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

[Gandalf511]

one of your questions was guns or no guns? poor question considering my previous responses. given the choice i'd say no guns for anyone, other than police, fbi, etc. i did mean the less guns out there available to anyone, legal or illegal, the better. legal guns quickly become used illegaly when stolen or eventually sold. if there are no guns out there for legal use, that greatly reduces the amout available in the black markets. if you can't steal guns or buy them in gun shows, or from a friend, that cuts out a good number of ways to aquire one. i believe the current system of gun laws is much better than none and the ones we have now should be inforced. your classification of long arms vs. handguns is an interesting one but unfair. i do believe shotguns are of much more use in self-defense of the home than are assault rifles or sniper rifles. they are also harder to conceal than handguns making them hard to slip into public area's to be used against innocent citizens. however assault rifles and sniper rifles have no place in self-defense or hunting and are completely useless to law abiding citizens. my suggestions is to outlaw all guns other than shotguns (to be used in self-defense in the home), and to confiscate all illegal guns. during WWII the British passed out guns to every male citizen in the nation for use in case of a German invasion. when the war was over, almost all of the guns were turned back in. this suggests that law abiding citizens would not resist turning in guns.

 

[Gandalf511]

sorry jaydee and bober, didn't notice you got in on page 2 there. jaydee, you asked for the statistics on british crime and berated me when i could not come up with them immidiatly for you. they show the US has a murder rate and rape rate far higher than that of britain. there are your statistics. moving on, bober, you say we should be allowed to decide what kind of guns we want because we are the masters not servants. fine, i want a tank a couple f-16's and a small army (couple thousand infantry will be fine). i dont' need these things, but i want them. if i've got the money for it why not. no worse than you having an AK-47. You don't need an automatic rifle that can shoot through most walls, and kill at several hundred yards. There is no possible legal use that a shotgun can't handle. also, i want some money so i'm going to go sell some crack to 12 year olds (moving on to drug laws since we're all tiring of the gun laws). i don't really need to but i want to and as my own master (and with my ak to defend my rights), who's to say i shouldn't be able to deal crack to whoever i want. ( in case you guys are missing it, this would be sarcasm). display for me any reason why you should have an assault rifle/fully automatic gun/semi-automatic gun (mp5 or whatever) other than that you want one, and i'll consider the argument. as far as opening up the floor let's move on to welfare and medicaid and how the libertarians plan to help the poor. i'm interested in your opinions on that one.

 

[JellyBaby]

Gandalf511,

I find faults with some of your reasoning. Nothing major really, but these are some key points. First, you seem to require statistics, any statistics, to prove the viability of a certain stance. You say, ?show me stats. where gun ownership results in less crime?. I?m sure you?ll find some but why can?t we simply rely on good old common sense here? If the normal populous has the ability to protect itself and criminals know this, it?s a deterrent to crime plain and simple.

And one other thing. You say a shotgun is all anybody needs. Who are you to make such an assessment? How do you come to that conclusion? What if I want to purchase an automatic weapon simply to enjoy myself at the shooting range (or even on my own acreage)? What if I want to buy one because I'm a collector? There are plenty of good reasons to own such a weapon legally.

Basically, your views seriously penalize most of society in a vain attempt to address the problems of a select few. I say vain because nothing you propose works in reality. Your points may sound great in TV commercials or when addresses fellow liberals but free-thinkers will disagree.

The solution to gun violence is an educated, responsible society. Limiting and/or eliminating individual rights will not lead to a better country. We seem to be losing a freedom about every month in this country now and I?m sick of it.

I?ve heard one of the reasons violent crimes are at a 20 year low is because the last of the baby boomers have now moved beyond the ?likely crime? ages of 15-25. Hmmm?I can believe that had some impact.

 

[inquis]

Gandalf,

This entire time I have been testing you to see exactly how you felt about this issue, and I finally know exactly what you are trying to do.

QUOTE:
"one of your questions was guns or no guns? poor question considering my previous responses. given the choice i'd say no guns for anyone"

Gun control laws are not to keep soceity "safe" and "secure", they are an attempt to disarm the people of the United States. Now, I am not afraid of much, but one of the things I fear the most is a government that fears the guns its citizens posses.

QUOTE:
"other than police, fbi, etc"

So, you also say that though the people should NOT have guns, the government SHOULD.

Now maybe you will brand me a radical for saying this, but I hope for the best but expect the worst. By making it so that only the government can have guns, you are giving a massive amount of trust to our governmental system. While you are prepared to trust the government this much, I am not. Government is not invincible to decay. What would happen if the government started not doing what was in the best interests of the people? What would happen if the government became oppressive? Well, the government has the power, because the government has the guns. I'm not saying that this is _going_ to happen, but you have to acknowledge that it _could_. I hope if I buy a gun I will never have to use it, but rest assured if something happens to our government and a call to arms is raised, I will be there.

QUOTE:
"legal guns quickly become used illegaly when stolen or eventually sold. if there are no guns out there for legal use, that greatly reduces the amout available in the black markets"

Now you are opening up another can of worms. This all has to do with the enforcement issue. Do you know about the hoops you have to jump through to sell a gun? Depending on the gun, you may have to do as little as fill out a form or as much as go to a federally licensed gun dealer and fill out a huge stack of forms in triplicate.

Also, I acknowledge that guns fall into criminal hands by means of theft from law-abiding citizens; however, I would contend that the number of guns acquired by criminals in this manner is not as large as you are implying.

You mentioned the black market, and said that the availability of guns on the black market would descend if all guns were made illegal. Apparently you need to take an economics class. This would be a disaster. Prohibition of weapons would create a HUGE demand for weapons, and remember, we are a global economy. HUGE numbers of weapons would stream in from all over the world. Realize the enforcement NIGHTMARE this would cause. Think the problems with keeping drugs from coming over the border TEN times over. You would want this to happen?

Also, I am going to ignore that whole speil about shotguns. Apparently, you did not read anything that I said about what a gun is or what its purpose is, because you are still using that bland "no reason to have one" argument. Read what I said, think about it, and come back.

QUOTE:
"during WWII the British passed out guns to every male citizen in the nation for use in case of a German invasion. when the war was over, almost all of the guns were turned back in. this suggests that law abiding citizens would not resist turning in guns"

Of course this happened.

Now, here is why this was the case: when the British government was passing out guns, either the person they were going to give the gun to had a gun, or not. If they had a gun, then the government would not give them one. If they did not have a gun, the gov't would give them one. Now, come the end of the war, and they are picking the guns back up. The only people that had the guns that were passed out were the people who did not own a gun in the first place. If they did not want a gun in the first place, more likely than not they would choose to give the gun they felt they had no use for in the first place rather than keep it. Also, you fail to mention if the gun was GIVEN (as in a gift) or whether it was in more of a "borrowing" tone. Your example is bad. I suggest you withdraw it.

Also, in the face of the facts I have given you, you have still failed to alter your illogical position on shotguns and long arms. Why this is the case is a mystery to me, but at this point is ceases to matter, because the subject is changing to social programs, right?

I can have fun arguing about those too!

-inq

 

[Recneps]

keeping guns from follow over the boards is a lot easyer then drugs because they are biger and metal decters will pick them up and all we would have to do is enforce the law right?

 

[Gandalf511]

i'm not quite sure whether that last post was an idiot agreeing with me or sarcasm, but i'll asume sarcasm. to further clarify an earlier point, if shotguns can be grouped in with rifles and such as long arms then they should further be divided by range and firing rate. i do believe long-arms are better in society because they are less easy to hide and thus harder to smuggle, and carry into public places. i also think that shotguns are semi-justifiable for self defense where as other long-arms are not. thus while you may need a shotgun to defend yourself you do not need a colt carbine because of it's useless nature in defense. it is an aggresor's weapon. i do not see any need for aggresive weapons in the hands of the public. no i do not trust the public (law abiding or not) with anything powerful enough to shoot through walls at high rates. the risk obviously outweigh the rewards with assault rifles. risk, is that someone flips out or that the weapon falls into the wrong hands and used to kill many. reward - one of you gets to fire rounds at a tree while swilling your tenth beer on the day. i'm sure you're all card carrying members of the NRA, which is fine, i simply disagree then. oh well, let's move on

 

[BoberFett]

FYI Gandalf, libertarians believe drugs should be legalized.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Yes, the last time i heard of someone defending them selves with a carbine was when those bank robbers in cali decided to "defend" themselves from police while wearing body armor. Im sure gandalf is quite aware that libertarians want drug legalization....although they want to legalize almost every drug out there not just semi-harmless substances such as weed and shrooms. Shotguns can be modified so that instead of firing pellets they fire rock salt which don't kill but sting like hell and do work in stopping attackers, but when was the last time you heard of someone using a rifle with soap or rubber bullets to stop an intruder? Im not saying that we need to demiltarize the U.S. to the point where china could conquer us with a butter knife ,but citizens don't need elaborate long range weapons with which to kill many a fedral officers breaking into your 'secret' waco compound.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Oh btw hi inq i'm gandalf's trusty side kick "Fat Ass" or "The Great Fat Ass" and for future references im not actually fat.

-You mentioned that if citizens had no guns and the military and rest of the government did then that would be bad for us. Well if the military did decide to do something id like to see you take out a tank , f-18, or various other military vehicles with a carbine, shotgun or any other weapon.

-You are incorrect in saying its "hard to get guns" with our gun laws now....go to a gun show you can buy about any gun (ex: ar-15 civilian ver of the m-16) and pay some yahoo to make if fully auto right there at the gun show without having to wait 5 days to let your rage boil before you go out and kill squirrels in your front yard with that oversized rifle

-Also guns can be procured through other ways such as having a law abiding citizen purchase a gun for you then buy it off them...that is how many gang members in the U.S. get their guns.

-You can enforce gun laws probably easier than drug laws...(unless of course the person decides to use the gun against the person trying to take it)...guns are harder to smuggle than drugs because unlike drugs guns are harder to swallow and then throw back up later. Also, guns ,unlike drugs, are not consumed so they can be found later to be obtained.

-Inq your using the whole speil about -you have to wear tin foil on your head to keep the government from stealing your thoughts routine- The U.S. may not have the best gov't in the world but its better than a near anarchy which the libertarians want. If we did what the libertarians wanted we would be going back to the days of militias and rebellions.

the second ammendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
By chance would you consider yourself a militia trying to protect the state your in? Its not very likely the king of england will rise from his grave and try to take over our country because that is what the law was intended for....since we have police military fbi etc. the average citizen doesn't need a gun.

 

[BoberFett]

<< take out a tank , f-18, or various other military vehicles with a carbine, shotgun or any other weapon >>

It's called guerilla warefare, and it does work. If every citizen was armed, that's an army of a few hundred million. All the high-tech weaponry you could get your hands on couldn't stop the sheer numbers.

And you don't necessarily have to destroy the vehicle itself, you can do just as much damage by destroying it's fuel supply, etc. which can be done with small arms.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

-fett
so your saying that with a gun you could take out a tank...
plus you try and destroy a tank with sheer numbers.....a wave of hundreds of people shoot into the air at a f-18 and it drops a bomb on them .....f-18 flys away people go splat....
same with a tank 20 people charge it firing guns at it....even a ak-47 can't penatrate the armor....the people would get shot or run over.....

enough with scenerios

-jelly bean
Purchasing a weapon because you WANT to is not a good reason it needs to be a necisity your not going to die if you can't go out to the gun range and shoot stuff up because you think watching stuff 'splode is fun....

You may want to buy a weapon as collector but when a digruntled mail-man goes and buys the same gun to mow down his co-workers....its not a matter of you wanting the gun

I believe guns can be responsibly used by some people but the majority of americans aren't very bright....infact id say 70% of americans or more are idoits who think canada is south, Mount rushmore is a natural wonder, and don't know the name of the Russian president...like some people *cough* BUSHHHHHHH!!!!!!*cough* The majority of the U.S. reads at a 6th grade level, with that kind of intelligence i don't think we could safe gaurd against people improperly using guns.

-inq
oh i forgot on the argument about rifles and shotguns.....was jfk assasinated with a rifle or a shot gun.....oh ya thats right he was sniped with a SHOTGUN...and the University of texas shooting from the tower...that was a shotgun too right. Shotguns were designed for self defense or short range not like assualt rifles. The only thing they have in common is they are both longer than a pistol

oh and your definition of a gun
what is a pistol used for? You don't hunt with it. It was designed to kill other people.

 

[BoberFett]

You didn't even read my post. Come back later, little boy.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

yes guns can hit the fuel supply of a f-18
or a tank for that matter.....

&quot;and im the magical man from happy land eating gum drop house on lolly pop lane.....oh btw i was being sarcastic&quot;

i don't believe the U.S. gov't will fight the american people anytime soon because the american people make up the military etc. and because they have no reason to fight them....

you radical i answered your post

 

[BoberFett]

Hey everybody, I think we've found the latest poster boy for Jerry's Kids.

Fuel supply? You think the fuel supply is on the fscking plane? You moron that's a fuel tank. The fuel supply would be where it fuels up when the TANK runs low.

Like I said before, come back when you're no longer wearing diapers.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

you didn't specify the supply on the vehicle or where it got its fuel form you idiot im not friggen nostradomus i can't read your mind

unless you plan to lead the next shay's rebelion against the U.S. your unlikely scenerios are completely useless....WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE WEAPONS AGAINST THE US GOVERNMENT!!!!

when was the last time the entire population of the U.S. revolted against the government and military....i can understand a civil war or something of that nature. Your argument is an extremely unlikely and illogical situation.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

When You come up with something that is worth debating/discussing instead of your childish immature name calling and your nit picking (ie fuel tank and supply it can be interpreted as the same thing...a jet has its own fuel supply and that supply comes from the tank) i will respond ,but until that day which appears to be far off, I say goodnight.

 

[BoberFett]

First, I've never heard any knowledgeable person call the fuel tank on a vehicle the fuel supply.

Second, I would imagine there are tens of millions of people around the world who'd have been happy to have the freedom to own firearms that we have here.

I could find many examples, but I'll just give a couple for now. If you need more I can get them.

Germany
Had no way of stopping Hitlers rise to power because they had their guns stripped from them.

Yugoslavia
Milosevic's army was able to traipse through any town they felt like, line the men up and kill them for a lack of arms to defend themselves with.

Sierra Leone
The citizens of that country are being butchered in a fight between the standing government and a rebel army.

 

[jaydee]

Oh, but Bober, that just CAN'T happen in the U.S. You see America is invincible. Now, i must respond to other idiotic posts.



<< jaydee, you asked for the statistics on british crime and berated me when i could not come up with them immidiatly for you. they show the US has a murder rate and rape rate far higher than that of britain. there are your statistics. >>



Ok, junior, I'm about to preform a skill posessed by most human beings, called LOGIC AND REASONING. First though I must outline what I and you have AND have not said, since it is clearly evident that you have ever so a difficult a time grasping.

You claimed Brittish had much better statistics regarding crime, (which took you almost a week to find while you stated it as facts as if you had the stats at your fingertips all along, that is why I berated you. You claimed but had no substance until you had to find the right chart to fit your claims) and somehow related that directly with the fact that today they have abolished guns altogether. Now I did NOT say that once you find a crime rate chart that's end of discussion which you implied as well. Of course there are many other examples as Bober pointed out, but, we have to play by your rules I suppose. So why did you ignore my statement?



<< Yes but Japan, and Britain were less violent then the U.S. before they outlawed guns, so your point is moot. >>







<< when was the last time the entire population of the U.S. revolted against the government and military....i can understand a civil war or something of that nature >>



Your ignorance is well shown here junior #2. I'm sure if we give the government all our guns, and then war errupts agaist them, they'll just be more than happy to resupply us with the guns we'll be killing them with later on. Yeah I bet. Oh, and by the way you did good in pasting the 2nd Amendment; however, you seem not grasp it grammatically. For example:the second ammendment states

A well regulated Militia COMMA being neccessary to the security of a free State COMMA the right of the people to bear arms COMMA shall not be infringed.

If you took 10th grade English, you would know that it means: a well regulated militia being neccessary to a free state shall not be infringed, as well as the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. How can you possibly tie the two in together, as if only the well regulated militia has the right to bear arms? Perhaps you could do a better job than the framers who developed the Constitution (ie Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison ect.)? Uh, let me clear this up: no you can't. Oh yeah and one last thing: There is a difference between a supply and a tank. Deny all you want but there is.

 

[BoberFett]

jaydee

fattyboy must be sitting in a corner sucking his thumb right about now, since there hasn't been any dispute of our comments.

And jaydee, if you want my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, see the thread I started.

2nd Amendment, it can't be any clearer

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

your grasp of the concept between fuel supply and fuel tank is so small minded.
a plane gets its fuel from a supply but does the engine of a plane get its fuel from a supply which is housed inside a fuel tank, thus being a fuel supply
Oh and guess what genius, I am not gandalf so don't direct arguments for him at me

how does proving that guns kill people and crime rates are increased because of them, not get through to you?

-fett
germany the people didn't try to rebel against the government becaues hitler was ELECTED and then he declared himself dictator.

melosivic was practically a dictator because he controlled the so called elections for president.

sierra leone - What are the rebels using? sticks rocks...guns most likely, if the other citizens had guns what would they do? Shoot both the rebels and the government?

if a president of the U.S. declared himself dictator i don't believe the american people would stand for it...including the military etc. thus people wouldn't need weapons to rebel

 

[Gandalf511]

the combined iq of the libertarian party appears to rank somewhere slightly lower than Forest Gump's. if any of you honestly believe that the federal government is about to attack your homes your even more paranoid than i had originally thought. you people must be stoned out of yoru freaking minds. i realize that libertarians realize drugs should be legalized. that's why i made the crack about selling crack to 12 years olds to show the stupidity of this. i agree with the legalization of weed. crack, heroin, and many other hard drugs should not be legalized though. also the FDA does a pretty nice job of protecting the public from any drug any yahoo pharmacutical company wants to put out. i don't know bout you guys but i'm not that eager to be slipped roofies by random companies. maybe japan and britain were more peacefull before the gun laws. great for them. but when modern US states throw parades over cutting murder rates by 2%, i think it would be a good idea to emulate countries that have 80% lower rates than we do.

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.

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.

 

[BoberFett]

Gandalf

Your inability to correctly use the Shift key on your keyboard speaks volumes about your intelligence level.

Did anybody say the goverment was about to attack it's citizens. Not that I'm aware of. But are you certain that it will never happen? I'm not, which is why the 2nd Amendment is important. And if you read my other thread, that I linked to just a few posts ago, you'd understand that the 2nd Amendment does not apply only to the military, but to any citizen of the US.

Your arguments are as feeble as your mind. Play elsewhere, little man.

 

[jaydee]

Junior, such an idiotic post, that you had to use personal attacks on me because you ran out of facts, doesn't deserve a response. In fact your uselessness and profound ignorance in general are so pathetic, that anything I have to say will just go in one ear and out the other, since it is obvious that you don't have the brain capacity to interpret my posts. I would advise not to pollute this thread any longer, but I am afraid it is a task that you are not up to, since you reading comprehension is a tough subject for you.

 

[inquis]

Holy sh|t, I can't go to sleep and work on my Sim City 3000 city without getting hopelessly behind on this thread

Oh well, I'll read these posts when I have time later and respond to the ones that contain the most heinous misstatements; but for now, I have to take a shower and get a haircut.

-inq

 

[Gandalf511]

heheh you make me giggle like a little girl
&quot;morbo wishes you all a slow and painful death&quot;
so your reduced to attacking us with no facts what so ever about shift keys and illogical understanding of the 2nd ammendment. It's an ---if then statement--- if your in a militia and protecting the state then you get guns and that can't be infringed upon. Your low iq was proven through your poor understanding of sarcasm when I said that i wish to sell crack to 12 year olds apparently you would agree with selling crack and other harmful drugs to minors as you pointed out in your post that followed mine.

we have been reduced to insulting your low intelligence because your arguments are illogical and support moot points. Our main problem with you is you have no idea how a system like that which the libertarians propose could work but you support it blindly with no facts or statistics. We have come up with stats proving our point now lets see yours. The reason you don't have stats is because there is no possible way for your system to work.

-Gandalf &amp; Fat Ass