Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Libertarian Party Platform for Self Defense

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    ================================================
    |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
    Old Dominion Liberty Letter Issue #19
    |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
    ================================================

    This issue distributed on Sunday, July 19, 2009.


    ================================================
    5. EXPLORING LIBERTY: The LP's "Self-Defense" Plank
    ================================================

    This issue, we bring you an exploration of the Libertarian Party's platform position # 1.6 Self-Defense, which reads:

    --------
    1.6 Self-Defense -- 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 right 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.
    --------

    Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

    Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

    Read more from our gun rights flyer:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20000815070723/http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html

    Libertarians generally believe the right to keep and bear arms should be an inviolable concept. Therefore, we:

    - Oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating, registering or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition;

    - Oppose any bans or restrictions on the sale or carry of tear gas, "mace," or other self-protection devices;

    - Support repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1935;

    - Call for the repeal of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968;

    - Call for the abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and

    - Favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials").


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    They aren't planning on running another VA candidate in favor of "reasonable gun control" like in the US Senate race last year, one hopes.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I know.

    Hewas a huge disappointment and embarrasment to those that love liberty.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    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.
    Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity.
    The first quote would appear to include the right of ex-felons to own and carry guns. The second quote seems to add a bit of grey area to that. Where would the official party line be on that issue?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    ccunning wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    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.
    Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity.
    The first quote would appear to include the right of ex-felons to own and carry guns. The second quote seems to add a bit of grey area to that. Where would the official party line be on that issue?
    Ex-felons can be perfectly law-abiding, and have the same rights as anyone else.

    If they are committing a crime now, while carrying, they're not law-abiding. Conundrum over.

    Of course, this doesn't include illegitimate malum prohibitum laws like those barring felons from owning guns, only legitimate laws that are malum in se.



  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Once we have let a person back into society, we must accept the reality that that person will have practical access to all the benefits of freedom, whether we legislatively declare otherwise or not.

    This includes the practical ability to arm oneself. Further, since doing so is not an act of aggression, it should not be illegal.

    One could argue that a ramification of the above is that felons should not be released into society until we are comfortable trusting them with that freedom. None of this, "oh, now you're free, but you can't do this that and the other".

    One could further argue that such a system would require as a prerequisite a justice system which did not imprison people for malum prohibitum offenses. Then again, we already lock up hundreds of thousands of innocents for extended durations, so I guess the above is a given in any case.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Ex-felons
    Orwell Alert: am I the only one who remembers when they used to call people who get out of prison "ex-convicts" or "ex-cons"?

    Now they are just "felons", and they apparently stay that way forever.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    Ex-felons
    Orwell Alert: am I the only one who remembers when they used to call people who get out of prison "ex-convicts" or "ex-cons"?

    Now they are just "felons", and they apparently stay that way forever.
    I remember that way back in the old days there weren't too many felons around because you really had to do something bad and they didn't last very long except when Blondie saved them.
    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/dMoWg7eW1bg&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]
    As to the OP, I think there is something wrong with not being able to make restitution to restore ones rights, but I don't know if anyone can come up with an acceptable to society method of doing that better than we do now.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •