Can I favor gun control and STILL be a true Libertarian?

Great Debates
1

I voted for Harry Browne in 1996 and will again this year since I think the other parties are more of the same old song and dance.

But in my years as a Libertarian, I have done a 360 on the issue of gun control. I cannot continue to support the LPs unwavering support of the NRA and the “right” to bear arms. Browne’s stance on this issue bothers me as much as the right wing stance on abortion.

The only saving grace I have is that I don’t think there will be real gun control in the US for decades anyway, thanks to Moses and all the gun toting, beer swillin NRA freaks.

Maybe I am not the only one: on the LP website, it’s “Are you a Libertarian?” quiz completely ignores the issue, possibly fearful of the real answer too many of it’s surfers might get back.

Since the Libertarians are in favor of the Constittution, MY interpretation of the 2nd Amendment goes like THIS:

The entire reason for the 2nd Amendment was so that if the United States were ever invaded, we would have militas ready to defend it. And the Federal govt could not infringe on those militias, lest the Federal govt be taken over by an enemy nation.

Is this the origin of the National Guard? If it is, then the reason behoind the 2nd Amendment would NOT be so that Bubba and Billy Joe could go out and shoot up Jethro at the local country bar with their .38s!

Besides, if Harry Browne has his way, and all gun laws were repealed, he would be a hypoctite if he did not also repeal laws banning ordinary Americans from carrying nuclear, chemical and biological weapons . . RIGHT?

Besides, what is a bunch of Montana Freemen going to do against an entire tank division, if you really wanted to get down to brass tacks? What, some shopkeeper is going to keep his family from being marched off to the local concentration camp because he happens to have a Saturday Night Special by his cash register? Gimme a break! Bazooka his ass, lieutenant!

“Libertarian”, are you out there? I need help with this.

2

**

Well gee, thanks for going out of your way to not alienate anyone who might be a member of the NRA. What is a gun toting NRA freak by the way?

**

Until now I’ve never met a supposed libertarian who didn’t interpret the Constitution as giving individuals the right to keep and bear arms. So I doubt they considered it themselves.

**

The United States Constitution gives the government the power to maintain an army and a navy for the common defense. Given that, what reason would the government have to maintain a militia? Especially considering that milita units were almost universally disdained during the war.

**

A select militia would be no different then a standing army. Even if you interpret the 2nd to be a militia amendment it doesn’t say “people in the militia can have guns.” I also see that your example was meant to be as inflammatory as possible. Of course the founders didn’t intend the 2nd to be used as a justification for murder.

**

Wrong. The 2nd applies to personal arms such as pistols and rifles. Things that the average soldier would arm himself with on the field of battle.

**

Soldiers never come out of tanks, never walk down streets, and are never vulnerable at any given time.
Marc

3

I don’t know about American gun “Control” <giggle snort>
But I do know that in Australia, a huge ban on Automatic weapons except in military and policing areas has not really been that successful. While Aussies handed in thousands of weapons, it meant that the black market boosted it’s stock…both financially and physically, by literally thousands. brings the old adage to mind…

IF THERE’S A WILL, THERE’S A WAY!!

4

Well, a “Libertarian” who was in favor of gun control, would have more or less my viewpoint: I am all in favor of gun control laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, without making criminals out of Law abiding citizens.
So:
Instant back ground checks= good
registration of already owned guns= bad
sueing gun makers who make unsafe guns= good
sueing gun makers who just make guns =bad
hunter safety courses =good
hunter safety course with extremly high fees, or impossible to attend, which are really backdoor gun banning= bad
criminal penalties for criminal =good
criminal penalties for non-criminals= bad

5

WHOSE right-wing stance on abortion? Browne’s? He doesn’t speak for all libertarians–or even all Libertarians.

Nice inflammatory rhetoric. Makes me doubt your claim of ever having been in favor of the right to bear arms.

Since the Libertarians are in favor of the Constittution, MY interpretation of the 2nd Amendment goes like THIS:

The entire reason for the 2nd Amendment was so that if the United States were ever invaded, we would have militas ready to defend it. And the Federal govt could not infringe on those militias, lest the Federal govt be taken over by an enemy nation.

Is this the origin of the National Guard? If it is, then the reason behoind the 2nd Amendment would NOT be so that Bubba and Billy Joe could go out and shoot up Jethro at the local country bar with their .38s!
[/QUOTE]

More like this: the Founding Fathers ™ had just fought a war of independence against a tyrannical government. Having, to their everlasting surprise, actually won, they decided to write a set of rules to keep the new government as unoppressive as possible as long as possible. Since they well knew, as Chairman Mao said, that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, if political power is to remain in the hands of the people, the GUNS must remain in the hands of the people.

It’s not a complicated equation.

Even if he were such a hypocrite, with all those unconstitutional victim-disarmament laws repealed, we’d be a hell of a lot freer…even if we still couldn’t own nukes.

If he waits until they show up with military forces to march his family off to the death camps he’s waited too long. The time to strike would have been when it became clear that the death camps were being built. And a Saturday Night Special works just great for putting a couple of rounds in the back of the Lieutenant’s head when he leaves a bar one dark night. Perhaps you should ask the Brits just how much fun they’ve had with a handful of IRA hardcases on a tiny island nation smaller than Florida where the authorities have far more leeway to deal with suspected criminals than they do here. Then extrapolate to a continent-sized nation with many millions of gun owners, at least some of whom will be at least as rabid as any IRA guy.

Of course Joe Sixpack and his revolver are no match for an army unit. The days of the militia assembling on the village green are over. That’s why guerilla warfare was invented. Ask the American Military Governor of Vietnam about that, or the Soviet Military Governor of Afghanistan.

6

I’ve posted the following to every other Gun Control thread that I’ve participated in…

mi-li-tia, n.

  1. (a) originally, any military force; (b)later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called out in time of emergency.
  2. in the United States, all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard, Organized Reserve Corps (Army and Air), and the Naval and Marine Reserves constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia.

-Websters New Universal Unadbridged Dictionary (bolding and italics theirs)

In short, to say that the National Guard is the ONLY militia that the US is supposed to have is a fallacy.

Some theories like to speculate that the purpose of the militia is to prevent a corrupt government/military power to take over the United States by force. The reasoning is this: The current numbers of the military armed forces (I think the last number I saw was around 350-360 thousand, but feel free to correct me on that) would be vastly outnumbered by the 250 million or so citizens in the United States… and if those 250 million were armed, no amount of tanks or helicopters could possibly even up the odds.

Is the political climate in America one from which a Tyrant could garner military power and set up a dictatorship? Probably not… although I don’t think Germany anticipated Hitler’s atrocities in the mid-30s. Not that I want to draw a corollary 'tween Nazi Germany and America… just showing that it’s very difficult to predict what can happen just five or six years down the road. Along with the dozens of examples that have happened this century alone, where a country with an unarmed citizenry was controlled by a military state (the aformentioned Germany, then Turkey, Russia, China(?), along with numerous African nations like Somalia and Ethiopia), I don’t think the possibility of it happening is too much of a phantom.

Of course, just because a country has gun control, it in no way means that a military dicatorship WILL rise to power. On the other hand, just because Joe Average owns a gun, it in no way means that he WILL shoot someone.

Mr. Theuglytruth, I apologize for not dealing with the “libertarian” aspect of your OP, but if you would like to avoid such hijacks in the future, avoid your usage of inflammatory language.

7

My apologies. My first quote in the above quote should have been this:

8

If you do a 360, aren’t you going the same direction as before?

9

Yes. But.

You must understand that libertarianism is voluntary human relations in a context of peace and honesty. So long as a man is peaceful and honest, he has the right to be from your own will coercing his.

Remember that when a Libertarian takes a stance on an issue, he is taking a stance for himself, not for others. Thus, if a Libertarian were to oppose homosexuality, for example, he would be opposing it only for himself. He recognizes that whether his neighbor is homosexual is none of his business, barring some contractual lien. Likewise, you may choose not to bear arms yourself, being, in effect, a pacifist, but you may not deny your neighbor the means to defend his life and other property, so long as he conducts his affairs peacefully and honestly.

There is also nothing, libertarianly speaking, to prevent you from forming associations with like-minded people who view gun control the same way you do, so long as all are volunteers. But remember that, as a Libertarian, you are no one’s Nanny. Libertarianism allows people to defend and retaliate against force or fraud that has been initiated against them. You are a Libertarian up until you deny them that right.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**

I have nothing to add to the libertarian/gun control question, but the explanation of this that makes the most sense to me from the framers’ viewpoint is that this is a compromise between the Federalists and the States’ Rights folks. At the time, many people were very leery of a federal government that had too much power when compared to the state government. Today, it’s pretty much taken for granted, but back then, states’ rights was a huge issue, far more so than now. This clause was intended to allow the state to have a regulated military force over which the federal government had no jurisdiction so that the state could defend itself from our government, as well as from foreign enemies. Over time, the Guard has become an extension of the national military, but originally, it was also a force of protection from our national military.

11

IIRC, isn’t this sorta the position of the American Civil Liberties Union? My understanding is that they believe every portion of the Constitution to be related directly in some way to the rights of the individual people (barring the 10th Amendment I suppose) except for that embarassing ol’ 2nd Amendment.

I have even personally heard 2 ACLU lawyers who came to speak at my University (many years ago) who claimed that many in the ACLU actually support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

My understanding also is that ACLU lawyers will also never defend anyone on a 2nd Amendment civil rights issue, because of their adopted ideology.

12

But without the second, how will a free people maintain any meaningful vigilance over the rest?

13

Adolph Peewee wrote:

“If there’s a will, there’s an inheritance tax.”

– The Power of Positive Pessimism: Proverbs for Our Times

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
**

You are wrong. The National Guard was created in by the National Defense Act of 1916 as an extension of the U.S. Army.

Why do you think it is called the “National” Guard?

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Demise *
**

Okay, the concept of a state militia, which is what the National Guard is unless federalized during times of national emergency, evolved into what is now for all practical purposes an extension of the national military. Better?

16

Not really. the National Guard is an adjunct of the federal military, not a true state militia–that was decided when a state governor objected to having the state National Guard activated for one of our endless overseas adventures and sued to prevent it. He lost. The Supremes made it quite clear that the state has authority over the Guard only as long as the feds have nothing better for them to do.

A true state militia would be answerable only to the state government, and not to the feds. [Makes me wonder what the reaction would be if a state government–Texas, maybe–established a state-funded, state-run militia and made every able-bodied adult citizen (non-felons excepted) a member…and started issuing M-16s and .45 automatics to said militia. After all, if the Second Amendment is about arming the militia, as so many people insist, the feds couldn’t say boo about it. Right?]

17

That’s what I’m trying to say! The Guard is now merely an extension of the national military, instead of a truly independant entity as state militias were originally envisioned to be.

18

Oops. Well, I guess I got my exercise for today jumping to conclusions.

19

Al Mondroca wrote:

Every able-bodied adult citizen except non-felons?

That would be … all the felons. Right?

20

<FROWN>
You know what I meant!
</FROWN>