We do two things extremely well in this country, stereotype and overreact. I'm sure I'm not alone when I tell you I've heard every excuse in the book for defending the Second Amendment. That it's about hunting, or collecting, or target shooting. That's all malarkey. It's about defending freedom against tyrants. Let's not forget that it was our friends the French who had stringent gun-registration laws before World War II. When the Nazis came, they had only to consult the registration lists at the local gendarme in order to round up all the weapons in a particular district. I oppose all forms of gun registration. Registration is simply a first step towards confiscation. Not only that, I would support repeal of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968.
Tyrants come in many forms, some domestic, some foreign. Registration laws place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist. Revolution becomes all but impossible. Freedom wasn't won with a handshake, after all, but at the muzzle of a gun. Thus, all attempts to license or restrict the arming of an individual is a violation of their natural rights and, inevitably, subversive of their democratic political institutions.
On top of the political ramifications of such laws, the laws themselves are self-defeating. While the stated purpose of registration-type laws is to keep weapons out of the hands of potential criminals, they do nothing of the sort. Gangsterism has always thrived under such laws, and still does. Criminals are never materially handicapped by these kinds of rules. The only direct result is to disarm peaceful citizens and place them fully at the mercy of the lawless. Let's face it, a weapon is still the best defense an individual can have against a criminal who invades his home. Thus, laws banning guns can accomplish only one thing — victim disarmament. A libertarian has to oppose not only gun registration, but also waiting periods and laws prohibiting concealed weapons.
This is a point brought into sharp focus by our most recent Democrat president. He went on national television one day to advance what he called the "common sense" idea that guns should be registered just like cars. Excuse me? At last check there was no Federal Department of Motor Vehicles, no waiting period to buy cars, and no limit on the number of cars a citizen could buy. Nor do the feds monitor car sales between private individuals. And that's in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people are killed or maimed each year in car crashes, far more than die of gunshot wounds in this country.
Now, I know that some of you believe guns are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I know, for instance, that some of you have the false impression that having a gun around the house is inherently dangerous. It is — but no more so than other household hazards. In 1996, for example, seventeen children under the age of 5 died from gunshot wounds at home. That same year, five times as many children that age drowned in bathtubs. Those deaths do not get national news coverage, of course, whereas the gun deaths do. In both instances, I should imagine, the parents were at least partly to blame. But do we ban bathtubs then? Register them with the state for safety purposes? Limit the number per household? No, of course not.
Now, let's face it, there is a difference, of course, between the unfettered right to bear arms and the unfettered right to discharge a weapon. Do not misunderstand me — if a weapon is used in the commission of a crime, it is still a crime and should be punished severely. But it is the person who should be punished, not the law. People abuse liquor, they abuse drugs, they abuse their right to operate a motor vehicle — but in none of these cases is the law in question; rather it is the abuser who is punished. The same should hold true for guns. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime, that person should be sent to jail. But trying to ban guns or regulate them to prevent crimes hurts only the innocent. An armed society can be a polite society. Just ask the Swiss.