Libertarians.....what do you think???

[visgf]

I really don't think that any type of legislation, whether it supports gun availability or not, will help. People will always find a way to get a gun. The real issue isn't how people kill each other, it is why they think that killing is their best option. What is actually needed is some education, starting with the EXTREMELY young, teaching people a more intelligent way to deal with their rage and impulsivity. If they could resolve things more constructively, that would cut down on the crime rate far more than any regulation could hope to accomplish.

 

[BA]

Gandalf-
"the 2nd amendment says that since we need a militia the right of citizens to bear arms will not be infringed. which is why i say anyone in the army or a state militia can own arms. other wise, no. that simple. Its like a truth table as in militia = true and if protecting state = true then and only then can you own a gun and that right shall not be infringed. i'm not real sure what back water bumpkin woods you crawled out of jaydee, but if you hadn't been so busy f@cking your sister, you might have learned how to read, and comprehend on the average sixth grade level like the rest of the nation. anyway let's move on to how the libertarians want to screw the poor, old, and anyone else who's daddy didn't buy their way into an ivy. thanks and i look forward to your reply"

US Code Title 10 Sec 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So, even by your bass-ackwards interpretration of the 2nd Amendment, I still have the right to bear arms, and will for another 26 years.

as for defending ourselves from the government, milosevic and hitler were both elected. both on the ideas that they would purify their countries and bring them back to their glory days. both wanted to export all non-pure citizens and any one that resisted would be shot. i don't think this will happen in the US. we've got political safeguards (set up by the constitution) to ensure this won't happen. if we ever are attacked by our own government i will be the very first one in this forum to say that you guys were right. in the mean time, pull your heads out of your asses and re enter the real world.

Yes we do, one of them is the 2nd amendment.

 

[jaydee]

<< we've got political safeguards (set up by the constitution) to ensure this won't happen. if we ever are attacked by our own government i will be the very first one in this forum to say that you guys were right. >>



political safeguards? Kind of an oxymoron don't you think? Am I now suppose to believe we will be safe from any kind of attack because its in the hands of politicians? Hmmm, it probably won't happen, but the law abiding citizens need not to be involuntarily disarmed of self defense neccesities to show my vote of confidence. Why are Americans so lost in false serenity that we are invincible from anything? The Roman Rebublic had safeguards, and what happened there? But somehow, because we are American and approaching the 21st century, there is no way it can happen here.

Junior, your continued idiocy no longer deserves my attention. As far as I'm concerned, you no longer exist.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

visgf- No ammount of education will make it safe to have any kind of gun in the U.S. there will always be idoits (actually a majority of idoits) and mentally unstable people who use guns improperly...now what would be easier not allowing people to perchase anymore guns in the U.S. or educate millions of kids(which in turn will probably do nothing) We still have a bit of genetics from our anscestors from hundreds or thousands of years ago that make us do things such as attack things when we get angry, you ever heard of rape... well thats an urge from our paleolithic and neolitic ancestors that is still in us all.

-ba One safegaurd is there can be no dictator you dic...Honestly if the us military, navy, airforce, police, fbi, cia ,and national gaurd went up against the U.S. citizens the U.S. citizens would lose horribly unless ya'll think that you should be allowed to have tanks airplanes rocketlaunchers and nukes to stop them....

able-bodied this is a key word in your US Code Title 10 Sec 311 because IMO i think that more than 70% of the U.S. is not able-bodied because they are to stupid, ignorant, and paranoid to own a gun
also your saying that women can't own a gun unless they are in the National guard...i believe that is way outa date because of that line
or is it stating that citizens and female citizens of the national gaurd can have guns? either way Your all idoits

jaydee- because you make many stupid, short, and illogical posts you have gotten to senior member...wow we are all very very impressed with your vast amounts of worthless posts which some how you think makes you higher than us......
the only reason you think political safegaurds is an oxymoron is because you think the government(political) is out to get you. Yes lets talk about the Roman Republic the roman government and all the soldiers attacked the citizens because they didn't have spears and sling shots?....wait NOOO!!! come back with some prooF!!!!!


THIS IS THE LAST TIME....COME UP WITH SOME FACTS AND STATS PROVING YOUR POINT!!!!....gandalf and I searched extensivly for our stats and brought them forth and you sit there and ignore them.... we have shown that guns kill people yes people have to pull the triger but its easier than knifing someone to death or beating over the head with a bat. If this country became a libertarian country it would go from world power to a 3rd world anarchy in no time flat...
its similar to marxism in that it looks good on paper (well some of it) but in real life it doesn't work out
this is why there has not been and never will be a libertarian president

if you all are in favor of the libertarians tell us what is so great about them screwing poor people,

face it your all arguing a point that you can't prove correct because you have no facts and stats.
First you say lets see the &quot;so called stats&quot; then when we displayed them you all avoided the issue that we got info proving your point flat out wrong then when we try and refrence the points the people in this thread say well umm forget stats and facts lets use common sense.....the world was built on facts and constants not common sense

take your case of the libertarians to www.oldmanmurray.com and watch them rip your argument to shreds i dare ya'll

 

[BA]

&quot;One safegaurd is there can be no dictator you dic...Honestly if the us military, navy, airforce, police, fbi, cia ,and national gaurd went up against the U.S. citizens the U.S. citizens would lose horribly unless ya'll think that you should be allowed to have tanks airplanes rocketlaunchers and nukes to stop them....&quot;

a. &quot;the us military, navy, airforce, police, fbi, cia ,and national gaurd&quot; are made up of US citizens, therefore they'd be fighting themselves. It's called a civil war.
b. Ever hear of Vietnam? Somalia? The US military has a real problem fighting non-traditional conflicts.

&quot;able-bodied this is a key word in your US Code Title 10 Sec 311 because IMO i think that more than 70% of the U.S. is not able-bodied because they are to stupid, ignorant, and paranoid to own a gun
also your saying that women can't own a gun unless they are in the National guard...i believe that is way outa date because of that line
or is it stating that citizens and female citizens of the national gaurd can have guns? &quot;

In your opinion is the key word. Opinion means absolutely nothing.
I'm not saying women can't, you are. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the people have the right to bear arms. You're the one saying only militia members can.

&quot;either way Your all idoits&quot;

Please refrain from personal attacks, it's not constructive. And I can capitalize, spell, and punctuate.

 

[Dameon]

I may or may not own a gun.
I will not register a gun if I have one.
It is none of the governments business if I do or not.

I am not a convicted felon. I have the right to privacy.
I have the right to keep and bear arms.

I have the right to privately keep and bear arms.

Not only do I believe in the right to purchase a weapon, I believe the government has no damn business keeping lists of law abiding citizens who own them.

But if someone comes to harm my family, they will find out if I do or not.

 

[Napalm381]

<< if you all are in favor of the libertarians tell us what is so great about them screwing poor people >>

You are quite unclear on this point...exactly what part of the libertarian platform screws poor people?

 

[Dameon]

we have gone from calling em' Bums, to hobos, to the unemployed / homeless...
and now of course they are the poor and needy.

The language of welfare.. the language of addiction. We have tried handouts. We have tried gently encouraging people to pull themselves up by bootstraps.

At a certain point, some people just need a good boot to the ass to get moving.

The war on poverty has been a dismal failure, just like the war on drugs. It is time for us to be as the boy with no fear who shouted the emperor has no clothes. For too long the country has been cajoled by the media and by powers that be to see these &quot;wars&quot; as good things... when our eyes tell us something oh so different. Look around you and ask if poverty is better after billions and billions of dollars spent. Ask if drug usage has gone down since this war on drugs began.

The emperor has no clothes.

 

[BoberFett]

These losers are trolls. And not even good ones, at that.

 

[Gandalf511]

i like that last post from Dameon (sorry i'll start using punctuation and correct syntax since that seems to be so important to my favorite right wing nuts). Dameon serves as a perfect example of the mindset of the American people. From what I can tell (having lived in the south for most of my life), the common sense which you guys so lovingly speek of for most Americans is, &quot;I've got a right to my gun, and my affairs are my business, so the government should keep out of it.&quot; This is an interesting way of thinking, but it does show a great amount of paranoia. Why are we all so scared that the public officials we elect will turn on us? If you believe that during the course of staggered four year turms, both the congress and presidant will turn on their own people, and be able to coerce the army into doing as they wish and fire on brethren, then seek help, because your mentally unstable. We do not need guns to defend ourselves from the Federal government. But again, let's move on. Can someone please explain how the Libertarians plan to help the poor by cutting off all governmental help to them.

 

[Gandalf511]

Sorry, I forgot something. You proposed educating the youth of the nation so as to better prevent crime. Do you have any ideas for how to do this? Will there be a firearms class in school, or a Saturday class, or more of parental supervision? I'm trying to avoid any tone of sarcasm here, because I am genuinely curious as to the nature of your proposal. Thanks

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

once agian none of you have come up with stats or facts proving your points..... and BA if you read any of the thread you would realize i already pointed out a. thus all of you saying the GOVERMENT will turn against us is assinine since the government is made up of us citizens you just proved my point....in the even of a civil war one part of hte country vs the other i can understand having a gun but in times of peace when we aren't in a civil war there is no need.... previously no one said anything about civil war they said hte goverment would take the guns away from citizens but citizens make up the government!!!!!!

ba-
ok and you idoit i didn't say the 2nd ammendment that wasn't what i was interperting i was interperting US Code Title 10 Sec 311
i don't attack people that are intelligent and have points to debate i don't mind debating and what not but this is not debating its called a one sided argument i have come up with proof and stuff to base my arguments on you all have not

ok so if a person does not cap spell and punc right are you saying they have a lower intelligence?.... one of my friends that argues points against libertarians has an iq of 155 and doesn't use anything proper....why because were lazy and no one is grading us on it...if you can understand it which you should be able to then its good enough.

dameon-
um your post is so vague and proves nothing for libertarians....

-napalm
libertarians want to cut medicad medicare and almost every other govt program that helps the poor

-fett
did you become a diamond member by making worthless posts such as that one just to up your post count? When i post i try and adress everything btwn my last post and the one im making now instead of all of you who write 3 line posts repeatedly....i could have 3-4 times the posts but i don't care about being junior, member, senior what ever i want to get my point across.....and that is you all have nothing to back up libertarians and their ideals

 

[BoberFett]

Gandalf

You keep failing to recognize that other elected leaders around the world have turned on their citizens. Please explain why the US is immune from that?


baconbutt

What does my post count have to do with anything? If it makes you feel inadequate that's not my fault.

 

[Gandalf511]

When was the last time a US presidant turned on the people Bober? Give me a political leader elected in a democracy who turned on his people in recent years and I'll tell you why a similar thing would not happen in the US.

 

[Napalm381]

In response to gun laws: You claim that restrictive gun laws will result in a lower crime rate, murder rate, etc. Then account for the fact that despite having some of, if not THE, most restrictive gun laws in the nation, Washington DC has crime rates far above the national average. You may view the laws for DC and all other states here. Crime statistics are provided here. Guns are, for all intensive purposes, banned in DC, yet it has a murder rate 8.5 times the national average.

With respect to &quot;Medicad&quot; (is that like AutoCAD?): Medicaid and Medicare are overrun with fraud and high costs, yet provide substandard care. Social Security is headed for the trash can, yet we resist offering people the option (option, mind you, it would not be a requirement) of using THEIR money to invest as THEY see fit. Such a system has worked in other countries. Most other government social spending programs are in similar conditions. Why do we continue to support programs that have proven themselves to be ineffective?

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

fettbut
all im saying is your taking up space and not adding anything to threads thus uping your post count....in this entire thread gandalf and i have probably written 20 times what you have because you have nothing to offer to the thread.

while we make fun of you we make good points proving our case on the other hand you spend more time making insults and absolutely nothing constructive to the thread

 

[Napalm381]

<< I'll tell you why a similar thing would not happen in the US. >>

Because we have the Second Amendment.

 

[BoberFett]

Gandalf

President Lincoln waged an illegal war against the southern states.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

we don't claim that restrictive gun laws we are saying NO GUNS!!!
gah!
if you read any earlier posts napalm then you would realize we have posted stats taht prove countries such as britian have lower violent crime rates percentage wise...

and when giving stats give all the details you said its 8.5 times the national average...national average of murders in a city nation average of murders per 100,000 nation average of percatange of murders to population.....your stats are vague and there for useless
plus they have nothing to do with our stance on the issue. Im assuming the majority of hte murders in DC are from guns....thus eliminate guns or do the best to eliminate guns and murder should go down

and napalm don't misquote people then write a short little statment that is not very productive like in your last post....

 

[Gandalf511]

I know it's a crazy idea, but we could actually raise the taxes enough to cover Social Security rather than scraping the system which has worked for so long. As for the Medicaid, what do you propose in it's place? As far as I can tell the Libertarian idea is let the poor find jobs or die on their own. As far as DC goes, that one is interesting. Part of it is the demographics of the area. The rest i don't know. I'll look into it.

As far as your last post Bober, it boggles the mind, how a person of your stupidity manages to figure out how to turn on a computer, let alone type as prolifically as you do. Are you implying that Lincoln should have let the union dissolve, and slavery to continue? I knew you were an extreme right wing type, but I didn't know you were rascist as well.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

So fett im sticking words in your mouth now becuase of that unbelievably stupid statement
do you think the country would be better off as 2 countries....
so are you saying we should have slavery?
are you disagreeing with his decision to start a civil war?
if you are then the top 2 statments would be true and thus that would make you racist

am i getting on your nerves yet?

next time think before posting something that blunt and assinine

 

[BoberFett]

Gandalf

I'm trying to hold an intelligent conversation, but it's not easy to do when you're so obviously handicapped in that area. If you know history, you'd know that I am right.

The president has no authority to declare war, that power belongs to congress. Lincoln postponed the convening of congress so that he could side-step that little piece of red tape in order to further his agenda. Whether that agenda had good reason behind it or not is immaterial. I only posted this fact to show that the president can seize power and put himself in a dictatorial position, even in this country.

For you to call me a racist shows how truly immature and ignorant you are. And as for extreme right wing, ha, that's rich. I'm a libertarian. Hardly what a sane person would call right wing. But I now know you're not sane, so you have an excuse.

 

[BoberFett]

Gandalf

You asked for an example where a US president turned on US citizens and I gave you an example. Then you and your little love-buddy turn around and call me a racist for answering your question?

No, you two aren't getting on my nerves at all because it's obvious to me that anyone following this thread can see that the two of you combined don't have enough logic or sensibility to follow any of what's being said here. In fact I'm having a lot of fun making the two of you look like jackasses.

 

[Napalm381]

<< When was the last time a US presidant turned on the people >>



<< we don't claim that restrictive gun laws we are saying NO GUNS!!! >>

I would view the government forcing a repossession of all guns to be a definite case of the president turning on the country. Apparently you deny the very thing you advocate. In addition, the concept of eliminating ALL guns in this country is so absurd it's laughable. In addition, illegal guns would most likely not be picked up in such a confiscation, leaving the people that should not have guns with them.


<< we have posted stats taht prove countries such as britian have lower violent crime rates percentage wise... >>

You posted statistics. You did not prove causation, i.e. that the limit of access to guns was the specific cause of the lower rate of crime. I have read the posts, and do not feel that you have sufficiently proved your case. Merely posting the numbers does not constitute proof.


<< thus eliminate guns or do the best to eliminate guns and murder should go down >>

As I stated before, private citizens are effectively barred from owning firearms in the DC area. The police are already doing their best to eliminate guns I presume, yet the murder rate is far above the national average. Short of indiscriminately searching peoples residences for illegal weapons (a clear violation of the Constitution), I can't see any way the police can do anymore than they are already doing.


<< national average of murders in a city nation average of murders per 100,000 nation average of percatange of murders to population >>

Your poor grammar has rendered this sentence completely unintelligible. I have not a clue what the intent of this statement is. Nevertheless, my statement was accurate. Please read the information on the site detailing how they gathered and tabulated their information. Notably, the site states that &quot;The final crime rate estimates were then weighted by population and aggregated to the national totals.&quot;


<< and napalm don't misquote people then write a short little statment that is not very productive like in your last post.... >>

Think about my statment harder. You said you could provide a reason why certain situations would not be able to happen in the USA. The reason is the very right you are denouncing so strongly, the Second Amendment.


<< I know it's a crazy idea, but we could actually raise the taxes enough to cover Social Security rather than scraping the system which has worked for so long. >>

Ah, the old &quot;let's raise taxes to increase revenue&quot; argument. Often times a higher tax rate can result in less revenue being collected (1980's being a key examples). You provided the knee-jerk liberal response to problem- raise taxes and spend more!


<< As for the Medicaid, what do you propose in it's place? >>

Medical Savings Accounts, private insurance among other things. Private market solutions have the incentive to be cost-efficient. Government solutions do not.


<< let the poor find jobs or die on their own. >>

Libertarians promote churches, shelters, and other forms of assistance ahead of government assistance. While I would not advocate COMPLETELY eliminating government assistance, I would favor a large scale back of our current programs. They encourage a vicious circle of dependancy instead of encouraging achievement.

 

[scippy]

<<I know it's a crazy idea, but we could actually raise the taxes enough to cover Social Security rather than scraping the system which has worked for so long. As for the Medicaid, what do you propose in it's place?>>


Spoken with the conviction of someone who doesn't pay any taxes. Just wait until after you are out of school Gandolf and start paying taxes. Better yet, wait until you reach the 28 percent tax bracket. You can say what you want now, but until you see over a quarter of your hard-earned dollars going to &quot;Uncle Sam&quot; to do with as he wishes, you can't talk about raising taxes with any legitimacy.

So yes, it is a &quot;crazy idea.&quot; Taxes are a necessary part of maintaining a sound infrastrucure, but until you start paying taxes, don't pontificate about how they should be spent. You're obviously intelligent and well read, you just need to get out into the real world and then see how you feel about taxes, welfare programs, etc....


Mike