Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gun Control and Immigration Restrictions Are Enemies of Liberty

The major political parties both push policies that endanger our most basic liberties.

What's a liberty lover to do? Democrats want the government to restrict the right of self-defense, even if it means considering the confiscation of guns. Republicans want the government to control who may come to the country, even if it means compelling employers to clear job applicants through a national database.

Let that sink in. Two of the most important aspects of liberty are self-defense and the search for a better life. One political party would have the state dictate the terms of the first; the other would have the government dictate the terms of the second. 

I ask again: what's a liberty lover to do?

The right to take self-defensive action follows from self-ownership, which means the right not to be aggressed against and the obligation not to aggress against others. As the Levelller Richard Overton wrote in "An Arrow against All Tyrants" (1646):

To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man.

Abraham Lincoln said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." That is intuitively true; that is, we grasp it directly, as we grasp that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Slavery is wrong, and slavery is the negation of self-ownership. The abolitionists called slaveholders "man-stealers." So if it is true that slavery is wrong, this must also be true: if self-ownership is not right, nothing is right.

You cannot believe that your life is your own without also believing that you are entitled to defend yourself from physical attack, even if deadly force is required. Further, if self-defense is legitimate, then the acquisition of the means of self-defense, such as a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, is also legitimate. No one else's right of self-ownership is violated by the mere acquisition or possession of firearms.

Thus the right not to be aggressed against—to self-ownership—entails the right of self-defense, which entails the right to acquire (through consensual means of course) firearms. Forcibly encumbering people's efforts to acquire and possess firearms—most particularly government gun control in all its splendid variety—violates their rights.

Yet most Democrats see no problem in encumbering those efforts. The term gun control has a bad sound these days, so the controllers prefer the euphemism common-sense gun-safety legislation. But it's the same old wine in a new bottle. Most public endorsements of such legislation refer to "universal" background checks and some ill-defined "gun-show loophole." (I've addressed these things here.) But occasionally someone slips up and gives us a glimpse of what is perhaps the real objective.

Recently, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke favorably about Australia's gun laws. After the horrible shootings in Oregon, Obama said,

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours—Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

Clinton, asked about Australia's law at a town-hall meeting, said,

Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.

She compared Australia's "buyback" program to Obama's "cash for clunkers" program under which the government paid people to trade-in their old cars. Crucially, she added about the Australia law, "I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at."

What she and Obama left out is that Australia's "buyback" program, unlike "cash for clunkers," was compulsory. It was an eminent-domain action by the state governments. Australia's constitution (like the U.S. Constitution) requires compensation when government takes private property. Thus gun owners were paid through a special tax for the guns they were ordered to surrender. (The program began with rifles and shotguns in 1996 and was extended to handguns in 2003.) In the United States local voluntary gun "buybacks" have had unspectacular results.

Moreover, the programs in Australia netted the government no more than a third of the nation's guns. Clinton's questioner was simply wrong when he said, "Australia managed to … take away tens of thousands—millions—of handguns, and in one year they were all gone." (Emphasis added.) So no matter how you view the subsequent trends in gun violence there (the picture is mixed), the results cannot be attributed to ridding Australia of firearms --because Australia was not rid of guns. Note, however, that the questioner, unlike Clinton and Obama, understands that the government took away -- confiscated -- the guns.

A word about "buyback" programs: Nonsense! Since governments don't sell guns to the people they rule, they most certainly cannot buy them back the way a corporation buys back shares of its stock.

A mandatory eminent-domain program for guns would of course be unconstitutional in light of the Second Amendment and theHeller case, which held that the amendment merely affirms a pre-constitutional individual right to keep and bear arms. That may be why Clinton had to "clarify" her statement. A spokeswoman  said, "Of course not," when asked if Clinton favored gun confiscation. But the fact remains that if you think the Australian law is "worth considering," you're saying that confiscation is worth considering.

Photo Credit: Boston Catholic/Flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Why no comments? Y'all at church, synagogue, or Mosque today, eh?

  • Adans smith||

    I just finished preparing manicotti and fresh french bread to bake for the Browns game and have beer on ice.Been busy.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Mosque would be Friday. Synagogue would be Saturday. I'm just trying to stay dry here in Texas.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Mosque would be Friday. Synagogue would be Saturday. I'm just trying to stay dry here in Texas.

  • ||

    Where are you ?

    I'm in Webster and we live on the water. It is higher than ever in the last 7 years and still raining. We've had a south wind for a week along with a hish tide so the water level was high to start but with this rain storm we might set a record.

    It's all global weather changing climate carbon all the way down. We need some common sense rain water plus high tide legislation I think.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Live in San Antonio, but been in Port Aransas since Thursday. Not as much rain here, but a lot of wind and storm surge.

  • american socialist||

    At the Church of Satan and Laventia Beria, I ate the head off of a bat and sacrificed a piglet to Lenin. But that was on Saturday night so I have time this morning.

  • Ted S.||

    Richman's articles aren't on the H&R page any longer. That's probably why they don't get so many comments any more.

  • GregMax||

    Control freaks don't care about rational. I'm confident people could come up with reasoned and practical laws regarding guns in public and immigration. It ain't gonna happen because coming tot he best place in these issues (or most public policy issues) is about control and redistribution of stuff.

  • GregMax||

    I can't even understand that mistake. Oh, "coming to the best place" :(

  • Slim Strontem||

    Try elsewhere. If you like it, stay. Easy breezy.

  • mfckr||

    No disagreements re: guns/self-defense.

    Open borders isn't worth discussing so long as we live in a society of open welfare statism. Libertarians should probably shut up about it until that's dealt with.

  • Repatriated Lawyer||

    Agree completely.

  • GroundTruth||

    Well, that didn't take long.

  • contrarian||

    'You can have open borders, a welfare state, or democracy. Pick two.' -loose quotation I can't source.

    Addendum: Since democracy leads to welfare state, then you can either pick democracy or you can pick open borders/welfare state. But we don't like the welfare state, so we can pick open borders. Or none of the above. Or some sort of extremely indirect proto-democracy?

  • contrarian||

    I guess Friedman said something similar, but he didn't ever depart far enough from the dogma to consider the detrimental role democracy can play in this mix. So I don't know where I heard this particular manifestation of the idea.

  • JeremyR||

    He said you can have open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both.

    It's simple math - people will come in and mooch and not work. Especially when most the immigrants come over the southern border, have no skills and can't even speak English.

    Someplace like say Canada where most the immigrants come from airplanes or boats, at least they tend to speak English and have the price of airfare/boatfare, then it's not so bad.

  • Suicidy||

    Absolutely true.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    As long as the welfare state exists, I'd rather have an easy path to citizenship so that at least these immigrants can pay taxes and therefore reduce the cost of burden. Bonus points for temporary working visas.

    But of course, someone (likely a Republican or Bernie Sanders) will be crying about thwarting the rule of law. But this means the law needs to be reformed - not undermined. If the law is constantly failing, then it is a bad law.

  • Al Sharpton||

    Wouldn't that citizenship qualify them for much more welfare and thus by pass any contribution to taxes?

  • retiredfire||

    Problem being that, until they climb into the upper-middle class, where income taxes become imposed, they won't be paying taxes and will, as many studies have shown, even if legal, be a net-negative on taxes paid versus benefits received, and that's if they come to work, at all.
    We can't handle more of a drain on our negative $19 trillion government ledger.

  • GregMax||

    I noticed some drunken woman used a car under the influence and took out a bunch of people in OK. Will the libs call for a national dialog on drunk driving? No. Will they propose automatic breaking systems when you hit an object? No.
    So, rather that just bitch about it let me suggest a couple ideas regarding firearms and self-defense. First, I agree that the government can infringe on the right of convicted violent felons and people adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to others by establishing a data base of restricted transfer. Then, I agree that the government can infringe on certain weapons that will explode and kill indiscriminately. Beyond that no state or federal agency can infringe on the amount, type, number, purchase/sale of firearms or ammunition for those not restricted by the limits in the first authority.
    Then, in exchange for the authority to do background checks, they establish a national carry system that supersedes all state restrictions on public firearm use.
    But that will happen when pigs fly.
    As to immigration, if you aren't here legally . . . please, go home. It is not mean to say that I can decide who comes into my home, and it's not mean to establish limitations on who enters the country.

  • mfckr||

    Their objective is to disarm the populace, as humans deprived of their capability for self-defense become more deferential, compliant, and submissive. It's social engineering masqueraded as an effort to save lives.

  • mtrueman||

    "Their objective is to disarm the populace, as humans deprived of their capability for self-defense become more deferential, compliant, and submissive."

    Unfortunately, Americans are already as deferential, compliant and submissive as any nation is. Wait and see, they will vote for Hillary in their millions. Guns aren't going to change any of this despite the magical powers Libertarians attribute to them.

  • ||

    Society needs to be protected from racist gun mongers.

    /derp

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    We have to do something !!!!1!!1

  • Al Sharpton||

    Ironic if you consider that most illegal immigrants who work, work for conservatives - construction firms, farms & ranches are usually owned by conservatives. Conservatives are only really afraid of immigrants that DON"T work.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "So no matter how you view the subsequent trends in gun violence there (the picture is mixed), the results cannot be attributed to ridding Australia of firearms --because Australia was not rid of guns."

    Laws are magic. Once a law is passed, what it says it does happens. Any evidence to the contrary is sedition.

  • GregMax||

    DWI laws are a salient example.

  • JayWye||

    Australia had a low rate of gun crime prior to their new stricter gun laws,the rates were dropping before those new laws. I've read that after the new laws,their rate of decline SLOWED,while the rate of decline in the US continued at a much faster rate than that of Australia...while we ADDED many millions more guns. So,it's more accurate to say the Australian law had a negative effect,while our gun sales didn't.
    Further,Australia can still have mass murders,since the guns are still available there. In fact, i just read about how an Aussie was making MAC-10 machine guns and suppressors in his home shop,had sold 100s of them before he was caught. There was also another home shop making Stirling machine guns. Those machine guns are still in circulation in Australia.
    One could more accurately say that the reason for low gun violence in Australia is due to their different culture and "diversity",and not gun availability.

  • jerryg1018||

    I presume your last sentence was sarcasm.

  • Repatriated Lawyer||

    Open borders is not a libertarian objective when combined with a welfare state. Period. Good points about gun confiscation, though.

  • Foo_dd||

    the welfare state is definitely the reason immigration has not been reformed. in principle, libertarians lean towards open borders... but there is a logistics problem when you allow anyone to come here and get free stuff. open borders + free stuff = not the kind of people who will add value. open borders - free stuff = people who want to contribute are the ones who come.

  • EndTheGOP||

    Well one would hope that the only people who would actually be stupid enough to register their weapons with our corrupt government would be the socialists/democrats.

    Then it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel and we get our country back, you know, the one with the constitution written by the founding fathers.

  • GregMax||

    Sheep reproduce faster than lions.

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    Normally, that means more food for the lions... in this case, it means more votes for the statists.

  • ||

    " Immigration restrictions cruelly lock non-Americans into lives of poverty."

    Their home countries are responsible for "locking non Americans into lives of poverty".

    If Libertarians are in favor of non intervention by Americans shouldn't they also be for non intervention of the US by others ?

    Shouldn't those who move here be responsible for the country they left behind ? Shouldn't they have responsibility to change their native enviroment rather than moving here and changing ours ?

    Heady questions on a Sunday morning hangover.

    Didn't someone write a song about that ?

    https://goo.gl/HyVU9m

  • Suicidy||

    It isn't that simple in the real world. You know this.

  • jgress||

    I wonder if the open borders crowd constantly harp on the rights of foreigners because they can't make a strong case that it benefits Americans? Yeah, why should our own government promote our own interests above those of non-citizens? What a terribly unjust idea!

    I get that American employers and landlords should be able to deal with foreigners as well as citizens. That part makes sense. But I'm not convinced that giving employers absolute freedom to hire foreigners makes sense when they can offload so many costs on the taxpayer, e.g. government-subsidized healthcare.

    The other idea I'm having problems with is the notion of treating people as commodities. The logic is supposedly that free trade in goods goes with free trade in people. But if domestic goods get outcompeted in the market, nobody cares because they are not people. If domestic labor gets outcompeted, on the other hand, who is going to take care of them?

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    I wonder if the open borders crowd constantly harp on the rights of foreigners because they can't make a strong case that it benefits Americans?

    Trade benefits all parties.

  • ||

    Free trade does Barney but the trade packs that run thousands of pages aren't free trade. Free trade packs would run 1 or 2 pages .You don't impose import tariffs on our goods and we won't impose them on yours.

    They are simply carve out protections for pet cronys.

    I've read where this latest one has all sorts of enviro climate change language in it that shouldn't have anything to do with free trade.

  • Suicidy||

    This would all be a lot simpler if progressives were cleansed from out society.

  • Fairbanks||

    Not all parties. It certainly benefits the parties to the trade. It may also benefit others (e.g. availability of goods, lower prices on goods), but it may also disadvantage some (e.g. lost jobs, lower pay). The average benefit to all parties is almost assuredly positive though.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Yes, all parties. Trade that externalizes costs to a third party is trade within a system that has failed to detail property rights adequately.

    If I trade my apples for your oranges voluntarily, we both benefit. Tulpa.

  • Fairbanks||

    There is a property right to a job or a certain wage rate?

  • Win Bear||

    Immigration does generally benefit Americans. I think more immigration is a good thing in principle.

    The trouble with the kind of immigration favored by Democrats is that they are manipulating immigration in a way that creates a large number of new government dependents and Democratic voters.

    Much more liberal immigration is fine once we cut back the welfare state and restore freedom of association.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You win, Win Bear, on this one, I will gladly be your ditto-head on this one...

    Glad to see some moderation on this forum w/regards to immigration.

    But yeah, a too-generous welfare state is NOT compatible w/free immigration. I for one would like to make my own charity choices, w/o Government Almighty MAKING my choices for me, under threat of force. WHERE are the politicians who will take this simple stance... Earners should be free to make their own charity choices?

  • Suicidy||

    Once again I I'll restate my plan to exchange one progressive for one illegal. The illegals are a huge improvement.

  • Al Sharpton||

    What better opportunity for "crossing the isle" that for conservatives to say they will allow amnesty and mass immigration if the liberals signed off on massive welfare cut-backs? The only problem I can see, is that this would expose neither party actually cares about either.

  • Matdarat||

    No problem with the gun rights side. Now for the immigration side there is a disconnect. The US admits more immigrants yearly than any other country, in accordance with the rules and safety standards approved by Congress. The writers concern is for those who choose to enter the country illegally or overstay their visas. Either way those illegals have chosen to violate the laws approved by the legal citizens of the country. Today is decades past when our lands were not settled and taxes were not taken by the government and given to others, Churches and others did the charity. Aside from the illegal entry...law abiding illegals contribute to US taxpayer losses by taking jobs that would be done by legal workers at higher wages ... vs unemployment checks. Consider the billions of dollars sent out of the country by the illegals...25% of Mexicans in the US! Yes the illegals have needs, needs the home country should fix, not the US taxpayer!

  • John13||

    Here's the problem with unfettered immigration. Most of the rest of the world doesn't believe in self defense / gun ownership. Open the borders and you will get a flood from foreign countries, who will then vote for amendments to remove rights to gun ownership.

    Imagine if Israel has open borders, how long would there be a Jewish government or people there? Not long at all, others would move in, and at best, outvote the Jewish people into a negative position, or at worst, exterminate them.

  • CatoTheYounger||

  • Cloudbuster||

    Because Politifact is a totally unbiased source, he said, sarcastically. As usual, it sets up a strawman -- the most difficult, unlikely approach, and knocks it down.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    It's OKAY, I understand you didn't click the links and are instead attacking the source. Losing is hard, I get it.

  • Suicidy||

    Totally true. Those Muslims would slaughter the Israelis at the first opportunity. Islamic monsters that they are.

  • John13||

    Not exactly much meat to that article to really be able to lay out some meaningful claim. Not to mention, it said only 20 million.

    Open the borders in the U.S., and I would not be surprised to see 100 million Chinese, 100 million Indians, and 100 million others in the next 20 years, i.e., as many people as are already here, the vast bulk of whom would favor gun control, would elect their own politicians, would chip away at gun rights within the court rulings (everywhere gets limited to hunting rifles, shotguns, and 7 round handguns), and have the Constitution changed to remove the Second Amendment soon enough thereafter. That many people would overwhelm the existing American culture, they would not get adjusted to it. And there are already plenty of pre-existing citizens here that would vote right along with them.

    I'm all for immigration, but within reason given the specifics of our laws, culture, economic system, etc. But open borders would overwhelm all of that.

  • american socialist||

    "What's a liberty lover to do?"

    Bitch about limited government and then vote for Republican, who (this time!) will get it right?

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Realize that the two party system is a scam, and that voting harder doesn't solve anything.

  • Suicidy||

    This country would be a lot better if all you progressives were put down.

  • Al Sharpton||

    The Libertarian Gambler's Fallacy. I wish most Libertarians would either not vote, or actually vote Libertarian.

  • american socialist||

    Sheldon, I have to say that this Leftist listened to a lot of right-wing radio in 2008-2009. They told me that Obama was coming to confiscateWhite people's guns. I became hopeful, but here it is 2015 and that Obama asshole hasn't empowered his allies in the New Black Panther Party to do so. WHAT A FUCKING SELLOUT!!!

  • Win Bear||

    Yes, because we all know that "right-wing radio" is an accurate and complete representation of the view of anybody who disagrees with Obama. /sarc

    In any case, as for Obama not doing something, I'd ascribe that more to his utter incompetence than any devious plan.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is difficult to do since the Dems lost the House and the SCOTUS has been difficult on this issue, however his administration has busy little beavers with regard to ammunition regulation

  • LarryA||

    Actually they predicted the Democrats were going to try to confiscate guns, not that they would succeed.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Abraham Lincoln said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

    Except in the border states! It's completely okay there!

    /hijack

  • Win Bear||

    Letting people work for willing employers and rent from willing landlords is not charity. It's basic decency. [...] Self-ownership logically includes the right to move (as long as no trespass occurs).

    Once immigrants are in the country, under current law, others are compelled by law to associate with them and are compelled to pay for government benefits and infrastructure. The "right to move" does not include the right to impose your presence upon others.

    And as long as the US government accounts for 40% of spending, as long as we have numerous laws forcing people to associate with each other, and as long as the federal government has the only say about who can and cannot enter the country, necessarily, immigration law is where we need to express our preferences for who to associate with.

  • the_strickler||

    Nailed it.

  • Al Sharpton||

    Compelling.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Conservatives sure do love their welfare state.

  • DenverJ||

    So wait, I'm the confuse. I thought the Mexicans were here for marijuana and butt sex, now you're telling me you want to arm them?

  • Suicidy||

    As long as they brutally slaughter progressives I'm all for it.

  • the_strickler||

    Immigration should be severely restricted so long as we have welfare, transfer payments, price controls, taxes, and fiat currency. Get rid of all of them, then we can discuss open borders.

  • Procrastinatus||

    Is it always anti-liberty in all cases to restrict immigration? Lets say you live in a small European nation with a birth rate lower than replacement, and there are immigrants flowing over the border with generally aggressive cultural values, like what's happening in nations like Austria. Is it not reasonable to assume that once these people have a voting majority, that they will turn your laws into the exact same theocratic shit holes they all cam from? What if the ones that are there vote and openly support that right now, is it wrong to be against open borders then? Is it really anti liberty to be against allowing people who's majority are aggressive to come here to vote? What if those who come here illegally tend to support government aggression via welfare and high taxes and tend to vote for those things in blocks? Is it still anti liberty to want to keep that aggression away?

  • Drake||

    You have identified where the open borders = liberty theme is complete crap.

    Will Belgium or Sweden be more free when they become caliphates ruled by Sharia law? That's were they are headed, and where the dummies that preach this nonsense want the U.S. to follow.

  • JeremyR||

    Well, to the eyes of Leftists, yes, because White Christian men are the source of all evil.

    In the eyes of the people at Reason (and Establishment Republicans), you'd be better off because you can get a nanny for 10 cents an hour

  • RoninX||

    Yes, it is anti-liberty. The problem is not immigration. The problem is democracy.

    What's to protect you from native-born citizens deciding to vote in a socialist regime or a fascist regime? The Germans didn't need immigrants to turn from a relatively free society into a totalitarian one.

  • Fairbanks||

    So what if Hitler came to power internally? That doesn't address Procrastinatus' point that limiting immigration might avoid a much bigger risk of degradation in cultural values. Just because there's a risk that a country's culture could be destroyed internally, it doesn't follow that the country should ignore all external risks. If you want to argue, on liberty grounds, that the freedom to emigrate to any country is sacrosanct, regardless of the risks that might entail, fine. I'd disagree, but I'd understand. But unrelated risks are, well, unrelated.

  • RoninX||

    Historically, the US has always been a nation of immigrants, from a wide variety of cultures, and they have all more-or-less adopted their new American culture.

    I believe that immigration is an absolute right, based on libertarian principles, but I also think the cultural risks of immigration are overstated by its opponents.

    What worries me about American culture is NOT the Mexican immigrant who works 12 hours a day doing menial labor so their kids can have a chance of a better life. What worries me as that if they manage to send their kids to college, the academic left will immediately attempt to socialize them (immigrant or not), into a collectivist, anti-capitalist, anti-individualist mindset.

  • Procrastinatus||

    I don't really have an opinion about immigration, legal or otherwise because it is a pretty nuanced subject. I was merely posing a question. Restricting immigration is in a way anti freedom and anti capitalist because that is restricting the free exchange of labor and the right to travel. I see that.

    But immigrants and especially those from Mexico and South America are coming from more Leftist cultures and do tend to vote Democratic in blocks, on a 2-1 and sometimes 3-1 margin. According to Pew they're (as a group) solidly anti gun and pro social programs. Historically immigrants didn't really want to come from their monarchies and install monarchism here.

    Libertarians argue that using the state to aggress against a neighbor is the same as doing it your self from a moral standpoint, so isn't this not really right wing hyperbole to call it an invasion if the end result is more aggression and violence against me any my property?

    Yeah, the problem at it's core is democracy. But more people wanting to use the state and democracy to aggress would actually make reforming that harder, wouldn't it?

  • Drake||

    RoninX - You dodged the question. The U.S. is importing immigrants fleeing the Leftist governments they elected. The Europeans are importing millions of people who don't even believe in democracy, liberty, anything western, and do not integrate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeGqpGpjEas

  • toadboy65||

    There is quite a bit of evidence that much of the support for national socialism was a reaction to the violent rise of communism, spreading from the USSR.

  • ||

    Yes, because we all know that "right-wing radio" is an accurate and complete representation of the view of anybody who disagrees with Obama. /sarc

    In any case, as for Obama not doing something, I'd ascribe that more to his utter incompetence than any devious plan.

    شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض

  • Homple||

    Obama not doing something is like Generalissimo Francisco Franco crossed with Peewee Herman not doing something, devious plan or incompetence. Either way, I'm for it.

  • Brooks512||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......

    www.homejobs90,com

  • JayWye||

    We're currently seeing in Europe what unrestricted immigration will bring.
    LEARN from that example.
    Immigration is comparable; to eating;to a degree,it's good for you,but overdo it,and it harms you.
    We haven't assimilated blacks or Hispanics yet,and it's greatly harmed our nation and culture. Many recent Hispanics immigrants aren't going to assimilate,period,they call it LaRaza or Reconquista.
    Then we have muslims,commanded by their religion to not assimilate,and also to wage jihad on non-believers. That IS what Europe is suffering right now. Those people insist on keeping THEIR culture,historically proven to be unworthy and backwards. Not to merge it with our productive,beneficial,and worthwhile culture.
    The US wants and needs immigrants who want and intend to become AMERICANS,not black-Americans,not Mexican-Americans,etc. Those who ENRICH our nation,not impoverish it or work against it.
    Or you can kiss "America" goodbye.

  • B1B||

    Call me when Britain and Australia turn into 1930's Germany.

    There are some interesting conceptual/philosophical points here but not nearly enough horsepower to validate the absolutist stance on the two issues. The more conceptual stuff is backed up by inference-laden quotes and conspiratorial whispers about the "true" intentions of Obama and others. Author turned mind-reader or vice-versa?

    In the end this is mostly a dressed up version of the tired old lines. At a practical minimum the wars on terror and drugs are much more clear and present infringements on personal liberty than immigration regulation or efforts to keep guns away from people who demonstrably should not have them based on real risk to others.

  • SmokinDave||

    How exactly does enforcing immigration law-which every major civilized country, including this one-has done for centuries, endanger our basic freedoms? Seriously dude, do you leave your doors open 24/7 so that anyone in your neighborhood can wander in to your home? That may be the most ignorant-or downright delusional-statement I have ever seen. Equating gun control and immigration? Hmm, why not compare NASA and SNP? Or the VA to California water rights? Ridiculous comparison.

  • Suicidy||

    I'm amazed he didn't turn it into another attack on Israel.

  • RoninX||

    Every other nation also restricts gun ownership to a much greater degree than the US, even Switzerland. No other nation has written gun rights into their Constitution. Does that mean that we should accept that "every major civilized country" restricts gun ownership and do likewise?

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Open border sounds good in theory, but after seeing what's happened in Europe, no thanks. At some point, immigration turned into occupation.

  • RoninX||

    I agree 100% with Richman. Gun rights and open immigration are the two things that make America different than every other nation. The idea of independent citizens who can take care of themselves and who are here by choice, not just by accident of birth, is fundamental to why the United States has historically been free, prosperous, and dynamic.

    We are a nation of immigrants -- a nation of well-armed immigrants.

  • JeremyR||

    That's a perfect point - it worked out well for the well-armed immigrants, but how did it work out for the people already in America? You know, the Native Americans who were almost entirely wiped out and their land stolen, except in places where no one really wanted it (basically the SW and parts of the NW).

    Don't get me wrong, there is some poetic justice in the US becoming Mexico. But as an American, I find it a bit annoying.

  • Drake||

    How did it work out for the Britons when the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons decided to immigrate? Should they have complained that a "few bad apples" like burn, rape, and pillage? After all, they have the magical libertarian right to immigrate, so no complaining.

    How well did the Anglo-Saxons like when vast numbers of Danes decided they too would like to live there in Briton? Why get all riled up just because some of the new immigrants like to grab Saxon kids and sell them in the slave market? Being judgmental like that runs counter to multiculturalism.

  • woodNfish||

    The US doesn't have "open immingration".

  • Ron||

    apples and oranges find real comparisons

  • Martiandawn||

    Open borders would be a laudable policy if we lived in an ideal world where everyone embraced the principles of non-aggression, personal freedom, free markets, and limited government. So long as we live in a world where most people have no problem using aggression to deprive others of freedom, and where most people like the idea of having a big government that skews the market in their favor, having open borders is a form of political suicide for any society based on libertarian principles. The fact that we live in such a violent, authoritarian-leaning, anti-liberty world is precisely why the right to bear arms is so important.

  • gphx||

    Without control of borders and immigration there's no such thing as a country. Presumably all of the people who say restrictions on immigration are 'anti-liberty' have no doors on the front of their houses nor fences around their yards so other people can come and go as they please - otherwise they are total hypocrites.

  • to_each_his_own||

    "What's a liberty lover to do?"

    Stock up on guns and ammo and learn Spanish. :-)

  • woodNfish||

    Only morons think open borders are a good idea.

  • John B. Egan||

    Firstly, our Constitution, though supposedly providing legal protections for anyone that is within our borders does not cover the right to illegally enter our country. In fact the Constitution says this: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" ...note the keywords "ourselves and our Posterity"....not everyone in the whole wide world that makes it to our shores.

    Secondly, aside from the argument as to whether we need guns to protect us from an overbearing state (as promoted by the NRA), or the real reason for the 2nd Amendment (as promoted by George Washington) to protect the fledgeling and unarmed state from citizens rebellion like Shays Rebellion, it's just an Amendment. Any Amendment and the Constitution itself can be and should be modified or discarded as circumstances change. Even Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years and equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation'. As a case in point, you only have to note that the 21st Amendment cancelled the 18th Amendment. IMO, it's time we take a seriously hard look at the 2nd Amendment.

  • JayWye||

    the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
    the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's right to keep and bear arms.
    The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
    the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

    Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

    ..."The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people - to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. "

    If you disagree with or don’t like this,you live in the wrong country. you need to move somewhere else.
    This is a basic tenet of America. a core concept.

  • ranrod||

    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control - The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

  • ranrod||

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazii death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media hookers who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

    American Thinker

  • dunce||

    Do not conflate gun control with immigration. None of the immigration people talk about "common sense" laws or are willing to discuss limitations. They simply make unsubstantiated claims that all immigration is good and beneficial. The right number of muslims is zero, the right number of illegals is zero, the right number of criminals is zero, the right number of parasites that only want our social benefits is zero.

  • Federale||

    There is no liberty interested in immigration. It appears that this article is a pathetic attempt at moral equivalency by a crazed person wanting to claim all their opponents are the same. Well, sorry, my right to own firearms is absolute and God given. There is no right to enter a country and live there. The equivalency is ridiculous and shows that "libertarians" are just another group of hack politicians playing a game. "Libertarians" don't understand liberty and are the enemy of a country with freedom. If only "libertarians" really fought on the gun control issue rather than social status positioning.

  • Alan@.4||

    Gun Control and Immigration Restrictions Are Enemies of Liberty,reads the headline. Gun Control, of late Gun Safety, is no doubt the enemy of liberty. As to immigration control being an enemy of liberty, perhaps the author, or someone can explain, for how this part works escapes my understanding.

  • DRILLCPLE4||

    Of the 8 billion people in the world today, who would libertarians allowed into the US and why?

  • BambiB||

    The author is half right. Gun restrictions are anti-liberty.

    But selling out your Country isn't pro-freedom. It's anti-progress.

    What moron would want to throw open the gates to the 3 BILLION people who would come to America if the opportunity presented itself?

    Hey Sheldon, can they all stay at YOUR house?

    Didn't think so. If you don't stand by your own position, at best you're a fraud.

  • BambiB||

    The author is half right. Gun restrictions are anti-liberty.

    But selling out your Country isn't pro-freedom. It's anti-progress.

    What moron would want to throw open the gates to the 3 BILLION people who would come to America if the opportunity presented itself?

    Hey Sheldon, can they all stay at YOUR house?

    Didn't think so. If you don't stand by your own position, at best you're a fraud.

  • BambiB||

    The author is half right. Gun restrictions are anti-liberty.

    But selling out your Country isn't pro-freedom. It's anti-progress.

    What moron would want to throw open the gates to the 3 BILLION people who would come to America if the opportunity presented itself?

    Hey Sheldon, can they all stay at YOUR house?

    Didn't think so. If you don't stand by your own position, at best you're a fraud.

  • JenniferKane||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ...................... www.4cyberworks.com

  • Slim Strontem||

    Where Anarchism meets Libertarianism.
    Where interventionism meets your back yard.
    --Proposed:
    We are a federated group of states w/ borders. The borders are to protect OUR individual liberties, properties. They ARE necessary to set physical boundaries for legalities, protections, properties, and applications of force--As both incursions and excursions.

    To not control borders is to abandon the protection for your neighbor’s property. Thus, abandoning libertarianism.
    For interventionism through incursion to succeed, it would also require interventionism through excursion. (Which still won't work, because foreign states have a legitimate right to exist on their own effed-up own terms.)

    Leading by example is the best hope, in the long term, regarding foreign states and their peoples. This requires some control measures w/re to immigration.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online