The Libertarian Party: Gun Control

This is part 7 of my articles on the Libertarian party platform. Parts 1-6 may be found in my archives under the category of "politics". If you have any questions about the Libertarian Party, you may go to the official LP website at: www.lp.org, or you may email me at [email protected]:

Why Libertarians Support
Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners
Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Constitutional Rights
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.

One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.

But, gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns. although millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.

The Prohibition Lesson
Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.

Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.

The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.

Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.

The Right of Self Defense
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Personal Responsibility
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Most Gun Control Activists don't want to ban guns or repeal the second ammendmant. Many of them, such as Michael Moore even own guns themselves.

Gun Control simply means putting in measures to ensure that guns are not abused and do not fall in the wrong hands. Some commonsense gun control measures include:

Criminal background checks: If you commit a violent crime with a gun you should not be allowed to buy another gun

Ban on the most deadly guns: We wouldn't allow people to carry around plastic explosives or grenades. People can defend themselves with out machine guns or the most deadly military weapons. these weapons would have a greater capacity to harm huge numbers of people than to protect on person or family.

A waiting period to get a gun: Waiting periods allow time to do background checks and to allow a person to calm down in case they were buying the gun just to kill somebody. If someone is in such extreme danger that they can't wait 5 or 10 days for a gun, they should go to the police.

There is really no reason why simple, commonsense gun control measures like these shouldn't be allowed. Gun control doesn't mean no guns, it just means that we can have guns while ensuring our safety.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Most Gun Control Activists don't want to ban guns or repeal the second ammendmant.

Actually, that's not true. While you may not want to do so, there are a good number of gun control activists that believe only the military should have guns.

Gun Control simply means putting in measures to ensure that guns are not abused and do not fall in the wrong hands.

And it hasn't worked. The criminal element is still well armed with the arsenal they need.

Ban on the most deadly guns: We wouldn't allow people to carry around plastic explosives or grenades. People can defend themselves with out machine guns or the most deadly military weapons. these weapons would have a greater capacity to harm huge numbers of people than to protect on person or family.

You mistakenly assume that self defense is the only reason for owning assault weapons. It's not. You also assume that a high percentage of gun crimes are committed or were committed pre-ban using assault weapons; again, this isn't the case. The fact is, most people intent on harming large groups of people use assault weapons as a LAST choice.

There is really no reason why simple, commonsense gun control measures like these shouldn't be allowed. Gun control doesn't mean no guns, it just means that we can have guns while ensuring our safety.

Yes, there are several reasons why "commonsense gun control measures" like that should be allowed, not the least of which is the fact that the gun control measures continue to take us down a slippery slope towards eradication of private gun ownership. This has already happened in many countries that have enacted said legislation.

The historical context behind the authoring of the second amendment is a group of colonists who were prohibited from even operating a forge in this country, lest they forge weapons for use against the crown. The writings of the founding fathers consistently and repeatedly state the need for the citizens of this country to be capable of defending themselves against tyranny; if you remove our gunsm you remove such protection.

The main thrust of the gun control lobby is based on the fallacious argument that if we are disarmed as a country, we will somehow become a more genteel society. The reason they will continue to pursue the eradication of guns in America is simple; as long as citizens have guns, there will be some gun violence in America, and many of these individuals will continue to use that violence as an impetus for tighter and tighter gun control laws.

Incidentally, do you also believe your speech and religious rights should be tightened in the interest of a safer society? I could make compelling arguments for either, ignoring the fact that both are disrespective of the bill of rights.

Thank you for your comments.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A good post. I don't support the banning of guns at all. I really doubt though that inacting some gun control measures will take us down a slippery slope, because this assumes that once a few gun control measures are in place (many already are) that all the gun-owning citizens and groups and politicians will just fold and allow guns to be banned. This really won't happen because it would take a consittutional ammendmant, which would have no chance of even coming close to passing.

.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This really won't happen because it would take a consittutional ammendmant, which would have no chance of even coming close to passing.

I would hope you're right on that, but am beginning to realize the truth of the statement "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers".

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

The main thrust of the gun control lobby is based on the fallacious argument that if we are disarmed as a country, we will somehow become a more genteel society

I would have thought that the main thrusts of the argument is that it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a bow or a knife or even a sword. A decent shot should be able to kill a few people before they can get close enough to attack (either defensively or agressively). The average man or woman with a knife might be able to seriously injure or kill one, possibly two before being overwhelmed. It's harm reduction rather than a belief that guns make monsters of men and women.

Successfully updated karma reason!

it's true what cactoblasta says. You can't really argue that violent crime wouldnt go down at all without guns. People would use other weapons but none are as easy and effective as a gun. And although most crimes are not committed with assault weapons, if used they have the potential to kill huge numbers of people. Keeping them (assault weapons) of the street wiil help make sure they aren't used

Successfully updated karma reason!