No Cory Booker, Gun Control Will Not Make Us Free
Channeling his inner Orwell, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker claims that gun control will make people “free.”
On Rachel Maddow’s show, Booker told the MSNBC host that the gun violence taking place in Newark, New Jersey (the city he is formerly mayor of) is inspiring a “culture of fear.”
For him, freedom can be restored in these areas by simply passing gun control. Booker has become the “gun control candidate” of the 2020 election cycle by unveiling a comprehensive gun control package. His bold gun control plan includes popular gun control schemes such as universal background checks, gun licensing, and opening up gun manufacturers to lawsuits.
Booker has every right to be concerned about the violence taking place in cities like Newark. America’s urban centers still have many problems with issues of public security. However, government response to these problems is not necessarily the correct answer. Above all, one that involves curtailing the freedoms of countless law-abiding people should be a non-starter.
Being denied the right to defend yourself and your loved ones are as anti-freedom as it gets. It leaves the law-abiding at the mercy of unscrupulous governments and criminals.
Even when the government makes an effort to stay within its proper role, it cannot always be relied upon to adequately defend others. Often times the police are minutes away in situations which require split-second decision-making. In fact, under the Supreme Court decision Warren v. District of Columbia, police are not obligated to protect individuals.
So, the solution cannot solely focus on the government. Truth be told, adding more laws should not be entertained in these scenarios. True freedom involves making autonomous decisions. Some people will arm themselves, some won’t. When we have actual freedom in matters of public security, certain forms of defense options will emerge such as personal defense, private security, or even community watches.
Instead of turning towards more government, Booker should look at revitalizing civil society or building proactive non-state alternatives to addressing the issue of public security. For most problems, there’s usually a non-state solution. Gun violence is not exempt from this.
For him, freedom can be restored in these areas by simply passing gun control. Booker has become the “gun control candidate” of the 2020 election cycle by unveiling a comprehensive gun control package. His bold gun control plan includes popular gun control schemes such as universal background checks, gun licensing, and opening up gun manufacturers to lawsuits.
Booker has every right to be concerned about the violence taking place in cities like Newark. America’s urban centers still have many problems with issues of public security. However, government response to these problems is not necessarily the correct answer. Above all, one that involves curtailing the freedoms of countless law-abiding people should be a non-starter.
Being denied the right to defend yourself and your loved ones are as anti-freedom as it gets. It leaves the law-abiding at the mercy of unscrupulous governments and criminals.
Even when the government makes an effort to stay within its proper role, it cannot always be relied upon to adequately defend others. Often times the police are minutes away in situations which require split-second decision-making. In fact, under the Supreme Court decision Warren v. District of Columbia, police are not obligated to protect individuals.
So, the solution cannot solely focus on the government. Truth be told, adding more laws should not be entertained in these scenarios. True freedom involves making autonomous decisions. Some people will arm themselves, some won’t. When we have actual freedom in matters of public security, certain forms of defense options will emerge such as personal defense, private security, or even community watches.
Instead of turning towards more government, Booker should look at revitalizing civil society or building proactive non-state alternatives to addressing the issue of public security. For most problems, there’s usually a non-state solution. Gun violence is not exempt from this.
The U.S. has a murder per capita rate of 5.3 deaths per 100,000 residents, 
* “But if we legalize marijuana, wouldn’t millions and millions more Americans try it, become regular users, and waste their days stoned and unproductive?”
* “Gun control laws aren’t perfect, but if just anyone were able to buy and own a gun, and carry it in public, wouldn’t we have radically more gun violence?”
* “Legalize prostitution? You can’t be serious! Sexually transmitted diseases would skyrocket. Married men would stray more often. And crimes surrounding prostitution would go up.”
Many libertarians treat objections like these as total deal-breakers to our libertarian proposals. As insurmountable obstacles to getting someone to favor expanding freedom in controversial areas. As unshakeable opinions held by those who want to limit liberty.
But what if these objections are NOT total, absolute, unalterable deal-killers?
What if they are instead genuine concerns to be answered, problems to be solved, or fears to be neutralized?
What if we turn these objections into objectives? Into goals and targets?
* Try this: “So, John, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that before you will support legalizing marijuana, you want to make sure that marijuana use and abuse wouldn’t skyrocket. Is that a fair summary of the points you raised?”
(Wait for “Yes” response.)
“Would you like to look this up with me?”
Then simply Google or Bing for the facts. Or go to the