A Moderate's Argument Against Gun Permits

It's a grave mistake to license the right to own, purchase, or carry guns.In r/CCW, I may be preaching to the choir. But if any moderates are lurking, I want you to understand why a reasonable person would hold this extreme view.To the credit of gun-grabbers, gun are dangerous. Guns make dangerous people more dangerous. Without proper training, even a good person with a gun could be more harmful than helpful.Why not license guns like cars? To obtain my drivers license, I had to spend two-weeks in a classroom, two weeks inside a car with an instructor, & pass two tests at the DMV. I haven't injured anyone to date, so the system works. Right?Wrong.If the right to bear arms existed only to defend against muggers & burglars, I would agree. License the whole process, from purchase to carry.But the constitutionally-affirmed natural right to self-defense isn't for the sake of securing your home from burglars. It's for securing liberty from tyrants.In this light, the drivers license argument falls apart. It's a question of incentives.Government has every incentive to train drivers; that's why most high-schools have a drivers ed program. Driving supports the economy, which supports the tax-man, by making citizens more productive & better able to spend money.But the government -- all governments -- are disincentivized from issuing gun permits. Guns check the power of the State & empower the People. No tyrant has ever increased the number of civilian-owned firearms. In fact, I'd wager that every tyrant has decreased that number as much as they could."Okay. But America is a functioning democracy. Can't we trust our government to exercise SOME reasonable discretion over who gets to own a murder-cannon?"In the long-run, incentives always win. To grant government the power to regulate a fundamental right is to slowly kill that right. That's why Voter-IQ tests are an awful idea; eventually, entrenched interests will abuse that power & disenfranchise the population.Requiring a permit to own a gun is as short-sighted as requiring a permit to vote, speak, or obtain legal counsel.Yes, there are short-term benefits to licensing ALL of the above -- imagine if we could have simply banned OJ Simpson from hiring a lawyer! But do you want your children inheriting a country with no respect for its own Bill Of Rights? What good is a system of inter-governmental checks-and-balances if we have no checks on the balance of power between our government & the population itself?Most humans don't have human rights. Most countries are despotic hellholes; some, like North Korea, are hard-tyranny. Some, like Malaysia, are soft-tyranny. Some, like China, are hellbent on exporting their tyranny worldwide.Liberty is a rare & fragile flower, that withers without constant vigilance.That's why in Mexico, although the right to own arms in affirmed in the Mexican constitution, only one store in the entire country is allowed to sell guns. (There's a documentary called 'Narcos' about the violence-free paradise ushered in by Mexican gun-control laws.)Canada is on the same path, as they effectively banned rifles this year. Sure, Canada seems like a friendly, free country (if you can just forget that pesky absence-of-a-constitutional-protection-for-free-speech problem). But the phrase "it can't happen here" has a poor track record.The next time you consider regulating the right to own or carry firearms, ask yourself: would I treat the right to vote with as much contempt & suspicion as I treat the right to keep & bear arms? via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/37io8qq