Only People Threatened by Russia May Bear Arms

Pundits and politicians who routinely deny that Americans have the natural right to keep and bear arms nevertheless are thrilled by the scenes of Ukrainian civilians bearing arms in order to resist the Russian invaders.

I guess only people threatened by Russians have the right to keep and bear arms.

But don't those same pundits and politicians tell us that we Americans are threatened by Russia?  Ergo...

How Trump Interprets the Second Amendment

Take the guns first, go through due process second.

--President Donald Trump

TGIF: Real Common Sense on Gun Control

Here’s how to judge the pragmatic case for gun control: if the pro-control lobby managed to have each of its favorite restrictions enacted, could we as individuals be more casual about our safety than we are today? The answer clearly is no. So what’s the point of the restrictions beyond letting their advocates feel good about themselves?

Read TGIF at The Libertarian Institute.

TGIF (The Goal Is Freedom) appears on Fridays. Sheldon Richman, author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is executive editor of The Libertarian Institute. He is also a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. Become a Free Association patron today!

TGIF: Ending Gun Violence: Logic versus Magic

What passes for thinking about the prevention of gun violence is not thinking at all. Thinking (as problem-solving) is a search for means that can be reasonably expected to achieve a given end. By reasonably I mean that supporting arguments can be provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of reasonable people the connection between the means and ends. What we get from gun-control advocates is nothing like that; instead they operate on the magical belief that uttering certain words -- codifying just the right incantation -- will accomplish the end.

About Universal Background Checks

Proponents of government-mandated “universal” background checks on gun buyers make a bad counterargument to those who oppose the popular proposal. Opponents correctly point out that people with criminal intent can reasonably be expected to find gun-buying channels that require no background check. Gun-running is among the oldest professions, and the black market will always be with us. Just ask anyone who wants to buy illegal drugs. So it is valid to point out that the promise of universal background checks—even if that were a legitimate government activity—is chimerical because universality can’t possibly be achieved.

Supporters, however, challenge this argument by contending that it proves too much: If legislating background checks is futile as a crime-fighting measure, they ask, why have laws any against criminal activity, such as the prohibition of murder? Those laws will never stop everyone from a committing crime, so what’s the point?

I find this argument flawed. Let’s remember that the background-check requirement is intended, prophylactically, to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm. In contrast, the state’s prohibition against murder is intended, retrospectively, to authorize government agents to apprehend, prosecute, and imprison people who commit unjustifiable homicide. Yes, there may be some deterrent intent (and effect), but the main objective is to permit action against those suspected of murder, etc.

Supporters of background checks may respond that a “universal” law would permit the state to go after those who have used guns aggressively. But this argument is of no force simply because if someone uses a gun aggressively, the state already has grounds to apprehend and prosecute. What value is there in being able to also charge a suspected mass murderer with illegal possession of a gun?

In my view, this practical criticism of legislated universal background checks withstands scrutiny. The law would give a false sense of security by promising what it cannot deliver, but meanwhile could impede persons without criminal intent from obtaining firearms for self-defense. Someone determined to commit a mass shooting or other crime can reasonably be expected to buy his or her guns through channels that do not require background checks, and that won’t be too difficult. But people without criminal intent will be reluctant buy guns outside the law, even if they aren’t able to get one legally. (Someone with a felony drug conviction, for instance, may not legally possess a gun.)

Of course this criticism, although valid, is not specifically a libertarian criticism. A more specifically libertarian criticism is that mere possession of a firearm involves no aggression, regardless of a person’s background, and therefore should not be prohibited. (Property owners of course should be free to manage their property with respect to guns as they like.)

But isn’t the law worth it if it might save one innocent life? And what if the law might cost one innocent life? Why is one innocent life regarded as more valuable than another?

Second Amendment Book Bomb

I heartily pass this long from the Second Amendment Book Bomb:

Monday, December 15, marks America’s Bill of Rights Day, the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. To commemorate this event, the Second Amendment Book Bomb website has been created, a unique and powerful way to communicate the importance of the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment for the protection of liberty. With your help, we can launch constitutional rights to the top of national book bestseller lists, making a loud and clear statement that Second Amendment rights are inalienable!

The Second Amendment has already won a historic victory on June 26, 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and bear arms. However, the Heller ruling was immediately attacked and efforts continue on the national level and across the country to undermine gun rights. Therefore, to secure the Second Amendment now and for the future the American public must be made aware of the reasons why the Founders sought to protect this right.

And now we have the tool to do so. Fascinating, seminal, and inspiring, the new book, The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook, is the perfect way both to educate ourselves and to reach friends and family who don’t yet understand Second Amendment rights. Our goal is to reach one million Americans with Dr. Halbrook’s book during the Holiday Season and throughout the New Year ahead. Will you help?

To achieve this goal the Second Amendment Book Bomb website has been established to create a phenomenon so great that even the mainstream media will have to take notice. Let’s spread The Founders’ Second Amendment so far and wide that Americans across the political spectrum, and all walks of life, will be discussing the Second Amendment in every possible venue.

With your help, we can make Dr. Halbrook’s book #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. To make this happen, please go to the website and pledge to buy at least one copy of the book before or on the December 15th Second Amendment Book Bomb date. Let’s make this the most amazing and explosive event ever on the right to bear arms, and declare in no uncertain terms that the Second Amendment will be around for a very long time to come.

With your pledge to buy the book, we can:

* Make The Founders’ Second Amendment #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
* Make The Founders’ Second Amendment a #1 bestseller on Amazon.com.
* Make The Founders’ Second Amendment a #1 bestseller on BarnesandNoble.com.
* Make The Founders’ Second Amendment a #1 bestseller on BooksAMillion.com.

Please help now by making your pledge here.