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

Great Debates
21

Personally, I think everyone who doesn’t put at least some effort into firearm usage and familiarity is irresponsible. If you and I ever have to dodge terrorists in an under-siege skyscraper, or fight back at out-of-control military forces, or go toe-to-toe with aliens bent on our destruction, I don’t want to take the risk that you won’t know how to use the handgun I’m going to thrust into your hand.

And when I shout, “Do you know how to shoot?!?” your answer had better be an enthusiastic “Yes!”, dammit :smiley:

22

To answer the OP: Sure. It’s a big tent.

I may favor the right of individuals to keep and bear arms (or, more specifically, guns), but I hold no illusions that this right is enshrined in the second amendment. The language of the document is pretty unambiguous (at least when compared to sections of the first amendment); you have the right to keep and bear arms while in the employ of the state. This is the interpretation of not only the ACLU, but also the US Supreme Court (including Rehnquist & Co.) since 1939 (U.S. v. Miller). Since then, all meaningful controls on individual gun use have been upheld by state and circuit courts, including complete bans on handguns. The SC today considers it such a clear issue that they do not even hear gun control cases.

Now, Lib:

Agreed . . . withing limits. No one could reasonably argue that a man has an inherent right to have a nuclear warhead in his back yard, just in case he decides to liberate the oppressed people of China from its oppressive government in Beijing, no matter how peaceful and honest he is. Personally, I would question any such man’s motives, just as I would question the motives of the man who wants a silenced HK-5 Automatic pistol. If you’re willing to give a man one based solely on good faith, you have to be willing to give him the other. Remember, just because your name is “Libertarian” doesn’t mean you get the last word on the party (Big L), or the philosophy (little l).

“And join us next week on ‘Preparing for Germane, Everyday Occurences, with SPOOFE Bo Diddly’, when SPOOFE will tell you all how to prepare yourselves to fight the coming war with the dolphins . . .”

23

Hopefully, consistency will compel you to deny the same “right” to a man named Senator Fatcat or President Bigballs who wants to house a thousand such warheads in the backyard of Farmer Brown in Kansas.

A gun that is aimed at you is an initiation of force, whether or not it is cocked and loaded.

Likewise, if you will judge men guilty before they have acted, then you will not mind like judgements by equally psychic people against yourself.

I certainly do not speak for the statist Libertarian Party. The philosophy, on the other hand, speaks for itself.

(By the way, what’s with the Big-L little-l stuff? All that matters in that regard is whether the word is used as a word that begins a sentence, a proper noun, a descriptive noun, or an adjective. Libertarianism accords no special dispensations with regard to grammar.)

24

Naturally.

It’s not a matter of judging anyone guilty of anything. You know full well that there are perfectly adequate utilitarian reasons why we do not permit private citizens with the money and/or know-how to build and maintain their own nuclear arsenal. This is not to say that government is inherently trustworthy with regards to weapons of mass destruction, of course, but neither of us want to live in place where one citizen out of every thousand has the ability to settle personal grudges with nuclear power. Is this the same thing as assault rifle bans? Of course not, but you’re arguing against arms control as if it were an absolute moral imperative when it clearly is not.

It’s the difference between the Libertarian Party (Proper Noun) and a libertarian philosophy. It’s just like the difference between an Athenian republican and a Limbaugh-Repulican, but I’m sure you get that.

25

Utility is irrelevant with respect to ethics. Again, a nuclear weapon in your back yard is like a gun that is aimed at people for miles around. A mugger need not shoot you to have committed a crime. He need only threaten your safety. A mugging with a pointed finger bulging from a jacket pocket is no more ethical than a mugging with a loaded gun in your face.

:smiley:

I am arguing no such thing. I do not argue against arms control or any other such obfuscation. What I argue against is coercion. The only Absolute Moral Imperative is Love.

26

Lib:

But a clear tenant of libertarian philosophy is that there is a role for government, minimal of course, otherwise you are an anarchist. And that role is maintaining the peace, enforcing the law, etc. Some put it more esoterically as makintianing property rights, enofrcing contracts, etc. But theprinciple is the same. So getting back to the OP, I think someone can reasonably consider themselves a true libertarian yet consider gun control and certainly nuclear weapon control part of this responsibility. Of course folks can argue over that as much as liberals and conservatives can argue over what it means to have that label.

27

Opposition to large government is minarchism. Libertarianism is opposition to the initiation of force and fraud. A government’s size, in that regard, is beside the point. It must be exactly as large as is necessary to provide its citizens a civic context of peace and honesty.

28

Those last two sentences seem to be at odds. It’s like going to U-Haul and saying I need a truck to move and the guy asking how big a truck I need and I say, “That’s not the point. The point is that I need a truck to move.”

How big the government is or should be is exactly on point and cannot be avoided with philosophical generalities.

29

Good thread, Dopers! I appreciate the responses- this is an issue I really am wrestling with. Some responses:

MGibson wrote

“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.”

UT: Where does it say THAT? I think you are saying that the Founding Fathers never envision weapons of mass destruction. This will lead to a point later in this post . . .

Danielinthewolvesden wrote:

“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”

UT: You and I are on the same page, Dnlinwlvesdn!

Al Mondroca wrote:

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

UT: Actually, Browne is Pro-Choice. I was referring to how I have the same reaction to his NRA pandering as I do to Dick Cheyneys anti-abortion stance.

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

“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.
“The SPOOFER has a biting sense of humour. After you’ve been around for a while, you’ll begin to appreciate it.” -Wally, fighting ignorance from above”

UT: Apparently you DON"T have a very good sense of humor if you find my comments about the NRA “inflammatory” and not satirical. Sorry you dont get the joke.

Fugazi wrote:

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

UT: Fugazi, this issue is so godamned befuddling, I just MIGHT be where I was before!
Libertarian wrote:
)____________________
"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."

UT: Well stated, Lib, BUT . . how can you compare homosexuality, a harmless act between two consenting adults (well, not harmless if it gets too rough) to owning a handgun, a weapon that could potentially be used to efficiently and quickly kill me?

Under Libertarianism, you can do what you want- as long as you dont harm others, right? What is the sole purpose of a handgun?

TO KILL PEOPLE.

Ptahlis wrote:

“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.”

UT: I think this leads to my next point: isnt the 2nd Amendment a BIT outdated? Can’t we just repeal the damn thing? I mean, it really belongs right up there with the “black people being only worth 3/5 of a white man” thing in the Constiutuon, that also, thankfully, was repealed.

Whoever wrote this quote:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1776

UT: Good point. So now that it is 2000 and not 1776, where’s the tyranny in gun free Western Europe and Canada? Havent we progressed as a society to the point where our society is free of tyranny all by itself?

OK that’s it for now. Back to the 337 other posts before AOL knocks me off line!
Ugly

30

Well, then next time you awaken to the noise of a burglar, ask yourself that question. I presume you are aware that libertarianism differentiates between initial force (that of the burglar) and defensive force (that of the burglary victim).

Nothing is being avoided.

The size of the U-Haul truck and the size of the government are equally beside the point absent any context. You don’t say, give me a truck size X without knowing what you have to fit in it. You need a truck exactly the right size to carry X amount of stuff.

With government, same-same.

31

Uhmm…no. To quote one of my favorite participants on talk.politics.guns, “History isn’t over yet.” I really doubt that many folks living in Germany in 1935 could have anticipated the horrors that would be perpetrated by their government over the next ten years. Germany was a democratic, western european nation with a rich cultural history. That didn’t prevent Hitler and his cronies’ rise to power and the mass murder and tyranny that followed.

Just because there may seem to be no threat today that our government is going to turn on us so spectacularly, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Historically, in fact, it seems inevitable that governments eventually become the greatest threat to the lives and freedom of their own citizens (assuming, of course, that said government isn’t picked off by a larger, stronger hostile government first).

As I said elsewhere, yes–the days of the citizen militia gathering on the village green to fight off the approaching army are over. The state of the art has evolved. That doesn’t mean that an armed population can’t defend themselves–it simply means that they can’t do it way the Founders did. They must do it by engaging in guerilla warfare instead, which gives them a chance to level the playing field against a better-trained, better-armed opponent. (But guerillas armed with–and skilled in the use of–similar small arms will do better in the long run that guerillas who have never had legal access to such arms and never had a chance to become familiar with them before things went to hell. The Second Amendment isn’t just about having access to weapons, its about having a population which is familiar with them and knows how to use them.)

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Since ultimate political power in the USA allegedly rests in the hands of the public, so should the guns.

32

I wonder whether foreign leaders in times past (or even now) have taken into consideration the sort of hornet’s nest they would encounter, were they to invade the United States. Can you imagine foreign troops trying to advance through South Central Los Angeles?

33

Libertarian wrote:

Well, then next time you awaken to the noise of a burglar, ask yourself that question. I presume you are aware that libertarianism differentiates between initial force (that of the burglar) and defensive force (that of the burglary victim).

UT: Since I dont own a gun, my 2 choices as I see it are this:

  1. Call the police
  2. Since I know my own home better than he does, get a baseball bat.

Besides . . . I think most Americans would be so scared shitless in this situation they would end up shooting themselves in the foot. And what match is Joe Six pack in a gunfight against a career criminal anyway?
Al Mondroca
wrote:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1776

UT: Good point. So now that it is 2000 and not 1776, where’s the tyranny in gun free Western Europe and Canada? Havent we progressed as a society to the point where our society is free of tyranny all by itself?

Ugly

Uhmm…no. To quote one of my favorite participants on talk.politics.guns, “History isn’t over yet.” I really doubt that many folks living in Germany in 1935 could have anticipated the horrors that would be perpetrated by their government over the next ten years. Germany was a democratic, western european nation with a rich cultural history. That didn’t prevent Hitler and his cronies’ rise to power and the mass murder and tyranny that followed.

Just because there may seem to be no threat today that our government is going to turn on us so spectacularly, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Historically, in fact, it seems inevitable that governments eventually become the greatest threat to the lives and freedom of their own citizens (assuming, of course, that said government isn’t picked off by a larger, stronger hostile government first).

As I said elsewhere, yes–the days of the citizen militia gathering on the village green to fight off the approaching army are over. The state of the art has evolved. That doesn’t mean that an armed population can’t defend themselves–it simply means that they can’t do it way the Founders did. They must do it by engaging in guerilla warfare instead, which gives them a chance to level the playing field against a better-trained, better-armed opponent. (But guerillas armed with–and skilled in the use of–similar small arms will do better in the long run that guerillas who have never had legal access to such arms and never had a chance to become familiar with them before things went to hell. The Second Amendment isn’t just about having access to weapons, its about having a population which is familiar with them and knows how to use them.)

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Since ultimate political power in the USA allegedly rests in the hands of the public, so should the guns.

UT: Was there gun control in pre-Nazi Germany? I mean amongst ordinary citizens. Not the Vewrsaille treaty.

Guerilla warfare??!!?? My God, Al, you sound like a friggin Freeman! LOL

Anyway, good points, if anyone has info on gun control in Wiemar Germany, I’d love to know either way (which means I am setting myself up for a big failure in this debate). Also, was there gun control in pre-Bolshevik Russia? Pre- Mao China?

Libertarian wrote:

I wonder whether foreign leaders in times past (or even now) have taken into consideration the sort of hornet’s nest they would encounter, were they to invade the United States. Can you imagine foreign troops trying to advance through South Central Los Angeles?

UT: Great. You are joking, right Libby?

Now we are advocating violent gangs as the bastion of the 2nd Amendment. I feel a lot safer now that the Crips and Bloods are the first line of defense against a tyrannical invader!

34

**

There was. That’s one of the reasons by RTKBA proponents object to gun control–even if you grant that the current advocates of disarming the public are sincere, there’s no guarantee that their successors will be decent folk. Like the military intelligence folks say, you don’t plan for what you think the enemy will do–you prepare for what he can do. And a government with a real monopoly on force (not just a monopoly on legal force) is more dangerous than one that must worry about whether the peasants will start shooting at them if they step out of line.

**

Why? If the feds started rounding up jews or blacks or rednecks or liberals and shipping them off to death camps, what would you suggest? What if they outlaw protests, ignore election results and kill or imprison anyone who objects too strenously? Polite discussion and reasoned arguments only work when both sides are interested in reaching a compromise. If you can’t make them obey the laws of the land, and they decide they don’t want to, you’re out of options.

“The last argument of kings” works for individuals too.

35

UT

:smiley:

I hope you know that the proper way to hit with a baseball bat is not to swing.

Oh, pooh. You’re just wrong. (Any support for your assertion?)

Oh, sorry. [… slapping forehead …]

It hadn’t dawned on me that the homeowner is a spastic moron and the burglar is James Bond.

Yeah. Get it?

36

Let’s examine each point:

  1. You would call the police first - good. What’s their response time to your home? You know the SC did rule long ago that there (paraphrasing) “is not a right to be protected by the police”?

  2. You would get a baseball bat. Why? Why wouldn’t you just end up hitting youself in the knee? What do you think an armed burglar is going to do if confronted with you carrying a ball bat? He’s going to shoot you or at you.

  3. The truth is, most Americans are not so scared they would shoot themselves in the foot, as you put it. I certainly have neither shot myself in the foot, or meekly handed over my gun both times I’ve had to use it - and I’m just a woman.

  4. Your “what match” statement doesn’t mean anything. If someone is trying to rape or kill you, you should not defend yourself because you would have no chance? If I am being assaulted on a country road, I should not try to defend myself, and should wait for the smiling, friendly policeman to come rescue me, because I would have no chance against a career criminal? (snort!) Yeah, I saw how well that worked! IMO, career criminals are not supermen, the are no experts in firearms use, and they are not experts in killing, and they are not homicidally driven to get into a gun battle during a routine house robbery. They typically are filthy little cowards who carry it to feel big, and end up shooting blindly at anything if startled.

And now, for the obligatory bizarre rant:

Ah, I simply love gun control debates. They bring out all the armchair liberals who can’t imagine what it’s like to ever be a violent crime victim who wants to ensure that she is never a victim again. They bring out the “backyard nukes” argument, the “children’s blood washing in our gutters” imagery, they laugh mockingly at the concept of “wanting to defend against the Queen of England.” And, of course, the one I find sick and repulsize - “if a woman wants to defend herself, she should take self-defense classes. If she uses a gun, the overwhelming majesty of ‘da man’ will cow her into meekly handing it over to him, and then he’ll just hurt her more.”

Well, I found out in chat that’s the way some RP’s on this board like their women. I guess I’ll have to be content with not fitting into the mold of the helpless submissive crime victim again, thank you.

37

Hmmm…simulpost Libertarian.

38

Lib, target not withstanding, burglar or no, the purpose of a gun is to kill. It cannot differentiate between a burglar and a drunken spouse, a marauder and a child who forgot her keys, or a rapist and a family pet. And apparantly, looking at statistics, neither can people who keep the guns for home protection. Yeah, I know. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” But why are you so hell-bent on making it so damn easy?

39

Anthracite

:slight_smile:

Slythe

Well, it depends on what statistics you look at, who compiled them, and how they can be interpreted. A gun, like natural selection, has no purpose. You may shoot at a target with a gun; no one will be killed. You may point a gun at an attacker who then flees; no one will be killed.

You alread know, as you’ve said, that it is people who kill. It is also people who have any purpose. I am hell bent on making it easy for people who are peaceful and honest to defend themselves against people who are not. Why are you so hell bent on abandoning peaceful honest people to the mercy of those others?

40

First of all, that’s my sig, not an argument that was posted for the purpose of this debate.

Secondly, it stands just as true today as it did in 1776. You cannot defend yourself if you have nothing to defend yourself with. This society is not free from tyranny. The “Drug War” is a supreme example of how the Constitution is being ignored in order to combat an imaginary monster.

Thirdly, it should have been pretty damn easy for you to see who posted it since my freakin name is at the top of the post. You did somehow figure out how to copy and paste it out of my post after all.

What statistics are you looking at? You seem to ignore statistics that conflict with your pet theories, even when you’ve been shown that you’re wrong, over and over again.

A gun is a tool. The purpose of a tool is whatever you use it for. You could use a gun as a hammer if you wanted to. I don’t have a gun so I can kill people, I have a gun to protect myself. Protecting myself does not mean that someone has to die.