 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 764, March 30, 2014 Civilization is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted for one century, civilization would die, and we should be savages again. —Will and Ariel Durant
Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise Let's discuss the gun issue here. I'm going to ask everyone, on all sides of the issue, to refrain from snark, condescension, insults, & making it personal. This is about the issue not the people discussing it. Please review the Code of Conduct before posting. Now that that is out of the way I'll present my pro-gun rights side via one of my articles & a YouTube video of a presentation I gave. Please comment on what you agree or disagree with: (snip) It is immoral to initiate the use of force or the threat of force against peaceful people. In other words, a person has to be actually engaging in aggression or credibly threatening to do so before it is morally justifiable to use force in retaliation. What does that have to do with guns? The mere possession of an inanimate object such a gun aggresses against no one. There is no moral justification for taking guns away from people who adhere to the non-aggression principle since this involves initiating the use of force to separate them from their weapons. Property rights are part of this equation also. People have a right to their property. Guns are property. Separating people from their guns by force is theft of those weapons. There is a moral justification for, at times, using force. That is self-defense. Since the initiation of force is immoral the right to self-defense seems obvious. Depriving people of their guns is clearly taking away part of their ability to use defensive force. This is another way that gun control is a violation of people's rights. (snip) and the video by the author—
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next