If you’ve spent the last couple of days speaking out in favor of the individual rights of homosexuals, Muslims, and gun owners—insert Jeff Foxworthy voice here—you might be a libertarian.
We know that the Orlando shooting was not an act of retribution by God against gays—yet some Muslims and Christians are saying it is.
We know that it’s only a very small percentage of Muslims who use violence in the service of their religious and political ends—but some people, including the Republican candidate for president, are saying we would ban all Muslims from entering the United States for any reason.
And we know that banning individual possession of guns is immoral and impractical—but all the usual suspects are back with their emotional appeals to ban guns.
I’m not going to go into the complete gun control argument here, largely because it doesn’t seem that proponents of gun control have any interest in honestly debating the issue.
But let’s get a couple of things straight. First, to advocate for gun control is to advocate violence against millions of peaceful people. Because there are more guns than people in the United States, it would take years and years and countless police actions to actually round up even a small fraction of those guns.
But without the private possession of guns and other weapons, Americans would be stuck depending on the government—police, military, and other “homeland security” types—for their personal safety against all the bad guys.
The same government who has suspected Omar Mateen of being a terrorist since 2013. We’re supposed to trust them with not only our safety, but we’re supposed tbe OK with them tapping our phones, collecting our emails, monitoring our bank transactions, trolling through our prescription records, holding people prisoner without trial for decades, torturing suspects because they might have a tiny bit of information about something another suspect said years ago, and maintaining a secret “kill list” of people—including Americans—who are to be hunted and murdered by drones merely on the word of some bureaucrat who convinces the president to authorize the strike.
If they’ve taken all this freedom for the ostensible purpose of keeping us safe—and then can’t, or won’t, prevent a mass murder, then maybe it’s not really about keeping us safe.