1.6 Self-Defense

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.

The very first thing I like about this plank is that it exists at all. The other parties don't expressly acknowledge, let alone support, your right to self defense.

The second thing I like is how it begins, describing the only legitimate use of force. Notice that it talks about individual rights. Not collective rights, individual rights. This is not a trivial point. Collective rights are an aggregation, a social construct.

Collective rights are important, but they should always be subordinate to individual rights. That is, the group does not have a higher right than the individual. This may strike someone as "unfair", after all, shouldn't actions that benefit twp people outweigh actions that benefit only one? The answer is no. As soon as you allow the group to override the individual then mob rule is established. This is the road to tragedy. Collective rights exist as extensions of individual rights. "We the People..." affirmed the bill of [individual] rights.

The third thing is that it is crystal clear. Government keep your hands off! The government has continued to encrouch on the second amendment in every way it can imagine. The Libertarian party stands steadfast against such encroachment, and puts it in writing. No wishy-washing compromising. You have the right to defend yourself, and the government doesn't have any right to stop you.

This does present at least one issue, some people have, by virtue of their past violent behavior, been stripped of their right to own a firearm. This has long been held up by the gun rights deniers as a reason for registration and background checks. It would be a good argument if the government happened to be present at each transfer. The reality is that criminals will obtain firearms with or without the blessing of the government. History has yet to demonstrate that any registration or background checks have, even incidentally, reduced the number of firearms in the hands of those legally barred from having them. Background checks only serve to hinder the law abiding citizen from obtaining firearms. Registration only serves to make the task of confiscation easier.