libertarians without guns are THEORISTS

[April1775]

(Please discuss. Show your work. Spelling counts.)

There are two types of libertarians: Gun owners, and theorists. Since libertarianism is based on "not initiating aggression", if someone initiates aggression on you, without a gun, all you can do is yell as they kill you. Maybe more accurate is "you can't be a very EFFECTIVE libertarian without a gun." But I am amazed at many libertarians, who even speak long and hard about the RIGHT to bear arms, do not themselves bear arms.

And by bear arms, I don't mean having a shotgun in the closet. That's a good start. But by "bear" arms, I mean have a handgun on you 100% of the time, and own a battle rifle and be competent with it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No True Scotsman

[April1775]

I don't think "No True Scotsman" applies here. I believe you just went to your rote "logic debunking 101" because I used the word "true."
And you didn't show your work. If you feel it still applies, give us some of your own words on why you feel my points are invalid.

If you can't go with the thread title, go with this, my second option:
"you can't be a very EFFECTIVE libertarian without a gun."

[newbitech]

(Please discuss. Show your work. Spelling counts.)

There are two types of libertarians: Gun owners, and theorists. Since libertarianism is based on "not initiating aggression", if someone initiates aggression on you, without a gun, all you can do is yell as they kill you. Maybe more accurate is "you can't be a very EFFECTIVE libertarian without a gun." But I am amazed at many libertarians, who even speak long and hard about the RIGHT to bear arms, do not themselves bear arms.

And by bear arms, I don't mean having a shotgun in the closet. That's a good start. By "bear" arms, I mean have a handgun on you 100% of the time, and own a battle rifle and be competent with it.

Two words.
Meat.
Shield.

Was MLK armed? Was Gandhi armed?

I am not so sure I would discredit unarmed libertarians or question their effectiveness. Violence begets violence.

Everyone has a role to fulfill. Some will carry weapons and guard the flanks, others will carry bandages and heal the wounded, and yet others will take their voice to the front lines and WIN over the oppressor. The struggle is never ending and all must stand firm, together knowing that the love of liberty is greater than the hate of the oppressor.

P.S. Your poll is flawed. I voted honestly based on experience. If you would have had just "yes" as an answer I would have went with that. Not sure how close you are with your weapon, but I have the scars to prove that indeed, guns ARE bad, um'kay? =)

[April1775]

MLK applied for a concealed weapons permit and was turned down.

I like most of what you said, except maybe "violence begets violence." Are you implying that owning a gun for self-defense is an act of violence?

[madfoot]

No, this is basically No True Scotsman.

[April1775]

If it is No True Scotsman, I contend it doesn't make it any less true. Anymore than calling a politician "Hitleresque" may be a shorthand, but with some politicians it doesn't make it any less true.

[erowe1]

Is there something wrong with being a theorist?

[April1775]

Is there something wrong with being a theorist?

Not really. I'd say it's better than being uninformed. But I think being a theorist who understands "no aggression" is a good start in a journey that at some point leads to the ability to keep aggression away.

I think the fact that there are 80 million + gun owners in America is the reason that politicians have only been able to act like Hitler early in his career, when some would really like to act more like Hitler later in his career. I think the fact that there are 80 million + gun owners in America is the reason we still have SOME rights, where almost all other countries have less.

[Dreamofunity]

Two words.
Meat.
Shield.

Was MLK armed? Was Gandhi armed?

I am not so sure I would discredit unarmed libertarians or question their effectiveness. Violence begets violence.

Everyone has a role to fulfill. Some will carry weapons and guard the flanks, others will carry bandages and heal the wounded, and yet others will take their voice to the front lines and WIN over the oppressor. The struggle is never ending and all must stand firm, together knowing that the love of liberty is greater than the hate of the oppressor.

P.S. Your poll is flawed. I voted honestly based on experience. If you would have had just "yes" as an answer I would have went with that. Not sure how close you are with your weapon, but I have the scars to prove that indeed, guns ARE bad, um'kay? =)

Division of labor, ftw.

[madfoot]

godwin's law <_>

[newbitech]

MLK applied for a concealed weapons permit and was turned down.

I like most of what you said, except maybe "violence begets violence." Are you implying that owning a gun for self-defense is an act of violence?

interesting, I had not heard that about MLK. Even so, he continued on without the weapon as far as I know. No I did not mean to imply that. I think violence in any circumstance, whether in self-defense or aggression is to be avoided.

I am sure I share the same sentiment as you. At some point, I must hold my ground. At which time I believe it will not matter how many guns I have IF I am standing alone. SO I would encourage you to stand with me, armed to the teeth, packing a pee-shooter, or unarmed.

I am not against weapons at all, in fact I have aspirations of building an AR when I have funds available. I just think that if things get to a point where gun ownership is required for survival, then the message has become ineffective. I don't want to see that, even though I have this rage building inside me. It comes in waves with each wave getting taller and taller and my actions becoming bolder and bolder. Somebody might want to attack me over that, but then I will have identified the who.

So many people blame "the government", or "the state". Let's remember, these are actual people WHO need a change in philosophy in order to implement a change in the system and roll of "the government". WHO are they? Let them come forward and attack~! If I have to take one for the team, I will, and if my defense is ineffective because they were quicker on the draw, or had more firepower, or overwhelming force, you will still be thankful that I stood up and identified the enemy and exposed their weakness for what it is, won't you?

[Stary Hickory]

Kinda agree, I plan on buying a firearm soon

[SWATH]

Conversely non-libertarians with guns are turrists.

[Stary Hickory]

Conversely non-libertarians with guns are terrists.

No they are the government police agencies

[CaliforniaMom]

I think that a person can be a libertarian with or without owning a firearm.

[osan]

Was MLK armed? Was Gandhi armed?

I am not so sure I would discredit unarmed libertarians or question their effectiveness. Violence begets violence.

Everything has its time and place. I would put violence at the very end of the line.

We as a "nation" could stop all this nonsense today - eliminate the Fed, IRS, repressive and immoral law and its enforcement. We could do it without firing a shot. We don't. Why? We don't care enough to pick ourselves up and put it to an end. Our potential for violence should be reserved for the time when, after having eliminated the Fed, IRS, etc., repudiating the foisted national debt, and withdrawing from every international treaty into which we have piecemeal dissolved our national sovereignty, the world came after us with the intention of forcing us back into slave status. Then we unleash the dogs of war upon all comers, slaughtering them by the tens of millions until they got the message that we are not to be treaded upon.

We are in no way obliged to live by the dictates of foreign powers. That we do is a great shame upon us all.


Everyone has a role to fulfill. Some will carry weapons and guard the flanks, others will carry bandages and heal the wounded, and yet others will take their voice to the front lines and WIN over the oppressor. The struggle is never ending and all must stand firm, together knowing that the love of liberty is greater than the hate of the oppressor.

Well stated.


P.S. Your poll is flawed.

Most of them are. I don't bother with them at all anymore. Waste of keystrokes.

[BuddyRey]

I feel a little lacking in my libertarian "cred" because I've never fired a gun in my life. But I do have several of them, including a replica old west six-shooter that I'm dying to try out sometime or another.

[April1775]

interesting, I had not heard that about MLK.

I'm not sure a handgun would have protected him from a hidden rifle 30 yards away. But a vest with rifle plates might have. They're not bad to have either.


I have aspirations of building an AR when I have funds available.

If funds are an issue, buy a Mosin Nagant. for 250 bucks you can get a real battle rifle that killed actual nazis, and a bunch of ammo.

[osan]

Division of labor, ftw.

Great way of putting it. A proper division of labor greatly levers the talents of all. Note my use of "proper". Even division of labor can go too far... sort of the way we see in today's schools and workforce.

[osan]

[[mouseclick-spazz dup]]

[SWATH]

If funds are an issue, buy a Mosin Nagant. for 250 bucks you can get a real battle rifle that killed actual nazis, and a bunch of ammo.

That's one expensive Mosin. You should be able to buy them all day long for $60-70 and ammo is dirt cheap too.

[hugolp]

What happens with libertarians that live in a country with strict gun controls?

[April1775]

What happens with libertarians that live in a country with strict gun controls?

I don't know. Maybe keep guns anyway? Some Jews hid guns away when the Nazis outlawed them for Jews, and some shot a few Nazis. Didn't save them, but was probably more satisfying that going quietly to the camps.

But if they're libertarians in America in states with strict gun controls, I'd say "the MOVE."

[April1775]

That's one expensive Mosin. You should be able to buy them all day long for $60-70 and ammo is dirt cheap too.

I know. I'm talking about having a lot of ammo. Like a spam can or two at least.

[newbitech]

I'm not sure a handgun would have protected him from a hidden rifle 30 yards away. But a vest with rifle plates might have. They're not bad to have either.



If funds are an issue, buy a Mosin Nagant. for 250 bucks you can get a real battle rifle that killed actual nazis, and a bunch of ammo.

I looked it up and the first thing that came to mind when I saw the image was "modern day musket". I am not sure I would want to go through the channels to get one of these. Seems like they are easy to get tho cause the Afghans killing American's are getting them.

This really seems like a "revolutionary" type weapon. I still want to build an AR tho =). I am a do it your self kind of guy. I consider a weapon to be as close to me as a vehicle. I need to know it intimately. Anyways, I may not fully agree with your approach on this subject, but I appreciate the convo.

[April1775]

I looked it up and the first thing that came to mind when I saw the image was "modern day musket". I am not sure I would want to go through the channels to get one of these.

channels ? Do you think you have to meet with a guy named Ivan at midnight at the port and give him a password? They sell 'em at Big 5 and Cabelas now. I got mine at a gun show.


This really seems like a "revolutionary" type weapon.

Well, they've been used in a few revolutions......



I still want to build an AR tho =). I am a do it your self kind of guy. I consider a weapon to be as close to me as a vehicle. I need to know it intimately.

Understandable.

[moostraks]

What's with newbies demanding we take collective action or must live in a specific manner? New wave for the next elections?

Someone needs to look into native american relations with religious groups who were non-resistant. For some of us guns are against our religious values.

[randolphfuller]

Dr. Paul does not hunt or own guns.

[April1775]

Dr. Paul does not hunt or own guns.

He doesn't need to. US Congressmen have access to armed guards. So do presidential candidates.

[April1775]

What's with newbies demanding we take collective action or must live in a specific manner?

Newbie to this forum.
Not newbie to liberty or Ron Paul.
Not newbie to various other liberty forums.

Do I have to have a set number of posts here to have a strong opinion on something? Does hanging out on the internet = validity?

[doodle]

So this thread is just a theory right :)

[newbitech]

channels ? Do you think you have to meet with a guy named Ivan at midnight at the port and give him a password? They sell 'em at Big 5 and Cabelas now. I got mine at a gun show.



Well, they've been used in a few revolutions......



Understandable.

lol on your first comment. I wouldn't know to be honest. I guess these weapons are common enough to be found all over the place from what I hear you saying. What about ammo? I mean do they manufacture the ammo in the states?

I guess it just seems odd to me that I would use the same equipment to defend myself that is being used by "insurgents" to defend themselves. Maybe I just felt a loss of propriety when I realized these were Russian made weapons. Not being a big weapon enthusiast or hobbyist, I figured I'd have to find Ivan actually, heh. Well I still have the scars from my 30 years of indoctrination, one of them being wanting to hold on to good ol' "USA, USA, USA". I dream of being one of the entrepreneurs that brings back "Made in the USA". I read a thread on these forums somewhere that talks about gun ownership and how the AR built from pieces is the true Patriot defense weapon. It changed my mind about weapons in general (when I was nearly killed by a gun at 15, it caused me to hate them until I read that post).

here is the thread if anyone is interested. packed full of awesomeness. Probably one of the best threads I have ever read on the internet.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?177376-How-to-Build-an-AR-15

[cdc482]

I have been a libertarian for a long time, and I hate guns. I would never use one.
I am a humanitarian libertarian.

[April1775]

I have been a libertarian for a long time, and I hate guns. I would never use one.
I am a humanitarian libertarian.

Do you think other citizens should be able to own guns?

[April1775]

lol on your first comment. I wouldn't know to be honest. I guess these weapons are common enough to be found all over the place from what I hear you saying. What about ammo? I mean do they manufacture the ammo in the states?

They do, but cold-war surplus is cheaper, about 30 cents a round in bulk. It comes in a "spam can" that you open with a can opener:

http://www.stinkfight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/55commiepounds-005.jpg

http://www.stinkfight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/55commiepounds-008.jpg



I guess it just seems odd to me that I would use the same equipment to defend myself that is being used by "insurgents" to defend themselves. Maybe I just felt a loss of propriety when I realized these were Russian made weapons. Not being a big weapon enthusiast or hobbyist, I figured I'd have to find Ivan actually, heh. Well I still have the scars from my 30 years of indoctrination, one of them being wanting to hold on to good ol' "USA, USA, USA".

Yeah, I grew up in the Cold War too....

I say "stuff is stuff" and country or reason of origin doesn't taint it if I use it for good. I'll drive a Japanese car, eat a polish sausage, eat Mexican or Middle-Eastern food, and shoot a Russian rifle. I have a lot of stuff made in China too, because I shop at WalMart a lot.

The American made ammo for these is made by Winchester. The reason they make it is to supply Iraqi soldiers who fight alongside American soldiers but use old Russian weapons. The Russian ammo is corrosive. Many people actually clean the barrel with Windex after using it.



I read a thread on these forums somewhere that talks about gun ownership and how the AR built from pieces is the true Patriot defense weapon. .

That sounds like nationalistic BS to me. Besides many of the small parts in an "American made" AR are made in China. Or tooled on machines made in other countries. We live in a global world. To live in a home with only American-made everything, you'd pretty much be living in a museum full of antiques.

[Zeeder]

It isn't owning a gun that makes you a libertarian. It's not using one FIRST.

And the fact that libertarians consider government action(taxes, etc..) force.......it is all of us that are Theorists. We should have already used those guns. If you are not going to use the gun, what's the point of having it?

So in theory, we agree with Thomas jefferson and the founders. In practice we are tortured sheep.( I have guns for home protection, I'm just commenting on the theorist part)

[SWATH]

It isn't owning a gun that makes you a libertarian. It's not using one FIRST.


It is also not demanding someone use one are your behalf. If you are unwilling and unable to defend yourself or others who should do it for you?

[April1775]

I personally don't like ARs or Glocks, in a violation of my own "stuff is stuff" rule, because ARs and Glocks are what FedGoons in every agency carry. When doors get kicked in, they're kicked in by guys with ARs and Glocks. I call ARs and Glocks "government guns." (That would be a good name for a band, if anyone's in a band and wants to use it, let me know and I'll quit offering it to folks.)

Glocks are Austrian, by the way, but almost every American cop and armed FedGoon is armed with a Glock. They don't have a nationalistic bias with their tools, they use the best tools.

My wife carries a Glock, and I carry an XD, which is pretty much an improvement on a Glock, and looks and feels a lot like a Glock, but I won't carry a Glock. Which isn't to say I have a moral horror at them. If someone broke into our house and my wife's Glock was the closest gun, I'd grab it rather than go into another room to find my own more "PC" gun.

An XD is made in Serbo-Croatia, by the way, but they ain't no "Yugo."

[Pericles]

"Of all the lands of Europe, the Swiss are the best armed and the most free."

Niccolo Machiavelli

For those who are "going to" get an AR, buy the lower now ($100). The rest is just parts you can assemble as funds allow. The most expensive rifle below was $850 in cost, and it was only that high because I wanted historically correct anodizing.

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt317/Pericles-photo/M16evolve.jpg

[April1775]

this:
Do we really want to live in a country where when someone busts into your house at night you're supposed to assume they might be cops?

[Inkblots]

You absolutely shouldn't own a gun for self-defense unless you're willing to kill a man without hesitation.

I don't believe I could kill a man, even in self-defense. And since I neither hunt nor shoot for sport, I therefore have no need of a gun.

[April1775]

That's honest.

[SWATH]

You absolutely shouldn't own a gun for self-defense unless you're willing to kill a man without hesitation.

I don't believe I could kill a man, even in self-defense. And since I neither hunt nor shoot for sport, I therefore have no need of a gun.

Fair enough, but I believe you would change your mind in a heartbeat if put to the test. The sudden realization that you might be murdered for nothing can really bring out the fangs in even the biggest pacifist. You are hardwired for self-preservation and "civilized society" has a difficult time eradicating that programing, though it's not for lack of trying.

[April1775]

I could never kill a man except in self-defense. My hand would freeze up like the robots in "Westworld" (before they malfunctioned) if I even tought about it.

I did a small role in an indie film where my character (a bad cop) put a gun to a guy's head. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done, even though myself and three other people all checked the gun three times each to make sure it was empty.

But I am positive could kill a man who was seriously trying to kill me or my loved ones as easy as I could light a cigarette.

[SamuraisWisdom]

The idea that if you don't own a gun you are somehow "less" libetarian is absurd and insulting. First off, guns today are meant for one thing only, and that's killing people. Something I don't believe in. The exception is hunting rifles and I don't hunt. I have no need for a gun. I don't feel I have to carry around a firearm to protect myself even living in down and out areas of Connecticut.

I support other people's right to bear arms even though I think it's unnecessary. What could be more libertarian than that? Being libertarian is about practicing what you preach and if you support the constitution then you support the people's rights outlined in it despite your own views. There's nothing theoretical about that.

[muzzled dogg]

Paraphasing Edwin viera here

By failing to do what's "necessary to the security of a free State" you are helping usher in the police state

[April1775]

Paraphasing Edwin viera here

By failing to do what's "necessary to the security of a free State" you are helping usher in the police state

Yup. While gun rights are innate, the US runs (allegedly) by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment, if one looks at the Framer's writings, was a MANDATE to carry a gun, not a suggestion. And the "well-regulated" part implies keeping your gun in good working order, and keeping yourself fit and trained. (that was the meaning back then.)

Gun grabbers like to say "Even if that WAS true, we have a standing army now, so we don't need that." But I do not recognize the Constitutional or moral validity of that standing army, or any of the goon squads that have sprung up since to kick in doors to enforce fake laws against fake crimes.

Or, as my buddy likes to say "The white man's laws don't apply to me."

[Pericles]

Paraphasing Edwin viera here

By failing to do what's "necessary to the security of a free State" you are helping usher in the police state

That ^^

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10420.Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn)

[erowe1]

The original intent of the Second Amendment, if one looks at the Framer's writings, was a MANDATE to carry a gun, not a suggestion

It was neither a mandate nor a suggestion. The 2nd amendment calls it a right, and it means nothing other than that.

[April1775]

It was neither a mandate nor a suggestion. The 2nd amendment calls it a right, and it means nothing other than that.

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

[Pericles]

It was neither a mandate nor a suggestion. The 2nd amendment calls it a right, and it means nothing other than that.

Under the power of Congress to organize and discipline the militia:

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, ............ That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, .......... every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.


..............


And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.


XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias.

[erowe1]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

1) If the 2nd amendment is a mandate, why was this law necessary?
2) If this law was necessary as Congress's way of enforcing the 2nd Amendment, then why does it specify able-bodied white males over the age of 18 and under 45?
3) Regardless of its constitutionality, surely we can all agree that this law was completely unethical. Right?

[April1775]

Read this about how the original draft had more of a mandate tone, and how there was a provision to opt out if you had religious objections to gun ownership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Conflict_and_compromise_in_Congress_produce_the_B ill_of_Rights

[April1775]

3) Regardless of its constitutionality, surely we can all agree that this law was completely unethical. Right?

I agree. I don't own guns because of the Second Amendment. I own them because of RKBA. (the right to keep and bear arms, which is innate.) It's basic survival. Cats without claws die in the wild.

But I live in a country that has gun "rights" in the law, which doesn't suck, when you consider the alternative.

[RM918]

Where's the, 'I live in a state where I don't have nearly enough bribe money to own guns legally' option?

[Zeeder]

It is also not demanding someone use one are your behalf. If you are unwilling and unable to defend yourself or others who should do it for you?

I agree. Noone should do it for you.

[April1775]

Where's the, 'I live in a state where I don't have nearly enough bribe money to own guns legally' option?


Move. I did. I left California and moved to Wyoming for the less-restrictive gun laws, among other reasons. But that was the main reason.

[erowe1]

Read this about how the original draft had more of a mandate tone, and how there was a provision to opt out if you had religious objections to gun ownership:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Conflict_and_compromise_in_Congress_produce_the_B ill_of_Rights

I don't see anything in there about the original draft having more of a mandate tone. The original draft had an explicit prohibition of compelling religious objectors. But it's wording of the RKBA is still in terms of a right, not a mandate.

And if it were the case that there were an original draft that included a mandate to keep and bear arms, and if that were rejected in favor of merely a right to keep and bear arms, as is in the Constitution as ratified, then that would only strengthen the case that the 2nd Amendment was not intended as a mandate.

[April1775]

I agree. Noone should do it for you.

Agreed. That's the problem with gun grabbers. The not only don't want me to have a gun, they want someone else to hold the gun for them. All gun-grabbing politicians are protected 24/7 by armed guards. All gun-grabbing citizens call the cops (men with guns) when they feel physically threatened.

I contend that civilized society cannot exist without guns. Here's a great, short essay on that subject:
http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/civilization.aspx

[Wesker1982]

You should be able to buy them all day long for $60-70 and ammo is dirt cheap too.

Best $60 I ever spent. Best $300 I ever spent was on my AK.


Maybe more accurate is "you can't be a very EFFECTIVE libertarian without a gun." But I am amazed at many libertarians, who even speak long and hard about the RIGHT to bear arms, do not themselves bear arms.


What about Rothbard? He lived in NYC most of the time iirc, there is a good chance he didn't own any guns. I would say he was pretty effective :D.

[erowe1]

What about Rothbard? He lived in NYC most of the time iirc, there is a good chance he didn't own any guns. I would say he was pretty effective

I believe he would qualify as a "THEORIST."

[Pericles]

1) If the 2nd amendment is a mandate, why was this law necessary?
2) If this law was necessary as Congress's way of enforcing the 2nd Amendment, then why does it specify able-bodied white males over the age of 18 and under 45?
3) Regardless of its constitutionality, surely we can all agree that this law was completely unethical. Right?

1) The guarantee of a right, is not a mandate that the right be exercised. The militia, by definition is an armed citizenry subject to military duty. Congress was exercising its authority Art. I Sec. 8 authority "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"
by declaring the minimum requirements for duty, how to be armed and organizing, specifically:

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.
IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of horse shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.
VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.
VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.
VIII. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lots, to be drawn by them before the Commanding officers of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company or detachment.


2) Congress has the authority to set the minimum standards required for those subject to militia service - in the current US Code Title 10:


§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


(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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html), 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



3) No - Congress clearly has the authority to pass such a law. And ethically, each member of a community has the moral responsibility to contribute to the defense of the community.

[erowe1]

1) The guarantee of a right is not a mandate that the right be exercised.
That's exactly my point.



3) No - Congress clearly has the authority to pass such a law. And ethically, each member of a community has the moral responsibility to contribute to the defense of the community.
Where does Congress get that authority?

[April1775]

What about Rothbard? He lived in NYC most of the time iirc, there is a good chance he didn't own any guns. I would say he was pretty effective :D.

If he didn't own a gun, he was a damn good theorist. He sure SOUNDS like a gun owner:
Rothbard on Gun Control
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1294

[Pericles]

Where does Congress get that authority?

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;



To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[erowe1]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;



To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Again, from where does Congress get the right to do that?

[Pericles]

Again, from where does Congress get the right to do that?

A) The same right Congress has to perform any of its acts - the US Constitution (to the extent that any of its must comply with the Constitution to be valid)

B) The Constitution recognizes the militia existed prior to the formation of the federal government and its predecessor. Thus, it can only make use of and enhance its effectiveness, it has no authority to abolish the militia.

C) One can question the authority of the Constitution, in which case one is purely a theorist, or is in the process of getting rid of US citizenship.

[erowe1]

A) The same right Congress has to perform any of its acts - the US Constitution (to the extent that any of its must comply with the Constitution to be valid)

Do you mean to imply that all Congress needs in order for it to have the right to do anything is for that thing to be constitutional?

If so, then where does the Constitution get the right to delegate rights to Congress like that?

If not, then we're back to my earlier question.

[erowe1]

C) One can question the authority of the Constitution, in which case one is purely a theorist, or is in the process of getting rid of US citizenship.

I hope you don't actually believe this.

[muzzled dogg]

man this is why i asked josh for a subforum on the first clause of the second amendment

[Pericles]

Do you mean to imply that all Congress needs in order for it to have the right to do anything is for that thing to be constitutional?

That would make the Constitution awfully important, wouldn't it?


If so, then where does the Constitution get the right to delegate rights to Congress like that?

Power delegated to the federal government on behalf of the states.


If not, then we're back to my earlier question.

If you wish to have an existential debate, first you have to prove that you exist. I see no such proof.

[bruce leeroy]

Two words.
Meat.
Shield.

Was MLK armed? Was Gandhi armed?

I am not so sure I would discredit unarmed libertarians or question their effectiveness. Violence begets violence.

Everyone has a role to fulfill. Some will carry weapons and guard the flanks, others will carry bandages and heal the wounded, and yet others will take their voice to the front lines and WIN over the oppressor. The struggle is never ending and all must stand firm, together knowing that the love of liberty is greater than the hate of the oppressor.

P.S. Your poll is flawed. I voted honestly based on experience. If you would have had just "yes" as an answer I would have went with that. Not sure how close you are with your weapon, but I have the scars to prove that indeed, guns ARE bad, um'kay? =)
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-was-it-again-that-ghandian.html

[erowe1]

That would make the Constitution awfully important, wouldn't it?



Power delegated to the federal government on behalf of the states.



If you wish to have an existential debate, first you have to prove that you exist. I see no such proof.

I'm not sure how existentialism got into this. This is a debate about a simple matter of right and wrong. Hopefully, when we're discussing some policy we are allowed to bring the question of whether that policy is right or wrong into the debate. You don't think that a policy that would be wrong if it were not constitutional becomes right simply by being authorized by the Constitution do you?

For example, I hope you don't think it was ok for the federal government to enforce prohibition from 1920 to 1933 just because it happened to be constitutional. Do you?

[erowe1]

Power delegated to the federal government on behalf of the states.
Where do states get the right to do that?

[Wesker1982]

If he didn't own a gun, he was a damn good theorist. He sure SOUNDS like a gun owner:
Rothbard on Gun Control
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1294

He sounds like a libertarian. More specifically, I was replying to this:



Maybe more accurate is "you can't be a very EFFECTIVE libertarian without a gun."


Pointing out Rothbard was as an example of how the pen can be mightier (i.e. more effective) than the sword. Taking the same person (Rothbard), if he were to dedicate his whole life to advancing the cause liberty and have a one choice between: A. Owning and bearing arms, or B. Owning and using a typewriter to write For a New Liberty, I would argue that he would have been less effective in the libertarian movement (i.e. a less effective libertarian) with choice A.

Of course there is nothing wrong if he did A. and B. at the same time, but B. is a better choice (for him) than A.

Edit: TL;DR- Rothbard is an example of a very effective libertarian, with or without guns. This is assuming that being an effective libertarian means effectively advancing the philosophy/cause.

At least semi-relevant to this discussion:
Libertarians in a State-Run World http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard232.html


It seems to me, then, that the criterion, the ground on which we must stand, to be moral and rational in a state-run world, is to: (1) work and agitate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its statism; and (3) to refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and criminal per se.

[Pericles]

I'm not sure how existentialism got into this. This is a debate about a simple matter of right and wrong. Hopefully, when we're discussing some policy we are allowed to bring the question of whether that policy is right or wrong into the debate. You don't think that a policy that would be wrong if it were not constitutional becomes right simply by being authorized by the Constitution do you?

For example, I hope you don't think it was ok for the federal government to enforce prohibition from 1920 to 1933 just because it happened to be constitutional. Do you?
Moral authority is not the same as legal authority. Moral authority is superior. Yes, the feds could enforce prohibition, in my view. As stupid as it was to approve such a constitutional amendment, as I can't argue or moral grounds that I have a right to buy Dom Perignon. Were I a producer, than I could make a private property argument, thus the right to private property had been abrogated, and thus a legal means was pursued for an illegal end.

[Pericles]

Where do states get the right to do that?

This is the typical social contract theory argument, to which I suspect neither of us will make a lasting contribution immortalized for posterity.

[erowe1]

Moral authority is not the same as legal authority. Moral authority is superior. Yes, the feds could enforce prohibition, in my view. As stupid as it was to approve such a constitutional amendment, as I can't argue or moral grounds that I have a right to buy Dom Perignon. Were I a producer, than I could make a private property argument, thus the right to private property had been abrogated, and thus a legal means was pursued for an illegal end.

And what applies to prohibition must apply to other things. Right?

Just because the Constitution says Congress can do something doesn't make it right.

And since that's the case, when it comes to the question of whether or not it is right for Congress to compel gun ownership (or anything else), the constitutionality of it is irrelevant, since, even if it's constitutional, it may still be wrong.

[erowe1]

This is the typical social contract theory argument, to which I suspect neither of us will make a lasting contribution immortalized for posterity.

Whether or not we make lasting contributions, it seems pretty important that we deal with that question if we want to hold right positions, as opposed to wrong ones, on matters of public policy.

[Pericles]

And what applies to prohibition must apply to other things. Right?

Just because the Constitution says Congress can do something doesn't make it right.

And since that's the case, when it comes to the question of whether or not it is right for Congress to compel gun ownership (or anything else), the constitutionality of it is irrelevant, since, even if it's constitutional, it may still be wrong.

Yes, but I didn't play the "gotcha" game because I know that Congress also made an annual appropriation of $100,000, later raised to $200,000 to arm and equip the militia, so individuals could obtain issue arms and equipment, without being compelled to purchase.

[erowe1]

Yes, but I didn't play the "gotcha" game because I know that Congress also made an annual appropriation of $100,000, later raised to $200,000 to arm and equip the militia, so individuals could obtain issue arms and equipment, without being compelled to purchase.

That's a good thing. Because a gotcha game like that wouldn't have turned out very well for anyone who tried to claim that Congress could raise and spend $200,000 in some way that resulted in something different than what would have obtained in a free market without Congress' involvement unless it were by compelling someone somewhere to do something it had no right to compel them to do.

[silentshout]

I don't have a gun. I support your right to have one, of course, but I don't know how to shoot, so it would be pointless for me to have one. I do have pepper spray though, but it won't take me too far. But i live in california..not too easy to walk around with a gun on you all the time, unless you are a cop or a thug.

[April1775]

I don't have a gun. I support your right to have one, of course, but I don't know how to shoot, so it would be pointless for me to have one. I do have pepper spray though, but it won't take me too far. But i live in california..not too easy to walk around with a gun on you all the time, unless you are a cop or a thug.

Or a very committed non-thug.

[muzzled dogg]

(1) why can't gun owners be theorists, and why can't theorists be gun owners, why must they be mutually exclusive? (2) according to the Constitution, original intent, and colonial history, all physically and mentally able people have a duty to keep and bear because they are all part of the militia required to execute per Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 15, unless they are specifically exempted (see Vieira), so basically all libertarians except exemptions have a duty to keep, and bear when required, so, I don't agree with the premise of gun owners v. theorists.

-a friend of mine

[Freedom 4 all]

I'd love to be a gun owner but I can't afford the prohibitive fees for the hoops of flaming bullshit I have to jump through to get one.

[dannno]

I can't vote in the poll because there's no good option for me. I don't own any guns, but it isn't because I think the police will protect me, it is because I feel safe in my neighborhood because I live in a relatively wealthy and relatively highly populated area. Robberies are extremely rare and very sparse. I do have weapons that aren't guns to defend myself, and I am not in any way against having guns, just haven't had the need to have any.

If I lived in a more sparsely populated area I would definitely own a gun. If I lived in a more densely populated area that wasn't as wealthy I would also likely own a gun.

I should probably have a gun or gun collection for when SHTF, I have been considering that for some time.

[April1775]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86JTxJ9myU

[axiomata]

Do I also have to own a newspaper?

Just starting a list.

[April1775]

Do I also have to own a newspaper?



You basically do, if you're typing on the World Wide Web.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No one should be compelled to do anything. However, everyone should be persuaded to own a firearm to keep a stout bulwark against the eventuality of Government oppression and tyranny. It is also a good idea to regularly train and if possible locate others near you whom you can associate into a company. Worst comes to worst I am sure those without weapons will be able to pick up the deceased weapons, but then you are going to be a novice with little to any training and your survivability rate won't be too good. The only reason we won the Revolutionary war is because we prepared for years and years beforehand and many of the colonialists were avid shooters and hunters trained in the Kentucky Long-Rifle which was superior to the British smooth-bores. Hopefully we can get the Hughes Amendment repealed. We will need some fire-teams equipped with at least M249 SAWs and it would be nice if we could buy the grenades for M203s also. :(

However, a trained marksman (500+ yards) with a weapon system designed for it (.308/6.5 Grendel/etc.) will decimate any Army especially if you are a local who knows the terrain much better. You will need the populace on your side, so like our colonial forefathers NEVER fire the first shot (unless they fail to heed your warning not to approach/confiscate your weapon).

[April1775]

Worst comes to worst I am sure those without weapons will be able to pick up the deceased weapons,.

Which I've heard is a good argument for being competent with an AR and a Glock.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Almost everyone in this country is a theorist. Our behavior, not our beliefs, defines what we are. You may believe that libertarianism is the best political system but the way you live and the system in which you participate is not libertarian. Same goes for communists, anarcho-syndicalists, and theocrats. We are really all corporatists or whatever the hell the US socio-economic/political system has become because that is how we live our lives.

[moostraks]

Fair enough, but I believe you would change your mind in a heartbeat if put to the test. The sudden realization that you might be murdered for nothing can really bring out the fangs in even the biggest pacifist. You are hardwired for self-preservation and "civilized society" has a difficult time eradicating that programing, though it's not for lack of trying.

Bull crap...I realized that I could never use a gun after being held hostage,assaulted, and almost murdered by my first husband. Self-preservation is not hard wired. Society did not program to be the opposite of my natural state as you seem to believe. I have faced the choice, and know what I am capable of in the event of a life or death situation. I don't need to speculate...

[moostraks]

Newbie to this forum.
Not newbie to liberty or Ron Paul.
Not newbie to various other liberty forums.

Do I have to have a set number of posts here to have a strong opinion on something? Does hanging out on the internet = validity?

No, you have to value and respect individual choice as a reflection of your libertarianism. You have a mindset of yet another wannabe dictator of what we shall do collectively as a society to achieve a predetermined goal. Imo, this makes you no friend to liberty.

Your demand to carry arms is directly in conflict with my right to practice my peaceful religion. How does my belief of tolerance to your right to bear arms while you disrespect me for my religious beliefs somehow make you a libertarian and me not so much???

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't really fit into any of the options. I know how to use a weapon (was trained in boy scouts), but don't own one at the moment. I would really like to, and hope I can afford one someday. :)

[SWATH]

Bull crap...I realized that I could never use a gun after being held hostage,assaulted, and almost murdered by my first husband. Self-preservation is not hard wired. Society did not program to be the opposite of my natural state as you seem to believe. I have faced the choice, and know what I am capable of in the event of a life or death situation. I don't need to speculate...

It can be different for everyone in each situation especially when coupled with psychological abuse. When it happened to me I went from a mildly alarmed "what's going on here" to "HOLY FUCK this crackhead is about to kill me". My attention immediately focused on finding a weapon of some sort to crush this guy's skull. With flipper hands I ended up stashing a pistol in my pants from my bag while he wasn't looking, which had an instantaneous calming effect on me. It wasn't a matter of IF I would have to shoot the guy down it was when. Fortunately I'm happy to say, after a few violent gestures with his gun he left, but I was on edge and ready. BTW I was about 45min from the nearest cop. I'm sorry about your situation. I still believe all biological organisms have an innate survival instinct. When you are held under water you will kick and fight to breath, it is essentially involuntary.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Also, in regard to this so-called poll... there's no option for "I was packing earlier but not now cuz I'm at work and they don't allow it". I guess that makes me a libertarian theorist. See my previous post above. I rest my case.

[moostraks]

It can be different for everyone in each situation especially when coupled with psychological abuse. When it happened to me I went from a mildly alarmed "what's going on here" to "HOLY FUCK this crackhead is about to kill me". My attention immediately focused on finding a weapon of some sort to crush this guy's skull. With flipper hands I ended up stashing a pistol in my pants from my bag while he wasn't looking, which had an instantaneous calming effect on me. It wasn't a matter of IF I would have to shoot the guy down it was when. Fortunately I'm happy to say, after a few violent gestures with his gun he left, but I was on edge and ready. BTW I was about 45min from the nearest cop. I'm sorry about your situation. I still believe all biological organisms have an innate survival instinct. When you are held under water you will kick and fight to breath, it is essentially involuntary.

You were okay until you likened kicking while drowning to conscience taking of another's life because of motivation by self-preservation. I was at the long end of a dirt road and completely isolated. I was finally able to talk him down and escaped. Ironically I went to try and get him help because he was also suicidal. I tried to get a friend to take me and he got lost. By the time we got there he had shot himself but not fatally. They tried to blame me. Luckily there was no struggle with the gun so no evidence to tie me to his suicide attempt. I wonder if I had taken the other road and been more selfish about his life over my own where things would have gone...

[SWATH]

You were okay until you likened kicking while drowning to conscience taking of another's life because of motivation by self-preservation. I was at the long end of a dirt road and completely isolated. I was finally able to talk him down and escaped. Ironically I went to try and get him help because he was also suicidal. I tried to get a friend to take me and he got lost. By the time we got there he had shot himself but not fatally. They tried to blame me. Luckily there was no struggle with the gun so no evidence to tie me to his suicide attempt. I wonder if I had taken the other road and been more selfish about his life over my own where things would have gone...

Maybe you still loved him? I can't imagine killing someone I know even if they are violent especially a spouse. There is nothing selfish about self-defense and you can't blame yourself for the actions of others. My comment about the breathing was to illustrate that when your life is imminently in danger your body will react to survive even if your mind doesn't.

[April1775]

I don't really fit into any of the options. I know how to use a weapon (was trained in boy scouts), but don't own one at the moment. I would really like to, and hope I can afford one someday. :)

Some of the "stimulus money" should have gone to arm people who cannot afford guns.

Come to think of it, the only real stimulus that Obama has added to the economy is that the sale of guns and ammo has gone WAY up since he first started running for president.

[Ytrebil]

(Please discuss. Show your work. Spelling counts.)

There are two types of libertarians: Gun owners, and theorists. Since libertarianism is based on "not initiating aggression", if someone initiates aggression on you, without a gun, all you can do is yell as they kill you. Maybe more accurate is "you can't be a very EFFECTIVE libertarian without a gun." But I am amazed at many libertarians, who even speak long and hard about the RIGHT to bear arms, do not themselves bear arms.

And by bear arms, I don't mean having a shotgun in the closet. That's a good start. But by "bear" arms, I mean have a handgun on you 100% of the time, and own a battle rifle and be competent with it.

Wait what happens if you keep your shotgun in the closet? Does it expire like milk?

Asks the man with the 12 gauge in his closet.

[April1775]

Also, in regard to this so-called poll... there's no option for "I was packing earlier but not now cuz I'm at work and they don't allow it". I guess that makes me a libertarian theorist. See my previous post above. I rest my case.

The wording of the poll was a little facetious, well, not really facetious, but the wording was meant to make people smile.

I'd say you are not a theorist.

[April1775]

Wait what happens if you keep your shotgun in the closet? Does it expire like milk?



Lol....no, but it will only protect you at home and only at relatively short range. Handguns protect you everywhere. Rifles oppose organized tyranny anywhere.

No revolutions were ever won with shotguns.

[QueenB4Liberty]

No, you have to value and respect individual choice as a reflection of your libertarianism. You have a mindset of yet another wannabe dictator of what we shall do collectively as a society to achieve a predetermined goal. Imo, this makes you no friend to liberty.

Your demand to carry arms is directly in conflict with my right to practice my peaceful religion. How does my belief of tolerance to your right to bear arms while you disrespect me for my religious beliefs somehow make you a libertarian and me not so much???

Exactly. You don't have to be a gun owner to be a good libertarian. I've never heard that but it's very insulting.

[April1775]

You don't have to be a gun owner to be a good libertarian. I've never heard that.....

Perhaps you've read too much Mises and Rand and not enough Boston T. Party and Heinlein.


....but it's very insulting.

Bold truths often sound insulting on one's first exposure to them.

[moostraks]

Maybe you still loved him? I can't imagine killing someone I know even if they are violent especially a spouse. There is nothing selfish about self-defense and you can't blame yourself for the actions of others. My comment about the breathing was to illustrate that when your life is imminently in danger your body will react to survive even if your mind doesn't.

No...I did not. He was an abusive, womanizing drug addict. He had me thrown in a hospital for mental illness on false allegations (at the time it only took two witnesses to commit so he got his father to make a false report with him). Then he tried to extort money from my parents. Finally he broke into their home with the intent to hold them hostage until they gave him money. Luckily they were not at home. So he stole from them. The weapon he held on me was from my parents' house.

There is a difference when you are holding a gun. You have a moments contemplation to conceive of final outcome in many cases. I could not cause intense physical harm to another. Slapping the stew out of someone, yes. Bludgeoning them or shooting them, no.

[moostraks]

Bold truths often sound insulting on one's first exposure to them.

What part of what you demand is advocating personal choice (freedom of thought) and freedom of action? You are advocating one manner with which to deal with a situation.

[moostraks]

Exactly. You don't have to be a gun owner to be a good libertarian. I've never heard that but it's very insulting.

I am incredibly insulted as well. I understand the right to bear arms argument but disagree for me and mine. I feel personally that when I take another's life I have crossed over the bridge of no return. I would not qualify as completely non-resistant as I belief that by presenting oneself as a sacrifice in certain situations will cause more violence by perpetrators (although I admire the fortitude of those who do ) when a certain amount of aggression deters many if not most offenders. Deadly force, however, is a set of consequences of which I could not fathom having to live with the results.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We need a lot of people like Moostrak. Who else is going to quarter and help us while we are doing the fighting? :p

[Pericles]

We need a lot of people like Moostrak. Who else is going to quarter and help us while we are doing the fighting? :p

Without adequate logistics, one's bullet launching days are limited in number.

[April1775]

What part of what you demand is advocating personal choice (freedom of thought) and freedom of action?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying I'm a hypocrite because I say I'm libertarian but I seem to you to be initiating aggression?
If that's you're saying, I'm not. I may be calling you a name ("theorist") but that's not aggression. That's free speech.

[April1775]

Without adequate logistics, one's bullet launching days are limited in number.

I'd still rather die rejecting tyranny than go along with it calmly. (on the rifle end.)
and
I'd rather live to fight (and/or just live) another day. (on the handgun end.)

[Original_Intent]

and libertarians with guns are "terrorists" ...

[April1775]

Without adequate logistics, one's bullet launching days are limited in number.

If enough people stopped being theorists, those logistics would exist.


and libertarians with guns are "terrorists" ...

I know you're kidding....I can tell because of your user name.


We need a lot of people like Moostrak. Who else is going to quarter and help us while we are doing the fighting? :p

LOLOLOLZ!

So true.

Moostrak, can you cook?

[moostraks]

We need a lot of people like Moostrak. Who else is going to quarter and help us while we are doing the fighting? :p

:p

[moostraks]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying I'm a hypocrite because I say I'm libertarian but I seem to you to be initiating aggression?
If that's you're saying, I'm not. I may be calling you a name ("theorist") but that's not aggression. That's free speech.

I said you are ignorant of what defines libertarian beliefs if you demand a response that reeks of group think and behavior. One of the beauties of allowing you your right to bear arms is the fact that they know not which one of us carries unless one advocates for a nanny state system of declaration and licensing. You are dismissing and belittling others who fight the same fight for liberty by demanding you impose your beliefs of lethal violence as a means to an end or they are not true to the belief of liberty. That is not only illogical but repugnant. We don't need mini dictators here to tell us what to think and believe in. Learn to live and let live.

[moostraks]

Moostrak, can you cook?

Quite well...but I am selective of the company I keep.

[erowe1]

I said you are ignorant of what defines libertarian beliefs if you demand a response that reeks of group think and behavior. One of the beauties of allowing you your right to bear arms is the fact that they know not which one of us carries unless one advocates for a nanny state system of declaration and licensing. You are dismissing and belittling others who fight the same fight for liberty by demanding you impose your beliefs of lethal violence as a means to an end or they are not true to the belief of liberty. That is not only illogical but repugnant. We don't need mini dictators here to tell us what to think and believe in. Learn to live and let live.

The whole "If you're a real libertarian than you must ...." line is one reason I never call myself a libertarian.

[moostraks]

The whole "If you're a real libertarian than you must ...." line is one reason I never call myself a libertarian.

It confuses me since I thought the whole idea was to respect others and not infringe on their beliefs.

[Nic]

Flawed poll, so I couldn't answer. While I wouldn't begrudge two consenting men of their right to play hide the sausage with eachother, I have no interest in partaking in it myself. Does that mean that I'm not a true libertarian? Same applies with guns. If it's your cup of tea, have at it, but I don't feel the need to have one of my own.

[amy31416]

April1775 needs to buy me a gun so I can live up to his expectations. :)

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying I'm a hypocrite because I say I'm libertarian but I seem to you to be initiating aggression?
If that's you're saying, I'm not. I may be calling you a name ("theorist") but that's not aggression. That's free speech.

I've never heard a Libertarian mandate anything. Except the non-aggression principle. Of course hardly anyone in society follows it, but what are you suggesting? We all take up arms against the government? Mandating everyone to own something is collectivist, and not liberty minded at all.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I said you are ignorant of what defines libertarian beliefs if you demand a response that reeks of group think and behavior. One of the beauties of allowing you your right to bear arms is the fact that they know not which one of us carries unless one advocates for a nanny state system of declaration and licensing. You are dismissing and belittling others who fight the same fight for liberty by demanding you impose your beliefs of lethal violence as a means to an end or they are not true to the belief of liberty. That is not only illogical but repugnant. We don't need mini dictators here to tell us what to think and believe in. Learn to live and let live.


Perfect!

[Ytrebil]

Lol....no, but it will only protect you at home and only at relatively short range. Handguns protect you everywhere. Rifles oppose organized tyranny anywhere.
I live in Long Island, NY. Unfortunately I can't carry my firearms where ever I please. When either the laws change or the SHTF (I'm betting the latter), I will open carry.


No revolutions were ever won with shotguns.

No revolutions were won with handguns either. Assault rifles, now that's where it's at. Are you a gun snob?

[AtomiC]

April1775 you are wrong.

[osan]

I have been a libertarian for a long time, and I hate guns. I would never use one.
I am a humanitarian libertarian.

If these are the dictates of your conscience, then so be it. You harm nobody holding such values.

[osan]

I live in Long Island, NY. Unfortunately I can't carry my firearms where ever I please. When either the laws change or the SHTF (I'm betting the latter), I will open carry.

I guess they changed the laws. 30 years ago if you were a Nassau county resident you could carry openly or concealed anywhere in the county. The same may have been so for suffolk. When I worked at Princeton in Manhasset I often encountered customers with pistols on their hips. Didn't bother me a whit, though some of the other customers looked nervous at times.

[April1775]

Flawed poll, so I couldn't answer. While I wouldn't begrudge two consenting men of their right to play hide the sausage with eachother, I have no interest in partaking in it myself. Does that mean that I'm not a true libertarian? Same applies with guns. If it's your cup of tea, have at it, but I don't feel the need to have one of my own.

Tolerating homosexuality is an extension of "no initiation of aggression", but tolerating homosexuality will not defend your own liberty or protect yourself from initiations of aggression. Even if you're a homosexual. However, large amounts of people simply owning guns (and knowing how to use them, and being willing if backed against the wall) keeps another Hitler from happening in any country.

I'm fond of the idea of this group by the way, a gay gun rights group, The Pink Pistols.

http://www.pinkpistols.org

http://www.pinkpistols.org/images/splash3.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll go even further than your poll question and say that libertarians should be even better armed than the regime's military. :cool:

[April1775]

I said you are ignorant of what defines libertarian beliefs if you demand a response that reeks of group think and behavior. One of the beauties of allowing you your right to bear arms is the fact that they know not which one of us carries unless one advocates for a nanny state system of declaration and licensing. You are dismissing and belittling others who fight the same fight for liberty by demanding you impose your beliefs of lethal violence as a means to an end or they are not true to the belief of liberty. That is not only illogical but repugnant. We don't need mini dictators here to tell us what to think and believe in. Learn to live and let live.

Let me ask you this, when that wretched man initiated aggression on you and your family, what finally stopped it? Did he just decide to leave you alone, or did burly men from the state hold guns to his head, take him into custody, and use proceedings that added the threat of more guns to his head if he didn't move on?

[low preference guy]

Missing poll option: If I live in a place which I feel is not safe, I don't keep guns. Otherwise, I do.

Also missing: I walk and do things when I am asleep, and I'm afraid I will kill myself, but I wholeheartedly support gun rights.

[April1775]

It confuses me since I thought the whole idea was to respect others and not infringe on their beliefs.

That's part of it. But what do you do if someone not only infringes on your beliefs, but initiates serious aggression on you. If someone kick in your door, started breaking things, knocked you around, and you could get away to a bedroom and shut the door, what would you do once you locked that bedroom door, while he's trying to kick it in?

1. Yell at him through the door quoting libertarian theory and telling him why he's initiating aggression.
2. Call 911 and hope that men with guns show up in time and make him stop.

[April1775]

I've never heard a Libertarian mandate anything. Except the non-aggression principle.

I don't think "there oughta be a law!" that you carry a gun. Just that you're not living up to your full potential as an advocate for liberty without one.



what are you suggesting? We all take up arms against the government?

No.



I live in Long Island, NY. Unfortunately I can't carry my firearms where ever I please. When either the laws change or the SHTF (I'm betting the latter), I will open carry.

Good that you have guns. Some people even have told me "I'll GET a gun when the SHTF." LOLZ!

When the SHTF, one will be unable to obtain a gun or ammo. Even in minor SHTF situations, it becomes very hard. When the Los Angeles riots happened, even people who had bought a gun at a gun store the week before and whose waiting period was up were unable to pick up their guns. By order of the mayor. And if you COULD get a gun somehow when the SHTF, you wouldn't know how to use it safely or accurately. Guns require training, and need to be second nature to be effective.

Though when the SHTF it would, in most situations, make more sense to conceal carry. There will be martial law and people with visible guns will likely be shot on sight.



No revolutions were won with handguns either. Assault rifles, now that's where it's at. Are you a gun snob?

Revolutions are won with battle rifles, not assault rifles.
I am not a gun snob, I just know the very basic difference between one type and another type and what they're used for. There is a difference between battle rifles and assault rifles and knowing that difference is no more snobby than a musician knowing the difference between a guitar and a bass guitar.

[April1775]

I'll go even further than your poll question and say that libertarians should be even better armed than the regime's military. :cool:

I believe that is the original intent of the Second Amendment. The Framers didn't want a standing army because they knew that historically, standing armies often get used against the citizens in one way or another.

[Nic]

That's part of it. But what do you do if someone not only infringes on your beliefs, but initiates serious aggression on you. If someone kick in your door, started breaking things, knocked you around, and you could get away to a bedroom and shut the door, what would you do once you locked that bedroom door, while he's trying to kick it in?

1. Yell at him through the door quoting libertarian theory and telling him why he's initiating aggression.
2. Call 911 and hope that men with guns show up in time and make him stop.

Baseball bats, kitchen knives, any hard object within reach that I can either throw or strike with, years of karate and wrestling...I feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to initiate a physical confrontation with me. I don't need a gun to feel secure.

[April1775]

Baseball bats, kitchen knives, any hard object within reach that I can either throw or strike with, years of karate and wrestling...I feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to initiate a physical confrontation with me. I don't need a gun to feel secure.

Good.

But guns are also good for people who are not physically strong. Small or weak people, the elderly, the infirm.....a gun is the only thing that puts them on an equal footing with a young thug with a weapon.

[Nic]

Good.

But guns are also good for people who are not physically strong. Small or weak people, the elderly, the infirm.....a gun is the only thing that puts them on an equal footing with a young thug with a weapon.

Hence why I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to own a gun, but I simply have no need for one. Doesn't make me any more or less libertarian.

[April1775]

The black belt I know carries a gun, says if the other guy has a gun, martial arts doesn't even the score like a gun....except in movies.

[Orgoonian]

This thread is fishy.

[April1775]

This thread is fishy.

Does it smell? It's not that old yet.

[moostraks]

Let me ask you this, when that wretched man initiated aggression on you and your family, what finally stopped it? Did he just decide to leave you alone, or did burly men from the state hold guns to his head, take him into custody, and use proceedings that added the threat of more guns to his head if he didn't move on?

He tried to commit suicide. The burly men tried to arrest me for what he did to himself. I have no love for the state. He was a local boy with connections within the sheriff's department.

In one of the hearings for the divorce he tried to run me off the road at high speed. My reward for complaint to the judge? Another hearing with the bastard. That was when I was told to avoid coming to the county if I wanted to avoid conflict. Kinda hard when you are ordered to appear for proceedings. He later went on to cut up his second wife with a knife. She showed up on my doorstep days before I gave birth to number 2 child. So I moved...again.

I haven't heard from him or those related to him since then.

[moostraks]

That's part of it. But what do you do if someone not only infringes on your beliefs, but initiates serious aggression on you. If someone kick in your door, started breaking things, knocked you around, and you could get away to a bedroom and shut the door, what would you do once you locked that bedroom door, while he's trying to kick it in?

1. Yell at him through the door quoting libertarian theory and telling him why he's initiating aggression.
2. Call 911 and hope that men with guns show up in time and make him stop.

Property is replaceable. If it is a bedroom it has fenestration.

[moostraks]

This thread is fishy.

+1

[QueenB4Liberty]

April1776 is acknowledging that 1.if you have a gun you should be prepared to kill someone. 2. Everyone should have a gun in order to really be a libertarian, because of a law congress enacted. 3. He hasn't said why you have to have a gun to be a good libertarian. 4. He talks about using guns against ordinary thugs. Some people live where crime isn't a problem and yet he still accuses them of being a bad libertarian even it they got a gun, they would never use it, thus, no point in owning a gun.

[April1775]

April1776 is acknowledging that 1.if you have a gun you should be prepared to kill someone.

You shouldn't have a gun otherwise, unless you just have guns for hunting, or maybe if you collect military antiques. What I mean by that is that if you have a gun for self-defense, it's going to work against you if you think you can just brandish it against a lethal threat and think they'll go away. If you're not wiling to use it, they'll likely take it from you and use it on you.



2. Everyone should have a gun in order to really be a libertarian, because of a law congress enacted.


No, I did NOT say that. I was explaining the Second Amendment. I consider the Right to Keep and Bear Arms more important than the Second Amendment. You read what you wanted to read in all that, didn't you?



3. He hasn't said why you have to have a gun to be a good libertarian.

Yes I did. Over and over. Did you read the whole thread?



4......Some people live where crime isn't a problem.....

Where is this mythical place with no crime?

[RyanRSheets]

This thread is stupid. You're ignoring all of the contemporary reasons not to own a gun. You're ignoring that guns cost money, effective guns cost more money and people have priorities: food, water and shelter at the top. You're ignoring that we have a gigantic, overbearing police force that will shoot you at the first sight of a gun. You're ignoring that that police force and our military would wreck us like they wrecked Afghanistan if we challenged them. You're ignoring that a lot of people stay in public and are therefore much less likely to be attacked.

Yes, there's a million reasons to own a gun, but there are also plenty of legitimate reasons someone who understands this might not own a gun.

[April1775]

You're ignoring all of the contemporary reasons not to own a gun. You're ignoring that guns cost money, effective guns cost more money and people have priorities: food, water and shelter at the top.


A VERY effective gun can cost as little as 60 bucks, as we've established in this thread. Many people spend more than that weekly on video games, electronics, concert tickets, fancy clothes, and other luxury items.

I'd say that if your reason for not owning a gun is simply economic, but you own an iPhone or a flat screen TV or a bunch of DVDs or CDs, or if you've paid money to see a band or a movie, or eaten out in a restaurant in the past year, your priorities are flawed.




You're ignoring that we have a gigantic, overbearing police force that will shoot you at the first sight of a gun.

Not where I live. I've walked by a cop with a gun openly visible on my hip, the cop smiled. I've also been pulled over for speeding, the cop saw the gun in my glove compartment, said "I don't care", and gave me a warning about speeding rather than a ticket.



You're ignoring that that police force and our military would wreck us like they wrecked Afghanistan if we challenged them.

I wouldn't challenge them. I would not initiate aggression. But for what it's worth, who's "winning" in Afghanistan?

But as we established earlier in this thread, if everyone is complient in every way all the time, things are going to get a lot worse, not better. And voting will not change that.



You're ignoring that a lot of people stay in public and are therefore much less likely to be attacked.

Seriously? Most mass shootings occur in public, usually in "gun free zones." Most of them would end a lot more quickly with an embedded armed honest citizen. Instead, they go on until the police show up.

And statistically, you're more likely to be attacked in public in your home, by far.