One of the principals of libertarianism is individualism; you own yourself, you are responsible for yourself, and you are your own man. The left thinks as a gun owner I’m somehow responsible for the massacre that happened in Orlando. I’m not the one who pulled the trigger, so how can the left blame me or any other gun owner for what happened? This particular attack has no logic to it.
Collective punishment and blame runs counter to a constitutional republic given how in constitutional republics, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Greece under the Junta (1967-1974), North Korea, Cuba, and Spain under Franco are examples of countries which believed in collective punishment. Those in favor of collective punishment don’t care about facts or the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. All that matters to them is that if one belongs to a group of people, expresses a particular opinion, or engages in particular activity, that person is guilty and is responsible simply due to association. Collective punishment and blame can be viewed as being guilty until proven innocent, which puts the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the accuser.
The left says that they just want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. On the surface, this statement isn’t that evil because who wants thugs and terrorists to have guns to kill innocent people? I would wager not many people. However in reality, people who wish to harm others are going to do it anyway, whether there is a law on the books or not. Criminals don’t care about legitimate laws, and that is why they’re criminals.
Some on the left say that only the government should be armed. The same government that has agents that willingly violate the 4th amendment? The same government agents who openly violate the rights of people knowing full well they’ll get away with it if they ever reach a courtroom? The same government agents who they cry are racist oppressors? This kind of logic is insane.
Historically, gun control was started to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves from people who wanted to harm them. Today’s gun regulations can still do just that. For example, let’s take someone who is gay. Some in this country still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. A state with mental health screenings as a precursor to obtaining a firearm could be used against a gay individual who wishes to arm themselves. Similar gun control measures can be used against other groups of people by those who issue gun licenses, such as county clerks and sheriffs. Why should the rights of individual be subjected to the approval of others? When a right is to be granted by the discretion of others, then it’s no longer a right, but a privilege. And last I checked, the second amendment is not a privilege, but a right.
In a free society, there will always be bad events, bad people, and bad situations. That’s reality. No piece of legislation will ever fully eliminate the horrible elements of society. However it has been proven statistically that the more armed a society becomes, the less likely tragic events such as what happened down in Orlando will happen. Criminals like easy targets because an unarmed person is less likely to deliver any serious harm to a criminal. If the left was ever actually serious about protecting the rights of minority groups (they weren’t), then they would ditch gun control and allow gays and minority groups to arm themselves to defend themselves from those who wish to do harm against them. Though their support for individual rights shouldn’t stop just there, but should extend to everyone.