A Libertarian's Stance on Gun Control (generally against)

I know that I am in a distinct minority here, but I strongly oppose most gun control policies. Personally, I have no use for guns; however, for me, this all goes back to the Liberty issue.

Let me make an analogy:

I oppose laws against personal drug use. Drug users can be separated into two categories: responsible drug users and irresponsible drug users. I believe that irresponsible drug users should be punished for the crimes they commit. However, I strongly oppose punishing responsible drug users, as they have committed no crime. In my view, making drugs illegal punishes both responsible and irresponsible drug users equally. It makes simply using drugs a crime, irrespective of whether such use is responsible or irresponsible. That's fundamentally unfair.

Analogously...

I oppose laws against gun ownership. Gun users can be separated into two categories: responsible gun users and irresponsible gun users. I believe that irresponsible gun users should be punished for the crimes they commit. However, I strongly oppose punishing responsible gun users, as they have committed no crime. In my view, making guns (including assault weapons) illegal punishes both responsible and irresponsible gun users equally. It makes simply possessing guns a crime, irrespective of whether the possessor is responsible or irresponsible. That's fundamentally unfair.

However, I DO support background checks. They are only common sense, in my view.

Background checks are essential, and it is common sense. I do believe its a freedom issue, or liberty as you mentioned. Its about giving choices, in my opinion. If you put more rules/regulations on guns, in short, its going to affect "the" majority of honest gun owners. Criminals are criminals because they break they law, so if there are any new laws made, or put into creation, the criminals won't care, they will find another way to gain what they want/desire.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

quote that comes to mind.

I think it's really dumb when I have to be checked at Home Depot when I buy a can of spray paint! I'm 62, wouldn't nor cou;dn't do a decent job of taging if I tried! But I have to be inconveninced because of the few who can and will.

We do have guns of many kind here in our home. One is mine, the rest belong to my husband. None of them have even been out of the gun safe for 5 years. My husband just likes to collect them, and that's ok with me. He gets very upset when the feds say he can't buy whatever one he wants. If he had the $$, he'd love to have a cannon in the yard. I have no idea why, but then we also have a 1934 Streetrod and although we both love it, I can't explain that either.

I think the words of a boss I once had are very applicable here.

"Who the hell ever told you life was fair?"

I could make identical arguments and substitute things like Anthrax and Atomic weapons for your reference to drugs and guns.

A socially responsible examination would also consider utility versus risk and not just the so-called responsible versus irresponsible aspect.

And, of course, it only takes one act to move from the responsible to irresponsible category and those 'responsible' people don't seem to be responsible enough to give adequate notice so we can take the stuff/things away from them before they do harm.

Then there's the principle we outlaw acts, not people.

Thanks for the target ...

Thanks for commenting.

You raise a good point: Arbitrary limits must be imposed upon liberty. While my reasoning might be sound for drugs and guns, it surely isn't sound with respect to nuclear weapons. It's all about your level of comfort with the arbitrary limits you set.

As a Libertarian, who cherishes liberty, I'm willing to give up quite a bit of security in the name of freedom. I'm willing to legalize drugs and legalize so-called "assault weapons," all in the name of freedom, as well as to respect the clear difference between responsible users and irresponsible users.

However, I do draw the line at anthrax and other such agents. Though perhaps it is possible for a regular citizen to "responsibly" possess anthrax, I am willing, in that case, to side with security over freedom.

But, citizens should never forget that freedom is its own reward; liberty is its own good consequence. Any country that respects liberty--allowing its citizens to use drugs, or own substantial weapons, or choose to patronize prostitutes, or die on their own terms, or exercise complete autonomy over their own bodies--should be roundly commended in honor of its reverence for freedom.

rights are relative and subject to societal judgment, not natural and absolute.

You choose to draw the line at Atomic weapons, I choose to draw them at assault weapons. No claims should be made that your choice is inherently superior to mine in any Constitutional sense.

Let's not worry about the whole "Constitution" issue. I don't support gun rights because the Constitution tells me to. In fact, I think citing the Constitution to prop up a philosophical stance is actually a very weak tactic.

The Constitution is the work of a bunch of hypocrites. They artfully declared that all humans are intrinsically equal. Then, they persisted in owning black people. Either the Founders were hypocrites or they were ignorant to the fact that black people are indeed human.

I support gun rights because I cherish liberty--not because of the Second Amendment. I draw my arbitrary line in a different place than you draw your arbitrary line. Neither of us is objectively correct, because this is a subjective issue.

However, I feel very comfortable with my position, as it is formed based upon my reverence for freedom.

I was wondering how you feel about tougher penalities for gun misuse. For example crossfire scares the hell out of me. Also I support anyones right to own a gun if they wish, but I can't personaly never carry one. Would you support my right not to carry? I was just wondering. Oh and thank you for such an articulate gun post. It was a nice change of pace kudos :D

Thanks for commenting!

I absolutely support tough, harsh penalties for gun misuse. I would support, for instance, mandating that a criminal serve at least 10 years for any offense involving a gun. You bring a deadly weapon like a gun into the equation--you get at least 10 years in jail, before even being considered for parole.

Second, I completely support the right NOT to carry. Every right has an equal and opposite right not to participate. Personally, I have no use for guns. I don't own one. I don't want one.

For a long time, I was pro-gun control. So, naturally, I respect the anti-gun position. However, I cannot reconcile most gun control restrictions with my ideals of liberty.

Thanks again for your comments.

And I am on the fence at suing gun manufactures. I mean if a car hits me can I sue chrysler or the driver? I would naturally go after the driver. Oh my anti gun position comes from my hand tremors. I don't trust myself with any range weapon. Anyhow thanks for the most thoughtful reply. It's nice engaging in a conversation without it degenerating into a name calling fest.

Cheers and I look forward to readding more of your post. :D

me neither.

No amount of gun control will keep guns from getting in the wrong hands. Criminals don't obey gun laws either.

Gun control and abortion are the 2 bogus issues that empower the Republicans.