For anyone unfamiliar with, or new to libertarianism, there is one fundamental principle to address which gives context to the remaining article. I am referring to the Non-Aggression Principle.
To put it simply, no person may initiate physical force against others. The physical use of force may only be used in retaliation & only against those who initiated the force. Just like a porcupine.
This is the basis of libertarianism. This fundamental principle is simple, yet incredibly powerful. This also applies to ALL people, regardless of ANY demographic. For any further reading click HERE or feel free to message me. I will gladly discuss any of these ideas more in depth.
This article is to clarify my position regarding firearms, gun control, & the 2nd amendment. I did not give a answer that I am comfortable with in a recent debate and I would like to put this out there.
My opinions regarding the 2nd Amendment & gun control…
ALL federal firearm restrictions are unconstitutional.
I am against ANY new federal firearm restrictions.
I fully support the repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 & ALL subsequent federal firearm restrictions since.
This is including the abolition of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF).
The purpose of the Second Amendment (2A) is not hunting or sport shooting. 2A is meant to protect individual liberty. It ensures every citizen has the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical national government, other domestic threats, & foreign invaders.
The founding fathers interpretation of 2A & their beliefs on firearm ownership is clear & unmistakable. Their writings prove that. They were very pro 2A & they were very much against restrictions.
The militia is the natural defense of any community. This does not mean that everyone has to own a firearm. This means that those in society who choose to be firearm owners should not be discouraged or shamed. If anything at all, those who choose to own firearms should simply be encouraged to train with their firearms & be proficient with their firearms. And no, the National Guard is not a “well-regulated militia.” It is a reserve component of the US Armed Forces.
Citizens not only have the right to protect themselves, it is their duty. Due to a common misconception, no one but you are responsible for their own safety. There has been several Supreme Court rulings that set the precedent the police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from harm.
The average police response time in the US is between 5-15 minutes, and this is increasing across the country. This will seem like an eternity if your life is in danger. There might be some officers who will risk their lives to protect you, but there is no guarantee. The tragedy in Uvalde, Texas is a blatant example of this. Not a gamble you want to take if your life is in danger.
The other logical issue here is that if you are in a situation where the police need to called & possibly use deadly force, are you going to be calm enough to not only make the 9-1-1 call but also give them all the correct information in a timely manner, all while you or someone else is being attacked? Also how can you assure the attacker(s) will still be there once the police arrive?
Obviously there are a lot of logical & logistical issues here. Not to mention the sheer unrealistic expectation of pushing our responsibility of self-preservation strictly onto the police & sheriff is incredibly unrealistic.
What about all the people carrying guns in society? There must be more accidents & deaths because of this, right? Actually, it’s the exact opposite.
There was a study conducted named, “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016,” which covered a number of gun issues including the rise in gun ownership and the connection between gun owners and crime. One of the primary findings was very interesting.
Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates fell from 5.6 to 4.7 (preliminary estimate) per 100,000. This represents a 16% drop. Overall violent crime fell by 18 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits has soared by 190%
There were many other interesting findings as well & I encourage everyone to read this information, no matter what side of the political isle you are on.
Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.
The conclusion of this study was, “Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop in murder and violent crime rates. Each one-percentage point increase in rates of permit holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. This holds true even after accounting for the number of police per capita, demographics, and the percentage of the population that is incarcerated.”
So basically an armed society is a polite society.
For argument’s sake, say that we actually do ban firearms… Do you genuinely believe the men depicted in the meme above would actually follow gun laws & just turn their guns in? No questions asked, they just wouldn’t want them anymore? People who don’t even follow the laws now are going to start following the law? Say it…
Criminals do NOT follow laws.
No matter how many laws you pass to “save lives” or to “end the senseless violence,” you are only creating more problems. 300,000 laws regulating guns exist today. Not a single one has prevented any recent tragedy. More laws will not fix the issue.
The first people effected by making it more difficult, or downright illegal, to own firearms are the poorest people in society.
John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center had said, “The very people that my research shows benefit the most from owning guns, the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime—many of whom are minorities who live in high-crime urban areas—are prevented from buying guns because of these fees.”
He continued to say, “High fee requirements for firearm permits demonstrably affect firearm ownership rates. In Indiana, 20.3% of adults have a concealed-handgun permit; in contrast, neighboring Illinois has a rate of just 3.3%,” Lott said. “This dramatic difference is because until last year, the total cost of obtaining a concealed-handgun permit in Indiana was $50, while in Democrat-controlled Illinois, the total cost was at least $400.”
So the Left’s ongoing campaigns to weaponize & demonize firearm ownership, it would drive up costs further, making the purchase of a gun unattainable to many. The very people claimed, it was supposed to help.
The next people you would effect are the police officers. The federal agencies do not have enough staff to oversee the massive operations that would inevitably take place due to “buy back programs” not being successful in reducing crime, while some programs are downright laughable & terrible policy. So now, the police are responsible for protecting you & your family, the rest of the community, & themselves. On top of that, they are responsible for taking legally owned firearms from citizens who don’t commit crimes, all while also having to still deal with the criminals who still have guns, which ultimately cause the police to become more militaristic. Which creates a whole new set of problems that I wont go into here.
Regarding the issue of gun control itself, I believe I have made the case that it disproportionally effects the poor first & most harshly. The origins of gun control in the United States has a deep connection with racism.
After the Confederacy surrendered in 1865, newly freed slaves were still not considered to be citizens. This included the right to bear arms. Not until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 & the Civil Rights Act of 1870, were freed slaves even considered a citizen in the codified law. After the ratification of the 14th, states had to pass racially-neutral laws. The states passed these laws, yet applied them differently on the basis of race.
Both Tennessee & Arkansas prohibited the more affordable handguns that former slaves could afford. At the same time, these bills simultaneously allowed expensive handguns, such as the Army & Navy Colt’s, which ex-Confederate officers already owned.
With an increase of lynching in the 1880s, blacks were encouraged to buy Winchesters to protect their families from “the two legged animal” which is understandable, in context.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 50s & 60s, & reactions to it, were heavily influenced by firearm ownership. The Deacons for Defense & Justice was an armed community defense organization, founded in 1965. The Deacons provided armed security when Dr. King led the Meredith March against Fear. If anyone knows their 50s & 60s US history, there was much turmoil, to put it easy. Who knows if those marches would have been able to happen without a defensive use of firearms.
This is not to say that all gun control is racist, it is not, but there is a history of it there. If you would like to know more click HERE.
Now I’d like to wrap this up here, but I don’t want to end abruptly. I would like to tie up a couple lose ends.
In a 2013 study by the CDC estimated defensive use of guns occurs between 500,000 & 3 million times per year.
The report notes, “violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.”
Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States."
It concluded that guns are an effective deterrent against crime.
Recently, it was discovered that the FBI was falsely reporting the number of armed citizens who had stopped shootings. The article stated, “Data released by the nonprofit shows that 34.4% of active shootings were thwarted by armed citizens between 2014 and 2021. However, FBI data show only 4.4% of active shootings were thwarted by armed citizens during that time period.”
So a good guy with a gun is not a false notion. It is backed up statistically.
The issue is not what the criminal holds. The issue is who is holding it & who cannot hold it. Every time the citizens have had their ability to defend themselves taken away, especially by the state, horrific atrocities occur.
What is interesting to me, is the idea that things would actually be okay if we banned guns. I have yet to see any evidence, anywhere to show that giving the control of “killing machines” over to government (and criminals) exclusively is going to actually help us.
We have over 100 years of evidence from totalitarian dictatorships showing us that when we centralize the ownership of firearms in society, they will be used against those who do not have access.
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” - Vladimir Lenin
The truth is, no one want’s innocent’s to die. Any tragedy that has been committed in the past 30 years by a mad man with a firearm is not only horrific but completely avoidable. As I have mentioned before, the issue is not with what the lunatic is holding in their hand. The issue is with the lunatic holding it.
We have a major mental health issue in this country. Many people keep talking about it, including myself. Yet not much get’s done. I am not going to pretend like I have all the answers to fix this issue, but I am confident that the issue is NOT the ownership of firearms. We can make all guns disappear tomorrow & the issue will still persist, only the item being held by the lunatic will change.
We need to take a long hard look at our society & address these problems head-on instead of ignoring the heart of the issue. We cannot “pass the buck” any longer.