Right to Keep and Bear Arms--Libertarian Party Platform

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. (Section 1.6 Libertarian Party platform)

One of the complex things about philosophical movements is that camps of thought often become entwined. My understanding of Libertarian philosophy does not conclude that Libertarians are necessarily Conservative Constitutionalists. However, I think that it is fair to say that Libertarians and Conservative Constitutionalists share a number of common beliefs. One of those commonalities is their shared position of the right to keep and to bear arms. On this point, I have never heard Libertarians or Conservative Constitutionalists concede that there ever should ever be any compromise on this issue whatsoever. This is a black and white issue. We all have the right to keep and bear arms and neither person nor government can interfere with this right. No gun control law is Constitutional, ever.

But, let’s back up for a moment. If reasonable and rational thought is applied, this issue has decided shades of gray.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There were certainly factors, namely the recent victory in the Revolutionary War that would have given the Founding Fathers pause relating to the security of the infant United States of America. England was a powerful nation and the military of the United States was far from a finely tuned organization. The British could have very feasibly attacked in attempt to reclaim its territory.

But, what did our Founding Fathers have in mind when they included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” within the Bill of Rights? 1791, the year the Bill of Rights was adopted, firearms in common use included musket rifles, single-shot muzzleloader handguns and cannons.

Today, we obviously have a much wider variety of “arms” available to us. Perhaps the “arm” I need to protect myself and my family is a nuclear warhead, or a vial of anthrax or maybe just a few 155 mm artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

These powerful elements of modern warfare were not even elements of our Founding Fathers imagination. Who could have imagined the horror of a nuclear bomb prior to “Little Boy” being dropped August 6, 1945? Clearly, the realization of this nightmare was not a part of our Founding Fathers’ decision making process.

Of course, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and the wide range of modern weapons are “arms.” Would any reasonable person believe that an individual has the right to “bear” a nuclear “arm?” Translation - are you OK with your neighbor storing a nuclear warhead in his garage? He might need this “arm” to defend himself against the Taliban, the North Koreans or his own government after all.

This is, of course, an insane line of reasoning. I merely present the argument to make the point that the Second Amendment is not an open and shut case. We then have to conclude that citizens and the government have at least partially restricted rights to keep and bear arms, hence the debate.

It is not an unconstitutional debate; it is a very real debate that should not be cut off.

I believe we can agree that to store a nuclear warhead in your garage is extremely dangerous. Are we OK with citizens of densely populated cities packing automatic weapons in the subway? As a former resident of the great city of Chicago I can emphatically say that I would be very uneasy in a city that condoned guns being commonplace. There are simply too many people in a very small space.

Most reasonable people, I think, see a big difference between owning guns for sporting use (hunting, target shooting, etc), keeping a gun in your dresser drawer for personal protection, carrying a firearm on your person while running errands on a Saturday afternoon, and owning/trafficking guns that facilitate further violence in the streets.

This is not a black and white issue as Libertarians and Conservative Constitutionalists like to preach. I ask these Americans to honor others’ rights to be and feel safe and to engage in reasonable discussion and compromise, not continue to proselytize an evangelical-style faith that this is a clear cut issue.