, with the advocacy of disorder or subversion. On the contrary, within the Western political tradition, and particularly within the American constitutional framework, that right is associated with individual responsibility, respect for the law, and the awareness that liberty demands civic vigilance and moral discipline.
Recent experience demonstrates that episodes of collective violence, such as prolonged blockades of public roads, destruction of property, urban fires, or attacks on police vehicles, have, in the majority of cases, been carried out by movements of a radical nature presenting themselves as defenders of revolutionary or identity-based agendas. This does not mean assigning collective blame to entire ideological currents, but rather recognizing that organized disorder rarely arises from social sectors that value institutional stability, the hierarchy of the law, and respect for constituted authority.
Conservatism, understood in its classical sense, is not an ideology of rupture, but one of continuity.
It rests upon the conviction that civilization is built through the preservation of values tested by time: family, duty, discipline, personal responsibility, and respect for the security forces that safeguard social peace. To reduce this intellectual tradition to a violent caricature is not only intellectually dishonest, but dangerously divisive for the national fabric.
Moreover, the automatic association between the legal possession of firearms and violence ignores an essential fact: the overwhelming majority of citizens who own firearms do so in strict compliance with the law and never take part in acts of vandalism or urban insurrection. Conservative culture, in fact, tends to emphasize self-discipline, restraint, and the orderly resolution of conflicts, rejecting the logic of the mob and the tumult that so often emerges in demonstrations that degenerate into riots.
Ideological generalization, when transformed into a rhetorical instrument, not only distorts reality but also contributes to the stigmatization of millions of peaceful citizens who work, pay taxes, raise their children to respect authority, and place their trust in institutions. Such a climate of permanent suspicion corrodes social cohesion and weakens the very concept of responsible citizenship.
It is therefore urgent to restore serenity to the debate and to distinguish between the legitimate defense of rights enshrined in law and the concrete practice of violent acts that must be condemned without ambiguity, regardless of their ideological origin.
A State governed by the rule of law cannot function on the basis of simplistic labels, but rather on facts, individual responsibilities, and a firm commitment to public order.
Ultimately, the true dividing line in a free society is not drawn between those who defend certain lawful instruments of self-defense and those who reject them in the abstract. The essential distinction lies between those who cultivate a culture of responsibility, respect for authority, and fidelity to the law, and those who, despite proclaiming lofty moral principles, display tolerance or complacency toward acts of collective disorder when such acts serve particular ideological purposes.
It is along this clear and uncompromising boundary that the future of any society that aspires to remain free, secure, and worthy of the civilizational heritage it has received will be decided.
César DePaço
Entrepreneur and Philanthropist
Honorary Consul of Portugal (2014–2020)
Founder and CEO, Summit Nutritionals International Inc.®
Founder and Chairman of the Board, DePaço Foundation
Unwavering advocate of Law Enforcement and Conservative Principles